To: John Courtneidge and other friends on several mail lists Good day, John, I would like to offer an answer to your question about usury, and hopefully obtain a sense of the meeting regarding that answer. In an 01/25/2000 3:04:40 AM EST post to list <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and list <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote: >> Dear Friends, all, Can someone help me with the matter of words. Advocates of usury often suggest that usury refers to 'excessive interest.' I take the meaning of usury to be interest of any sort greater than 0%. While the comments about usury in, say, Psalm 15 and Thomas 95 are very clear, has anyone got *the* clear rebuttal argument to the (weaseling!?) that usury is "excessive" interest? Thanks << The question is: when does interest become usury? The answer I would offer is found in the common ground shared by your friends Richard Kay and John C. Turmel. Both are ardent proponents of Local Employment Trading Systems (LETS). Richard believes LETS are exclusively a local solution while John believes LETS principles should be applied globally. Richard, as a list owner proscribed John's posting to his list. But, they both allow that all LETS installations must collect fees, or interest, or a combination of both in an amount sufficient to cover the operating expenses of the institution. That is to say, an amount sufficient to hold the LETS operation at, or slightly above, the break-even point at which the net revenue equals the costs of operation (including any required return to investors for establishing the institution) and the operation becomes PROFITABLE (dirty word). Debt service (interest) in excess of that net revenue agreed to by Richard and John should be called USURY, as in Shakespeare's Merchant Of Venice. If the sense of the meeting is favorable, we may all continue to use our accustomed vocabulary without misunderstanding each other. Kind regards, Wesburt
