Common Good Finance
the revoLution with a bank



wherever you are
here's why

The Evil Interest Fallacy

There is one bit of advice given to us by the ancient heathen Greeks, and by the Jews in the Old Testament and by the great Christian teachers of the Middle Ages, which the modern economic system has completely disobeyed. All these people told us not to lend money at interest: And lending money at interest — what we now call investment — is the basis of our whole system.” — C.S. Lewis, “Mere Christianity”

“Those who devour usury will not stand except as stand one whom the Evil one by his touch Hath driven to madness.” — Allah, the Qur’an [Surah Baqarah, 2:275]

Is interest evil? Many people who have become disillusioned with capitalism, see quite rightly that investment interest is how wealth gets funneled to those who already have the most. It is easy to think that interest is evil and must be done away with.

In the United States, our money is created by private companies lending it into existence and charging interest on it. Clearly this is not fair. But even worse, many people argue, is that the interest can never be repaid because it is not created as part of those loans! This argument is so popular that the search phrase “interest can never be repaid” gets 115,000 hits on Google.

But (1) interest is not evil in itself. And (2) the “interest can never be repaid” argument is seductively righteous and simple, but wrong.

1. Interest is not evil.

People think interest is evil because the wealthy investor earns interest simply by being wealthy. The investor is not producing any useful goods and is not contributing any useful labor to society. Our current economic system rewards the investor for being wealthy much more than it rewards people for being productive. The investor “devours usury”.

For example, let’s say Bill Gates earns $5 million a year doing productive work and let’s say, generously, that that amount is complete and fair compensation for all of his work for the year. In the same year, Mr. Gates’ $50 billion brings in another $5 billion or so in income (a thousand times as much as his paid work). Since we agreed that $5 million was fair pay for his actual work, the $5 billion of “unearned income” (as the IRS calls it) must be undeserved income.

When I gave this example to a colleague recently, he argued that Bill Gates might actually deserve those billions because of the great value that he has already given the world. I could argue against that, but the objection is missing the point. Surely there is SOME amount that is fair pay for his or anyone’s work. Then whatever investment income he gets beyond that fair amount is clearly unfair pay.

Here we come to the root of the problem. What triggers our moral outrage is the unfair pay, not the interest per se. What rankles is not that billions follow billions, but that someone is profiting unfairly. And perhaps, less obviously, that the rest of us are unfairly missing out on that profit.

The common good bank design rights this wrong by dedicating all profits to the common good. No one “devours the usury”.

unpayable debt fallacy

The "Unpayable Debt" Fallacy (from http://vimeo.com/raam)

2. The “interest can never be repaid” argument is wrong.

Like many attractive fallacies, this one has an element of truth. The error and the partial truth have to do with the fact that money is not designed to go just one way. It circulates.

Figure 1 shows a diagram of of how money is created and how at first it looks as though the interest is unpayable, since it never gets created. In the diagram, money paid as interest goes to the bank and never leaves except as additional loans. This makes it look as though interest is incompatible with sustainable economics.

The true situation is more complicated. In figure 2, I have added a crucial third party: the investors.

Most of the interest and fees that the bank receives goes to pay the expenses of operating a bank: salaries and wages for employees, utilities, legal fees, taxes, and so forth. Money for these expenses gets returned to the circulating money supply.

The remainder of the bank’s income is profit.

unpayable debt fallacy correction

Mutual banks (also called “cooperative banks”) and credit unions do in fact generally hold onto and relend their small profits — otherwise they cannot grow. This is a problem, but not a big one.

The vast majority of financial assets are held by stock-based banks, which are required by law to maximize profits. Profits go to the owners of the bank, the investors. The investors also receive profits from investment in other businesses.

Here again, it rankles that the investors are receiving all those profits without lifting a finger. But beyond our vague sense of unfairness, there are two very real problems.

Problem A: Investors typically receive more profits than they spend. This means that the buck stops there. The money stops circulating. It piles up.

Conceptually we can divide people into two groups:

(a) Investors — people who have more money than they need (and therefore have some extra that they can invest) and

(b) Non-investors — people who have less money than they need.

