Dear List,

In the essay _What is Money For?_ under the subheading "Usury" Pound
writes:

"The perspective of the damned nineteenth century shows little else than
the violation of these principles [that is money is a culturally
produced 'artifact']by demoliberal usurocracy. The doctrine of Capital,
in short, has shown itself as little else than the idea that
unprincipled thieves and anti- social groups should be allowed into the
rights of ownership" (SP)

This quote crystallizes the message I find throughout Pound's economic
theory: ungoverned Capitalism is entirely impoverishing. What I find
difficult to fathom is the reception of Pound as "capital happy" because
of his apparent willing manipulation of his and his friends' "image"
(Bel Esprit etc.) and cultural position for profit. Was Pound ever rich?


There probably is an exact quote Professor Seddon but I haven't found it
just yet.

All the best,
Chris Chapman
-----Original Message-----
From: - Ezra Pound discussion list of the University of Maine
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Richard Seddon
Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2004 9:10 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Age of usury

Hello list

Most of the replys seemed to think I was interested in usury itself or
in
Pound's economic theories.

Not so!

The list might think a thread on Usury and Pound's anti-Semitism useful.
If
so have at it.  It would probably be very interesting.

However,

I am currently interested in what Pound thought of the 19th century.

Again the question.  Somewhere EP said that the 19th century was the
"Age of
Usury" .  Can anyone direct me there?

It was much the same one or two line statement as the one on page 181 of
_Guide to Kulchur_ which states that the 18th century was the age of
cliche'.

or the one on page 221 of _Guide to Kulchur_

"That is, perhaps, where XIX th century philogy went astray."

Rick Seddon
McIntosh, NM