Michael Hoffman on Abdication of the Pope & Usury in Christendom

[Idaho Kid]

Michael Hoffman on Red Ice Radio.  Very interesting discussion of the history of usury and undermining of the Catholic Church.   Good stuff on Fat Henry, Calvin, and others.  First hour only.

[apollonian]

Book Review: "Usury in Christendom: The Mortal Sin that was and now is not," by Michael Hoffman
(Apollonian, 30 May 13)

[/size]

Michael A. Hoffman II is a noted author--I've actually read some of his books, and at least a couple of them (like "Judaism Discovered" and "Judaism's Strange Gods") are genuinely great stuff--ck his site at RevisionistReview.blogspot.com. But his latest, "Usury in Christendom," Independent History and Research, Idaho, 2013 (416 pgs, Appendices, Index, and Bibliography), is just embarrassing ignorance and Pharisaic nonsense--in truth, it's quite idiotic, but still useful, like for the history he includes.

For Hoffman (a) wants to go off about how "moral" he is, as if he knows all about it, this while calling others "Pharisees," ho ho ho. (b) Hoffman also wants to demonstrate his pretended understanding of Christianity--just another version of Pharisaism, of course. (c) And specifically, Hoffman wants to imagine he knows all about "usury," saying it refers to the charging of interest--which is only partially correct.

But fact is that "usury" is not fully defined in the Old Testament, where it essentially originates for purposes of Western history, though it surely entails the charging of interest--it's ONE of the elements, though certainly not the only thing or even the main thing (it has to do w. COUNTERFEITING the money supply, THEN charging interest on the various waves of new money issues). And "usury" comes fm the word, "usufruct," which is a legitimate word, BUT the charging of interest being mere co-notative, ancillary meaning/definition.

But Hoffman's book is not a total loss/waste as there's a lot of genuine and interesting history involved as the ancient and medieval Church of Rome struggled w. the definition, meaning, and use of the "scriptural teachings" regarding usury. For note, at the very beginning of the rise of the West in Renaissance Italy and Florence the understanding of usury and charging of interest had to be treated and understood in order to accommodate simple trade and economics which led then to the rise of the definitive middle-class.

Note that even today, most people are so totally mystified by the subject of money and banking--including especially Hoffman who is yet sooooo eager to babble and chatter upon the subject as it gives him opportunity to demonstrate his pretended Christianity and moralism/Pharisaism, though he pretends he's NOT Pharisaic, oh no.

Even the ancients, as noted, weren't clear upon the subject of money and banking--how money MUST be commodity, hence finite in quantity, even though adjustable in value--which then well and easily allows for the matter-of-course charging of interest.

For charging of interest surely seems to make it difficult for paying back loans when the issuing of fiat money is necessarily curtailed due to the ever-faster rise of price-inflation. Thus the (legalized) COUNTERFEITING and inflation is complicated by charging of interest which then is made-out to being primary problem, covering then for the COUNTERFEITING, i.e., issuing of non-commodity money-substitutes, either paper as nowadays (or even digitalized on computer screens), or clay as back in Babylonian times.

For even without interest being charged for loans, it becomes difficult and then impossible to repay when the money supply is constricted or "deflated.". The ancients seem not to have clearly understood bank receipts (now used as money substitute) for gold/silver commodity money held in bank vaults must not be proliferated beyond the actual amount of commodity money to be redeemed by those receipts. For eventually the receipts must ultimately be converted back to the real thing, the commodity money.

Assuming the rational conduct of money and banking--hence no excess receipts (money substitute) for static commodity money (like gold & silver) in banks--the charging of interest is simple matter of contract btwn individual parties--the charging of RENT for the use of the money. Hoffman would surely not object to the rental of things other than money, and he'd surely agree it's simple matter of right of individuals to undertake such contractual agreements.

But Hoffman, along w. so many others, doesn't understand money in first place, how/why it must be finite in quantity, hence commodity-based--thus Hoffman fails to distinguish btwn the money-substitute receipt-money and the real thing, ultimately always gold and/or silver.

So much for the subject of money. As noted, Hoffman's work is useful for the history he recounts, for it is true the West had to go through a period whence business and commerce advanced to the capitalist stage entailing robust banking and financial activity. And there was much controversy regarding the Church dialectic upon the economic and monetary subject.

One extremely interesting pt. taken-up by Hoffman regarded sociologist Max Weber's thesis upon capitalism and the famous Protestant ethic. Hoffman pt.s out the Catholics were vigorous capitalists long before any Protestants appeared in the Reformation (a), and (b) that many Protestants objected to the liberalized attitudes upon lending and charging of interest.

In conclusion, one must observe that given Hoffman's gross prejudice and strange ignorance, he yet produces a most useful and informative historical account for subject of Western commerce and charging of interest. Even if much, if not most, of his commentary is extremely wrong-headed and mis-conceived, yet Hoffman's errors are truly and usefully instructive nonetheless. It is well to remember so many people, even to this very day, are so utterly clueless regarding the money and banking subject, and that it required quite an evolution in thought and culture for the charging of interest to be understood as it is today in such matter-of-course and business-like manner. Hoffman deserves great credit, at least, for his genuine attempt at historical exposition upon a central and crucial concept in economics, esp. for the specific matter of the charging of interest.