When investors receive more profits than they spend, the result is that people in group (a) who already have more money than they need end up with more and more of the money, leaving less and less for people in group (b) who already have less money than they need. This is a big problem. It is the root cause of poverty.

Problem B: Investors, being wealthy, typically spend and consume more than the average person. The big spenders are the worst offenders, but they are not alone. In fact, in the United States most of us  — rich or poor — consume much more than we  produce. For example, my family and I live on what is considered a “poverty level” income. And yet it would take us many years to produce for ourselves the goods and services that we blithely consume each year. This too is a big problem. It means that some people somewhere are working very very hard to produce the goods and services that we consume.

The Common Good Bank Solutionunpayable debt fallacy CGBs

Figure 3 shows how the Common Good Bank system solves both problems, creating a sustainable economic system. Common good bank will charge interest, but the profit from that interest all goes back to the community as grants to schools and other nonprofit organizations. The money keeps circulating. None of the profits go to enrich individuals.

In fact, communities must dedicate half their profits to advance the common good outside their community. Wealthy communities will likely have larger deposits, larger loans, and larger profits than poor communities. So the wealth will gradually get distributed more evenly.

To clarify how interest can be repaid even though it is not explicitly created when the principal is lent into existence, here is an example:

Example of Paying Interest With No Problems

Imagine a world with just two people, Al and Betty, and one nonprofit bank.

Betty is a farmer. Al is a bank teller and tool-maker.

At first there is no money. Then one day Betty borrows $100 from the bank, to buy a plow from Al. The bank lends the money into existence, with interest of $1 per month. Betty plans to pay $11 a month, so that the loan will be paid off within ten months.

At first it looks as though Betty will only be able to pay back $100 (without interest) because there is only $100 in circulation. The interest seems to be unpayable. But in fact, since the money circulates, both principal and interest can be paid, without creating additional money. Figure 4 shows how it goes, along with Al’s balance and Betty’s debt at the end of each month.unpayable debt fallacy Example

The first month, Al pays Betty $11 for food. Betty pays the bank $10 plus one dollar in interest. The bank pays Al $1 in wages and retires $10 of the debt. This leaves Al with $90. Betty and the bank each have nothing.

The second month, these transactions are all repeated, leaving Al with $80. The transactions are repeated again the next month, and so forth, each month leaving Al with $10 less.

In the ninth month, just after Al receives his pay, he notices that the world is about to run out of money, so he decides to spend his last $10 on food. Betty immediately pays off the loan. No additional interest is due and Al has already been paid for the month. The bank retires the final $10 of the loan. No money is left in circulation and there are no outstanding debts.

In this example, the bank makes no profit. If the bank were to make a profit, say by paying Al only 50 cents a month, there is still no problem as long as the bank is a Common Good-type Bank. The profits simply go to a nonprofit that (for example) pays Betty and Al to create works of art. The money stays in circulation.

In the Common Good Bank system, interest is not evil and causes no problems. In the Common Good Bank system, interest contributes to economic justice and sustainability.

Current User: Guest Login Register
Please consider registering


Lost Your Password?

Search Forums:


 






Wildcard Usage:
*    matches any number of characters
%    matches exactly one character

PersonComment

1:34 pm
October 29, 2010


wspademan

Admin

posts 218

Post edited 3:27 pm - October 29, 2010 by wspademan


Many people who have become disillusioned with capitalism, see quite rightly that investment interest is how wealth gets funneled to those who already have the most. Is interest evil? In designing a new economic system, must we avoid interest altogether? Here is the article that started this discussion: "The Evil Interest Fallacy".

2:44 pm
October 29, 2010


Ellen Brown

Guest

I agree with Chris. I think interest works, though, with a publicly-owned bank because the interest returns to the community advancing the credit. There is thus no parasitic drain on the system. Also, assuming a certain percentage of defaults (which lose money into the economy), if interest is set at the same percentage as the defaults, as much will be drawn out of the economy as was lost to it in unrepaid principal, balancing the numbers out.

