What else is it about?

Last time I mentioned that there were two issues involved here. The one has to do directly with the scenario, but the other one can be thought about separately as well. We saw that the conquered people had no yet paid off their debt. There was still a lien against them. Sure, you can say, why should they pay, it wasn't there decision to take on the debt in the first place. But apart from that, just looking solely at the numbers, if we assume that the regular payments were made, when is a debt actually paid off?

Why do we find it reasonable to borrow, say, 100,000 (€ or $, it doesn't matter), at, perhaps, 5% interest, and think that the debt has first been repaid when almost half-a-million dollars or euros have left our bank account and go to the lender? Don't get me wrong, I know how interest works and I know how compound interest works as well. Uncle Al (Einstein) was once asked what he believed to be the most powerful force in the universe to which he answered "compound interest". He was know for being a pretty smart guy. He nailed this one, too.

It is interesting to note that we have a strange relationship to such things. At 5%, the lender should be saying the 5,000 is what his troubles are worth. I don't think that's all that unreasonable, but when considered in absolute terms, I have trouble wrapping my head around the fact that the lender thinks his efforts are worth more than three times the principle. That sounds more like extortion than business to me. My question is then, why do we put up with it?

It is not by accident that almost every religion in the world abhors usury, that is, the practice of demanding too much for your trouble when you lend money to another. I don't think this is a religious issue, but for most of their existence, religions have purported to be the bearers of a culture's moral standards. In other words, in most times and in most places, demands of this type were simply considered immoral. And now, we think they are normal. Obviously something has changed, and I don't think I'm too far off base to maintain that one of the first things we've sacrificed has been our innate morality.

The fact of the matter is that all such relationships, all such money relationships, are simply immoral acts. Just like the guilt you accrue when you don't speak out against aggression, so too do you express your own immorality when you don't speak out against de facto extortion as well.

What's it all about?

Even though the scenario is highly improbably in our personal lives, the principles upon which it is built are not. I'm sure that most of you simply shrugged it off as silly because, after all, who would do a thing like that? Even if it were possible to eliminate the legal and administrative aspects, who would come up with the idea to just take someone's house for his or her own silly purposes? Truth be told, the scenario is truer than we might like to believe and there are two issues in the exercise that need to be addressed.

The scenario was based upon historical events. In the early 19th century a well-known western power (no, not the USA), attacked and subjugated a smaller country and forced them to agree to pay the victors for their losses. Since the conquered country couldn't pay up front, they were forced into debt, and have been paying ever since. Yes, they are still paying ... well, more accurately the financiers of the conquering country still has demands on unpaid funds. It turns out, the scenario is not as far-fetched as first thought.

This brings us to the first issue. I'm sure you were outraged by the behavior of the corporation. What right did they have to just come in and take over. You were right to be outraged, but if you are outraged if it had happened to you, why aren't you outraged when it happens to others? What did the home owners do to deserve their fate? Nothing as far as I can tell. The sole culprits in the story are the representatives of the corporation who imposed its will and was in a position to enforce that imposition, with force, if necessary. Obviously that isn't right, but this is a story that has repeated itself time and time again up until today. This is how many nations became "great". Their exploits are glorified in history books, these ideals poured into the empty heads of unwitting students in schools until we are led to believe that we somehow have the right to impose our wills on others.

The fact that we can become outraged when it happens to us simply indicates how hypocritical we are. If it's not OK on the personal level, why in the world would it be OK on a national or political level? The truth of the matter is, it isn't OK. It's never OK, but if you don't acknowledge that it's not OK, if you don't make others aware that it is not OK, then you are, I'm afraid, just as guilty as the perpetrators. Silence in almost every culture is a sign of assent. Yes, you may not really be for the crime, but if you are not brave enough to speak out against the crime, in the end you simply share in the guilt.

So, how do you feel about it now?