The Doctrine of Usury

LacheyS

LacheyS

It used to be the most important sin of all, condemned by the Torah, the Bible and the Koran, specifically condemned by twelve Church councils as late as 1517. Then, Henry VIII gave us all permission to ignore it by legally redefining usury to mean charging excessive interest over 10%.

There was vicious political debate on the subject up until the 1570s.

What if he had been prevented for some reason? Considering usury was opposed by both Catholics and the emergent Protestants, what impact might such an event have on future trade and economic relationships?

More interestingly, what if the "sin" of lending money at interest was still regarded as one of the worst things you can do?
 

MarshalBraginsky

Banned
LacheyS said:
It used to be the most important sin of all, condemned by the Torah, the Bible and the Koran, specifically condemned by twelve Church councils as late as 1517. Then, Henry VIII gave us all permission to ignore it by legally redefining usury to mean charging excessive interest over 10%.

There was vicious political debate on the subject up until the 1570s.

What if he had been prevented for some reason? Considering usury was opposed by both Catholics and the emergent Protestants, what impact might such an event have on future trade and economic relationships?

More interestingly, what if the "sin" of lending money at interest was still regarded as one of the worst things you can do?
Click to expand...

Would capitalism itself be crippled by the fact that usury is considered a sin?
 
LSCatilina

LSCatilina

LacheyS said:
More interestingly, what if the "sin" of lending money at interest was still regarded as one of the worst things you can do?
Click to expand...

It was less the "sin" of lending money, than lending money with interests. It was considered as infragining on God's demesne as you basically made pay for time.

Now the interdiction and clerical prevention (well, technically) was moot since the XIIth. When it wasn't totally ignored (even by clerics), you had an immense lot of tricks to bypass it : use of letters of change toying with money conversion values to create an interest de facto; or revenues of a given terrain being trusted, etc.

Even if the Church, for some reason, decides to ignore the economic realities, it would have little impact with the interdiction vanishing into oblivion (as the interdiction to eat horses).
 

assasin

Now the interdiction and clerical prevention (well, technically) was moot since the XIIth. When it wasn't totally ignored (even by clerics), you had an immense lot of tricks to bypass it : use of letters of change toying with money conversion values to create an interest de facto; or revenues of a given terrain being trusted, etc.
Click to expand...

Don't forget the Jews.
 

Analytical Engine

As mentioned above, people tended to ignore attempts to ban usury. After all, the church tried to ban crossbows and even forks, but people used them regardless.

Anyway, people always found a way around it, such as "it isn't usury if you borrow from/lend to people of other religions", or just calling it "rent" or something like that, instead of using the u-word.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top