I don't have anything against banks charging interest; they wouldn't stay in the banking business long without it. My problem with the "velocity of money" theory for paying off a debt at compound interest is that it's still sleight of hand, rather like the goldsmiths getting away with lending the same gold many times over because they managed to come up with the gold when a customer needed it. The practical reality is that banks DON'T return 100% of their principal plus interest to the borrowers to pay back their loans. They don't spend much on hiring people to scrub their floors (which is Ed Griffin's example of the same theory). Their profits are generally pumped back into more loans. The Filipinos would probably LOVE to be hired by the banks to scrub their floors and pay off their loans, but the banks aren't hiring Filipino floor-scrubbers much. Instead they're just sitting back and collecting compound interest and investing the proceeds, while their loans proceed to bankrupt the country. A Filipino told me that 80% of the national budget now goes to servicing loans.

Another thing that concerns me is a private non-profit model in which the profits go for good community purposes. It's a wonderful, very moral model, but my concern is that this small bank might go bankrupt trying to compete with Wall Street in today's market. Wall Street gets all the benefits and holds all the cards. Small banks are going under right and left, because they're having trouble meeting capital requirements, have to pay huge sums for insurance to cover Wall Street's misdeeds, etc. etc. That's why I favor the model of a state-owned bank operating in the public interest. States have quite deep pockets, massive rainy day funds of various sorts basically sitting idle, the power to tax, etc.

Best wishes, Ellen

2:42 pm
October 29, 2010


J.W. Smith

Guest

Post edited 2:48 pm - October 29, 2010 by wspademan


I read "The Evil Interest fallacy" and, in my opinion, William Spademan is fully correct. But the fallacy can be explained much more thoroughly. Honest interest is nothing more than one being paid for one's stored labor. None of us will build a boat (the proper terms for that boat is his "Industrial capital" or "honest finance capital" which is nothing more than the money representation of "honest industrial capital" which is but stored labor) and give it to another person to use without charge ("honest interest" is that "honest charge"). I keep putting honest in there because, at the peak of this bubble, roughly 80% of all interest in our dishonest economy is unearned. See the attached thesis. There you will learn if monopolization of technology (another name for industrial capital) were eliminated 95% of the stock market, where those massive unearned finance capital "profits" are collected, would disappear. That share of the stock market, laying claim to what is properly your, my, and every other citizens money, is nothing more than a part of the superstructure for the monpolization of technology which is based on exclusive title to technology which is nothing more than an aspect of nature (offered by her to everybody for free) waiting to be discovered and used.

Keep in mind the title of my book, "Money: A Mirror Image of the Economy." If one is describing our economy and not recognizing it is totally dishonest, then one cannot possibly write a fully honest monetary theory. The attached thesis proves that total dishonesty. If you cannot show me an essential social service currently starved for funds not fully, and easily, funded under that thesis, you will be attesting to it as being fully right and virtually every classic on economics being nothing more than justifications for the current system of theft: "Property rights law, as applied to nature's resources and technologies, denying others their rightful share of what nature offers to all for free."

The fallacious "creating money as debt" thesis is, of course, the "Private banks create Money each time they make a loan" thesis. Spotting that language use error being repeated on one of Common Good Bank's pages, I am already working on better word usage for that page. Because I will be sending that to all of you, please do not challenge my statements herein until you read it.

I fully understand how and why both those schools of thought are spread throughout the monetary theory world and no one wants to, or dares to, upset their contacts and supporters. But, if we are monetary theorists, before it is over we have to say it right. Ellen: I met you in England and I was there specifically to find out where this nonsense came from. At that time, with so many intelligent people pushing it, I thought I had to be wrong and was fully prepared to change my books. I asked key people at that conference and a few others for their sources and when examined virtually none held up . You will remember the party running the microphone at the London conference specifically shutting me down when someone in the audience asked me my opinion that thesis. Later I asked that microphone manager, "What happens to the money you have in the bank? His response, "It just sits there." Now we all know that is nonsense and the entire theory is just as wrong. Their paperwork in the rack referenced one of my favorite authors, John Kenneth Galbraith, backing up their position. Checking that I see the statement was made while he was speaking on the Goldsmith Theory of Money creation when, of course, private banks did create money.

