Debt: Difference between revisions
imported>Nick Gardner |
imported>Nick Gardner |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
==Attitudes to debt== | ==Attitudes to debt== | ||
Since a loan agreement confers benefits and does no harm, it is not obvious that it should be an object of disapproval; and there is no obvious reason for objecting to the charging of interest, unless the exercise of social time preference is deemed objectionable (there are, however, obvious humanitarian reasons for objecting to excessively harmful collateral, such as Shylock's pound of flesh). | Since a loan agreement confers benefits and does no harm, it is not obvious that it should be an object of disapproval; and there is no obvious reason for objecting to the charging of interest, unless the exercise of social time preference is deemed objectionable (there are, however, obvious humanitarian reasons for objecting to excessively harmful collateral, such as Shylock's pound of flesh). Historically, however, it has nevertheless been widely condemned. The divine instructions received by Moses, recorded in the Bible, include: | ||
:''And if thy brother be waxen poor, and fallen in decay with thee; then thou shalt relieve him: yea, though he be a stranger, or a sojourner; that he may live with thee. Take thou no usury of him, or increase: but fear thy God; that thy brother may live with thee. Thou shalt not give him thy money upon usury, nor lend him thy victuals for increase.''<ref>''Leviticus 23 verses 35-37[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus+25&version=KJV]</ref> | |||
<ref>Belloc, Hillaire: "On Usury" in ''Essays of a Catholic'', T A N Books & Publishers, 1923 [http://www.docstoc.com/docs/10089642/Usury---A-Catholic-Essay-by-Hilaire-Belloc]</ref> | - which have, from time to time, been interpreted by western religious authorities as forbidding all charging of interest. There has been much debate concerning the interpretation of the term "usury", and as late as the 1920s, the then popular Catholic author wrote that: | ||
:''It means any interest, however low, demanded for an unproductive loan. It is not only immoral [on which account it has been condemned by every moral code - Pagan, Mohommedan, Catholic] but it is ultimately destructive of society.'' <ref>Belloc, Hillaire: "On Usury" in ''Essays of a Catholic'', T A N Books & Publishers, 1923 [http://www.docstoc.com/docs/10089642/Usury---A-Catholic-Essay-by-Hilaire-Belloc]</ref> | |||
==Categories of debt== | ==Categories of debt== | ||
Revision as of 05:11, 10 June 2010
The terminology of debt
A voluntary loan agreement may be presumed to confer benefits upon both borrower and lender, and to have no effect upon other parties. The terms of the agreement may be expected to take account of "social time preference", which is an observed tendency to attach greater value to current enjoyment than to deferred enjoyment. That behavioural characteristic confers a benefit on the borrower at the expense of the lender, in return for which the borrower may be expected to compensate the lender by the payment of "interest". The agreement may also be expected to take account of the possibility that the borrower may "default" upon its terms by failing fulfil its obligations concerning the payment of interest or the return of the original payment (termed the "principal"). The agreement may include the provision of "collateral", which gives the lender title to an asset belonging to the lender, if the borrower defaults (the term "mortgage" may be used if the asset is property). Alternatively, or in addition to the provision of collateral, the agreed interest rate may embody a "risk premium" in addition to the appropriate "risk-free interest rate".
Attitudes to debt
Since a loan agreement confers benefits and does no harm, it is not obvious that it should be an object of disapproval; and there is no obvious reason for objecting to the charging of interest, unless the exercise of social time preference is deemed objectionable (there are, however, obvious humanitarian reasons for objecting to excessively harmful collateral, such as Shylock's pound of flesh). Historically, however, it has nevertheless been widely condemned. The divine instructions received by Moses, recorded in the Bible, include:
- And if thy brother be waxen poor, and fallen in decay with thee; then thou shalt relieve him: yea, though he be a stranger, or a sojourner; that he may live with thee. Take thou no usury of him, or increase: but fear thy God; that thy brother may live with thee. Thou shalt not give him thy money upon usury, nor lend him thy victuals for increase.[1]
- which have, from time to time, been interpreted by western religious authorities as forbidding all charging of interest. There has been much debate concerning the interpretation of the term "usury", and as late as the 1920s, the then popular Catholic author wrote that:
- It means any interest, however low, demanded for an unproductive loan. It is not only immoral [on which account it has been condemned by every moral code - Pagan, Mohommedan, Catholic] but it is ultimately destructive of society. [2]