Defence of Usury: Shewing the Impolicy of the Present Legal Restraints on the Terms of Pecuniary Bargains; to Which is Added a Letter to Adam Smith, ... on the Discouragement of Inventive Industry

by Jeremy Bentham

This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it. This work is in the public domain in the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work, as no entity (individual or corporate) has a copyright on the body of the work. Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to be preserved, reproduced, and made generally available to the public. To ensure a quality reading experience, this work has been proofread and republished using a format that seamlessly blends the original graphical elements with text in an easy-to-read typeface. We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant.

Genres: Economics, Philosophy, Finance

160 pages, Paperback

Published September 9, 2021

About the author

In 1748, Jeremy Bentham was born in London. The great philosopher, utilitarian humanitarian and atheist began learning Latin at age four. He earned his B.A. from Oxford by age 15 or 16, and his M.A. at 18. His Rationale of Punishments and Rewards was published in 1775, followed by his groundbreaking utilitarian work, Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. Bentham propounded his principle of "the greatest happiness of the greatest number." He worked for political, legal, prison and educational reform. Inheriting a large fortune from his father in 1792, Bentham was free to spend his remaining life promoting progressive causes. The renowned humanitarian was made a citizen of France by the National Assembly in Paris. In published and unpublished treatises, Bentham extensively critiqued religion, the catechism, the use of religious oaths and the bible. Using the pen-name Philip Beauchamp, he co-wrote a freethought treatise, Analysis of the Influence of Natural Religion on the Temporal Happiness of Mankind (1822). D. 1832.

More: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_B...

http://www.iep.utm.edu/bentham/

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/Bentham-Project/who

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/bi...

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Jeremy_B...

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/...

http://utilitarianism.com/bentham.htm

http://www.historyguide.org/intellect...

Reviews

[Tyler · Rating 4 out of 5]

I enjoyed Jeremy Bentham's arguments in favor of no restrictions on the rate of interest, but I am going to have to side with Adam Smith on this one: these days it seems all too important especially that we have these restrictions on the rate of interest.

I ruminated on it for a moment and did think it was curious that considering how unprofitable colonial expansion was, that we actually need more restrictions as the citizens get further and further from the Monarchies and Aristocracies of the past. I thought it interesting how Jeremy Bentham even drew a parallel between the detached restriction of human interest found in a clandestine coalition within a democracy and how they just do not care about the general human interest but rather the short term increase of wealth.

Bentham replied with a litany of otherwise true details, but did parrot some falsehoods. In my opinion, it does not, in fact, increase the national wealth to simply save capital. The other thing he said was that lowering the rate of interest hurts the lenders and benefits the borrowers. This argument becomes true in connection with a high quantity of interest rate lowerings and a trend towards that direction, otherwise it is simply a short-term effect in connection with refinancing.

I did think it was interesting though how many different types of usury are lumped into the umbrella term of 'usury' these days, like Champerty (the cause of the financial collapse in 08), bottomry, and respondentia. This was definitely a very wise text, but not entirely correct. It gets 4/5 stars.

[Jose · Rating 2 out of 5]

Con el formato de misivas temáticas sobre por qué no les compete a los estados regular los tipos de interés Maese Jeremy prepara muy bien el terreno (si bien con algunas trapacerías argumentativas excesivas; sin ir más lejos usar por ejemplo siempre unos prestamistas y prestatarios que más que a un Estado de Derecho, por cómo operan y a qué intereses tratan sin existir extorsión explícita, diríase viven en el marco jurisprudente de La Camorra) para subir de intensidad poquito a poco en su discurso de "regulación = mal" y "niños niños, futuro futuro" al punto de que yo, con total sinceridad lo admito, esperaba el Señor Bentham al final chaparía el tema con una misiva arriesgada, una misiva que propusiera una sustitución del obsoleto tipo de interés "dinero presente vs dinero futuro" por otra que no se viese afectada por los vaivenes del tipo de cambio o los momentos más bajos del patrón oro; un tipo de interés con una equivalencia a futuros para con lo prestado en el presente a medir en personas u órganos.

O, admito tampoco me habría sorprendido de lo bien que alisa el terreno para poder insinuarlo, la introducción de avalistas que no apoquinasen bienes muebles o inmuebles, sino su propio ser o su alma.

Pues llega el hijo de puta, y ahí sí que me dejó loco que te cagas, y en la última misiva se dirige a Don Adam "Mano Invisible" Smith, el famosísimo protoliberal con nombre de Globetrotter. Y no para alabarle o agradecerle el haber ido abriendo camino, qué va: se embala Don Jeremías y le reprocha que haya insinuado cierto intervencionismo del Estado para con evitar tropelías de la usura, le llama rojeras en toda su puta cara.

[Felix · Rating 3 out of 5]

Chiefly of historical interest. Many of the topics covered feel very trivial to the modern Western reader (e.g. is usury a sin ? are "projects" for new technologies to be encouraged or discouraged? is money something which may be bought or sold?) Could people have actually argued vehemently over that 200 years ago? Sure, they did.

Some passages are really well-written; others are too dense and a tad superfluous in that long-winded convoluted 19th century British way.

By the way, many Western countries do have laws limiting the rate of lending on the books. Not because usury is considered a sin, of course, but to protect people who do not know better from loansharks and the so-called "gray market" in money. What would Mr. Bentham make of that?