Respectfully

J.W. Smith

An Understandable Full and Equal Rights Economy in 170 Words

http://www.ied.info/blog/1414/.....-170-words

2:34 pm
October 29, 2010


Chris Martenson

Guest

Post edited 3:00 pm - October 29, 2010 by wspademan


William

The problem with your theory of “immaculate interest flows” in your point #2 (which I have encountered before elsewhere) is that they are not realistic. In order for the flows to balance as you’ve described you have to make three assumptions that I am not willing to make:

  1. There is no consumptive debt – all debt must lead to new production (or additional services performed)
  2. No savings or any asymmetrical accumulations of the interest flows exist to clog up the system
  3. Perfect flows exist between borrowers, lenders and consumers. (The corollary to this is that the interest HAS to remain in the community and must be spent into the community by the bank and/or its stakeholders.)

These points are so far out of the bounds of what we know to be true about the real world, I hesitate to spend too much time debating whether they are "logically" or theoretically possible. In the real world, some people are always going to be much more productive than other people, which will tilt the flows into some coffers more than others. Another truism is that individuals have different savings preferences, with some, especially the already-wealthy, having very high savings levels. This, too, will stymie the theoretical system by plugging the perfect flows necessary for it to truly operate.

Therefore, we could readily predict that interest flows are not ever going to balance out perfectly, not even under the most fantastical framework of Marxist command and control ever envisioned. There will always be accumulations and hitches, money will always pile up here and there but be in shortage elsewhere, and these little hitches and glitches will lead the theoretical model to break down.

For example, in this model nobody can ever:

  • Borrow money for a new car (when their clunker already gets them to work)
  • Borrow money for a house that is already built (in excess of its original sales price)
  • Borrow money that gets lost on non-productive enterprises
  • Borrow money to live on (credit cards, HELOCs, etc).
  • Borrow money and spend it on a vacation outside of the community.

Because if they do, then the exponential system gains a foothold and is off and running.

But if the theory isn’t doing it for you, please reflect long and hard on this chart of 50 years of credit growth with a near-perfect exponential fit of 0.9937. If you have a meditation Mandela, take it down and out this up in its stead [click on the image to enlarge].

What does it mean that we live in a world with an all-but-perfect exponential money system? What are the implications? One is that interest based money systems will go exponential on you for some reason. That’s good enough for me (although I could bore you with models that would demonstrate why this happens).

 

If you want to get closer to a system that would allow your model (as constructed) to work the bank would have to exist only to give loans to productive enterprises and then collect a share of the profits, not a set amount of interest regardless of the outcome of the loan.

This way the flows of new production could be aligned with capital. Banks would then be (back into) the business of carefully assessing ventures and sharing in the risks and the profits, not simply be in the business of collecting interest and living off of spreads. But one thing you’d still have to live with is that the profits and capital will tend to accumulate in the hands of those who work harder and/or are more productive.

Regardless, as soon as you are in the business of collecting interest independent of whether the loan was used to enhance production or was used simply to boost consumption, then it is only a matter of time before you get an exponential chart that resembles the one above.

The bottom line for me is that I hold out no hope that interest based money can ever really work out in the long run, but especially not in a world of depleting resources. It is an unstable system, prone to unhealthy accumulations, vicious breakdowns, and therefore not really worth preserving.

Best,

Chris Martenson

[Moderator's Note: see Chris's website here]

12:35 pm
July 6, 2010


Todd Chinnock

Guest

While I appreciate the approach of removing the stigma of interest in relation to the Common Good Bank model, as it results in the bank model being able to survive within the current system, I do not believe that it is the only answer to solving our accounting problems. I see the CGB vision as a transition model rooted in the field of current economics while opening new doors to the realms of sustainable community growth and development. I personally would like to see free market currency systems. Why do we have to have only one answer?

