Daniel Pearlman wrote:
>
> Dear Mr. Borawski,
[snip]
> (And it is still a big question whether Pound's medieval,
> moralistic idea of Usura has any real applicability to twentieth-
> century economic practices!)
 
It had *no*, I repeat *no*, applicability. In addition to scapegoating
Jews for man's sins, he shifted blame for capitalism's defects from
capitalism to an instrument of capitalism, the banks. This shift
allowed Pound to blast real and imagined faults of capitalism without
ever coming to grips with capitalism itself.
 
I have learned that even in strict Muslim countries where interest is
forbidden by the Koran, interest is nevertheless practiced but under
different names. Thus, the interest charge for a loan may be hidden
in the foreign exchange rate the lender charges, or numerous other
charges. It is interest but for religious reasons it isn't called
that.
 
I am no economist, so you are warned. I have been reading enough
economy in the past couple of years though, that I'm bold enough to
express my opinion that Pound's economic views were at least vacuous,
if not dishonest.
 
He was a fascist in the sense that Karl Popper describes. Pound
hankered after an aristocratic world that never existed wherein he
would have a place more honored than a chef, let's say.
 
--
I've been able to string more words into fewer ideas than anybody I
know, and I'm continuing to do that.
     - Alan Greenspan to the Senate Budget Committee, Sept 23, 1998