Hello Danny, > > Well, interestingly Jim first brought up the examples of Byzantine and > Italian Renaissance, so I have not been talking about Caliphate.
... Sorry, mea culpa, I was only halfway down the previous thread at the time I jumped in. My argument for the Caliphate might be a bit superficial as well. The point I am trying to make is that interst is robbery. While there was a boom during the rennaissance (the Italian one was intially based on making money from forging and selling relics and art to the nobility, by the way), the fiat money came later and Venice had been using bills of exchange ever since it's foundation because those same bills are what the Phoenician trade network was built on. Hence, as Phoencia was destroyed through Roman treachery, one could argue against non-metal currencies. > Obviously none of us lived in this period, so we are all relying on what we > find in the history books. > I will just throw in some observations, which as far as I know are > sufficiently documented. ... That is exactly where the problem lies. Our judgements are based on history books which are based on (mostly biased) annecdotes and hearsay. After all, the winners (re-)write history as they see fit. > > 2) Europe defeated these caliphs as soon as it abandoned the 'gold only' > system inspired by the results in renaissance Italy. > Actually they didn't. They kept ketting their butts kicked on a regular base all the way into the 20th century. While the Europeans carved up the world, they could not touch the Ottoman Empire until the WW1. Prior to that the Italians had neverending revolts in Italy, the Russians lost wars in the Krimm and Central Europe was only save becuase of treaties between Austria-Hungaria and Turkey. The actual reason for any European victory against an Islamic empire in history has always been disunity among the Muslims and short lived alliances among the Europeans. In the end, the second cruzade and the long war against the berbers in Spain (mainly fought by the Basques who weren't really European or Christians themselves) are the only two major victories in open confrontations with Muslim realms prior to the 20th century. Of course, as you suggest, our history books neglect to mention that people seemed to have enjoyed living under Muslim rule for a few hundred years. Claiming a vegetating state of affairs because of the gold economy doen't make sense in so far that the cultural advancements of the rennaissance are largely based on advancements that were common in the Caliphate centuries earlier. > 3) The islamic countries who have more or less continued the system based on > these rules of the Caliphate, have all remained very poor, ... No the Muslim countries have NOT continued a system based on the Caliphate. Instead they reverted to tribal communities that were constantly warring with each other. At the end of WW1, Turkey copied nation states and the Allies carved up the map creating countries that had neither reason nor justification to exist. Indeed, tribes where split with lines of a ruler and warring factions were thrown together into a country. There is no reason why countries like Jordan, Syria and Iraq should exist. Lebanon, Oman, Yemen and Qatar, as well as Turkey and Iran are the only countries that have recent historical justification. However, the English had to reward the tribes that revolted against the Ottoman Empire while also trying to create buffer zones against Persia and making sure that no single nation could dominate the region. If anything, 'Arabia' should be ruled by the Hashemite King of Jordan, with capital of Baghdad and tributaries from Damaskus to Basra and Marakesh to Cairo with Persia/Iran taking back Southern Iraq, Afghanistan and parts of Pakistan with collecting tribute from Oman, Yemen, Qatar and Kuweit. If these two collusses exited today, then you could argue that the populace followed the rules of the Caliphate. In the case of Iran I would like to add that over half of the population used to live in pretty good circumstances and less than 5% were considered poor prior to the Western sponsored revolution. The fact that Iraq was flourishing before the West was getting too concerned about the fact that Syria, Iraq and Eqypt were discussing to merge is widely known and Lebanese Beirut was referred to as the Paris of the East. Then Israelis decided that they feel threatened by people who couldn't understand that their 2000 years absentee landlords where driving them off their land... But again, I don't want to make an argument for the Caliphate but instead against interest and inflation. > It was a continuous cycle: > war(destruction) - rebuilding (investment - growth) - saving (stagnation - > decline) - war ... I honestly can't see the social or humanitarian achievement in an economy that thrieves on destruction and rebuilding. While it appears to be human nature, I still think it's pretty sad in this day and age anyone would find it a good thing to kill others in order to destoy things so that they can be rebuilt. In fact, i would argue that the lack of interest burdens would allow for (possibly) more gradual development without the need of looting and rebuilding. Don't forget, if prices are stable, then it will take much longer to benefit from investments on a sensible scale. If it takes 20 years of collecting rent to have enough to buy the next house, then there will be demand for centuries to come. > > Where is the free market when a board agrees to pay a CEO more than the > > combined profits of his entire tenure? > > The free market is there because you are not forced to buy stocks in this > company. > What does the free market do, if I didn't know what was going on and lost all my money to some CEO who isn't even being punished for looting my savings? > > Yeah, but the countries functioning along these Islamic principles have not > been that succesful. > As argued above, there is none. The closest resemblance might well be Malaysia. But as they started to embrace someof the principles only four decades ago, it hard to argue for overwhelming success just yet. On the other hand, the fiat-happy governed countries are saddled with huge debts and it remains to be seen where they will be in four decades. Also, poverty is relative to one's surroundings and desires. Making $10 a day would kill you in Belgium, allow you to survive in Russia and give you a decent standard of living in Indonesia. Once you realize that you do not really need a new car every six years and a five-bedroom apartment, three TVs, etc. you will find that being rich is a matter of mindset > > Maybe you are sick and have no money to pay the doctor and also no family to > help you out. > In our current system you can just take out a little loan against your > house and pay back when you are cured, while in the 'no debt, no interest' > system you have to sell your > house. How wonderful this no debt system.. ... Whatever happend to free medical care? The Caliphate had free hospitals, and the exploiting church and nobles who hoarded all that gold where financing hospitaler orders and medical academies, just for the record. In the debt system however, people are coerced to pay into the communal pot when they are well and end up getting little to nothing when they are sick. Sickness would also not protect you from foreclossure against the house you took a loan on. In a no-debt system you could still rent out the house, or indeed sell it ;o) > > If person A agrees to loan money to person B at a certain interest rate, > then this is a business between them. > Where is our laissez-faire gone?? > I am against laissez-faire if it let's some take unfair advantage of others by forcing them into financial bondage. > > And with debt/interest made illegal, what will happen? > You will get loan sharks where you can borrow at very high interest rates. ... Why? If nobody has debts and interest is illegal, why would people start borrowing? Indeed, why would they need or want to borrow if the system is equitable, prices stable or even dropping and everybody can count on the lasting value of money? Isn't the desire to have something today, consumerism, the driving force of debt? Wouldn't the abolishment of interest and stable prices get people to think before buying? And indeed, if one needed finance to purchase a house, or other capital goods there are systems that allow it without charging interest. Instead of borrowing the money from me to buy a house, i will buy it, rent it to you for a set number of years at a set rate and at the end of the period you buy it from me for a set price. i get revenue from giving you something and you end up with owning the house - BUT - we share the risk of you not being able to buy the house in the end. Yet, I won't kick you out while you pay the rent and you will do your best to keep the house in shape because you are planning to buy it. So I am getting rent without having maintenance costs and get to live in a house you will own one day and we both know already today how much you will pay for it. Is that such a bad idea? Sure, I can't go and get a loan on the house and buy another and another and another. But I know that I have my steady revenue and you know that there is no risk that I default on the loan of the sixth house and loose all six in the process. Making money what it is. A means of exchange and storage of value, not a life style and ultimate life pursuit. And all it takes is a generation born free of the bondage of interest and inflation... Cheers, Robert. budget & privacy website hosting http://www.cyberica.net e-commerce & e-business services http://www.cyfrocash.net budget domain registrations http://www.u2planet.com --- You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common viruses.