7:48 pm
November 9, 2009


Trevor

Guest

Interest was historically considered evil because it makes one too reliant on state power to enforce property rights. Church leaders believed you should rather be engaged in productive work (investing in real tools) rather than hoarding money. The interest on Federal Rerve Notes doesn't exist, whereas the interest on non-debt-based money comes from someplace else in the economy..

12:59 pm
October 28, 2009


emily peyton

Guest

I have to agree with John's assessment, here we have a situation where semantics carefully applied can help. WE could change the language/label from "Interest" to "Fees" - when lending money from the common good bank. Actually- I myself would be very happy to see money lent and repaid at value, and money created to pay the bank workers. As we change - we will want to embrace our true goal, which is to steer steadily away from methods that create greed, and need. A balance of bounty is our goal. To trigger the i fascination of regular people, and thereby a better understanding of all we hope for -we must use new terms of language to describe the new approach. It has to be fresh and genuine. And it MUST avoid the old verbiage because it turns people away since the association is too bitter. These are called triggers, or key words that trigger certain emotive responses. A gift economy is actually the most worthy of all, and should be the prize we reach for in centuries to come- if not sooner. Any disagreements ?

5:19 am
October 19, 2009


John G Root Jr

Guest

In your example one may see the importance of circulation. $100 was created, which allowed $109 to be spent. The $9 was not created, but because the decreasing $100 circulated, money as accounting was able to account for the extra $9. In the real world Betty does not get the $9, she and everyone else except the investors who receive the $9, are impoverished by having to pay the $9 without receiving it. In the existing system interest transfers the wealth to the investors. By returning the $9 to the community the Common Good Bank deals with the problem of the interest enriching only the few, but it does not solve the problem of the divorced from reality nature of interest. In this example one can see the abstract nature of money as accounting. $100 was created $109 was accounted for. If money is abstract, i.e. accounting, then there should never be a shortage of money. The amount of money in circulation should always equal the prices of the real goods and services available. Interest is evil because it is based on a false idea about money. Money is either valuable in itself, a commodity with a value subject to market forces (and something real that can be lent at a price) and therefore no good as accounting, or it is accounting, which makes all the real goods and services commensurate so they can be exchanged. Interest is evil because it distorts our understanding of money. It makes a fiction real, it transfers the wealth which the money should only represent, automatically from those who owe more interest than they receive to those who earn more interest than they pay (about 1/10 of 1% of us). The Common Good Bank will do nothing to solve the problems of interest by obscuring the fiction. In this example the circulation of money makes it look as though the interest is somehow legitimate. The issue is that the quantity of money in circulation, including the circulation factor, should always be sufficient to allow the creation, distribution and consumption of all the goods and services people are wanting to create, distribute and consume. Creating the money as debt bearing interest makes no sense at all. In this debt based monetary system the debt that no one expects will ever be repaid (the Federal Debt) is the permanent money supply. The revenue from the income tax is always about equal to the interest owed on the national debt and the shortage of money in the economy presently is the only reason for the high unemployment. But I really only wanted to make the point that William's example does not absolve interest, rather it illustrates the totally abstract nature of money and the importance of circulation, in regulating the money supply.

10:07 am
October 16, 2009


ChrisCD

Guest

I find your goals and concepts interesting. One thing that came to mind, you mention that to start a bank, only investors of a certain asset size can initially invest. It would seem then that you are depending on people who (as you described above) have too much undeserved income. It was interesting that you used Bill Gates as an example. As I recall, he started in a garage. He certainly "paid-the-price" for where he is now. It doesn't seem like you are suggesting giving people a "free-ride" in life. Because there must be reward for work. And people must work for their reward. Anyway, I'll keep checking back to see how you guys are doing. cd :O)

Comment on this Subject


Reply to Topic:
Evil Interest?

Guest Name (Required):

Guest Email (Required):

Smileys
Confused Cool Cry Embarassed Frown Kiss Laugh Smile Surprised Wink Yell
Post New Reply

Guest URL (required)

Math Required!
What is the sum of:
7 + 4