I Owe, Therefore I Am: Why Struggling Against the Banks is a Holy Obligation
By Peter Laarman
April 6, 2009
  • 3 Comments
  • Print

When we take the approach that “all are sinners,” we confuse big-time criminality with small-time folly. This moral obfuscation allows the far greater misfeasance of corporate creditors to get airbrushed out of the picture.

Free money!

It’s been a long time since anyone paid attention to old Ben Franklin’s preachments on fiscal prudence:

“If you would know the value of money, go try to borrow some; for he that goes a-borrowing goes a-sorrowing.” “Never forget that credit is money.” “Necessity never made a good bargain.” And my own personal favorite: “Rather go to bed supperless than rise in debt.”

Why the long inattention to basic precepts for wholesome living? May I suggest that apart from finding beady-eyed, thrift-obsessed old Franklin somewhat repulsive today, it is also the case that we also no longer inhabit his mental world in such a way that anything he might have to say about credit or debt makes any sense.

I owe, therefore I am.

That has been our new reality for some time. The question is: how did this happen and who, if anyone, is to blame?

I am very much afraid that our masters, both corporate and civic, may be about to put all of us now-sorrowing borrowers through a public shaming to the point that we will begin to think it’s completely our fault that we took advantage of all the shiny new financial “products” that got us into trouble. There’ll be enough moralizing and shaming going around so that the far greater excesses and far greater misfeasance of corporate creditors get airbrushed out of the picture.

In this case, we should refuse to settle for a neo-evangelical formula that attempts to treat all sins as equivalent. Ethically speaking, the “all have sinned” approach confuses big-time criminality with small-time folly. It creates yet another bubble, only this time a bubble of moral obfuscation. It allows those who enticed small-time sinners to stumble get off the hook.

Not that we regular folk weren’t kind of stupid and credulous to think that we could live forever in a wonderland of easy credit with no money down. Or, in the case of our houses, that we could borrow hundreds of thousands of dollars for real property with, in some cases, no income, no job, and no assets. “Ninjas” is what the cynical mortgage lenders called such borrowers just a couple of years ago. They loved making phone calls that even their supremely unqualified mortgage applicants found somewhat hard to believe: “Congratulations: your loan has been approved! You will close in 15 minutes. And lucky you: there’s no need to show up or even supply a check. Everything is rolled right into the loan. Woo-hoo!”

Yeah, we all went for it. We were approved so easily. Who doesn’t what to be “approved” by somebody powerful and (presumably) smart, who wants to lend you a lot of money?

Cupidity Unbound: How Big Capital Fell in Love with Low and Dishonest Gain

Lately Thomas Geoghegan, Chicago labor lawyer and great storyteller, has provided a whole new dimension to the conversation about easy credit and the collapse thereof. “Infinite Debt” is the title of Geoghegan’s remarkable cover piece in the April issue of Harper’s.

But even though Geoghegan takes us to the heart of the matter, he has so much of interest to report—about how, in effect, workers traded in their union cards for credit cards in order to capture some of their own rising productivity gains; about how the FIRE (finance, insurance, real estate) sector of the economy more than doubled its share of corporate profits between 1988 and 2003; about how, even last year, 39% of Harvard’s college graduates were aiming for careers in finance; about how America’s ballooning trade deficit is directly related to our borrowing spree—that his main ethical and religious point still remains somewhat undeveloped. Hence this supplementary fantasia on his dolorous theme.

Geoghegan frames the main ethical point this way: “The problem is not that ‘we deregulated the New Deal’ but that we deregulated a much older, even ancient, set of laws.”

What he means is that, coincident with a Supreme Court case in 1978, we started setting aside the commonly-accepted prohibition against usury that had been in place so long that “no one ever mentioned it to us at law school” (Geoghegan).

What began to ensue after longstanding statewide limits on interest rates got invalidated was entirely predictable: “When banks get 25-30 percent on credit cards, and 500 percent or more on payday loans, capital flees honest pursuits.” And did capital ever flee, according to Geoghegan’s great tale of cupidity unbound. He describes what happened, accurately, as an “autocatalytic reaction”: there was so much worldwide investment capital demanding a piece of the lending action in this country that Wall Street couldn’t resist inventing sketchy new products to induce consumers to sink themselves in infinite debt: ARM loans, obviously, but also still-riskier “mortgages” in which the “borrower” didn’t have to pay interest or principal.

One lovely side note in Geoghegan’s account is the way in which he makes a famous movie villain—Lionel Barrymore’s Mr. Potter from It’s a Wonderful Life—look positively angelic in relation to today’s big boys at Citi and Chase and Bank of America. At least Mr. Potter wanted his loans to be repaid. But in the new lending environment where there’s no limit on interest, today’s bankers would actually rather that borrowers don’t pay. They can collect far more in interest, not to mention in penalties and fees, from delinquent loans than from loans that are repaid. Geoghegan doesn’t mention this, but it is certainly telling that the word today’s lenders use for people who repay their loans on time is “deadbeat”: exactly the reverse of the meaning Mr. Potter would have ascribed to the term.

Debt Peonage vs. A Moral Economy

Geoghegan wants us to feel that, in view of the manifold oppressions wrought by the bankers, fighting against the banks is the contemporary moral equivalent of the fight to unionize. It’s a basic civil rights struggle.

I agree, of course, but I would go still further. Did not Jesus say, in the great prayer he taught us, “release us from debt even as we release others from debt?” (Luke 11:3) I suggest that struggling against the banks is actually a sacred calling, a holy obligation, in relation to the central tenets of biblical faith.

The stakes, in fact, are still higher than even Geoghegan imagines, as the big bankers are now actively in the process of putting the rest of us into new and horrific double debt peonage.

As Matt Taibbi explains in Rolling Stone, the Paulson-Geithner approach to “fixing” the credit crisis amounts to giving the banks direct access to the rest of our money, via taxes we will be paying as far as the eye can see, along with all of the money they have already been extracting via their ongoing predatory lending. It’s one thing for Geithner to say “we’re not Sweden” in explaining why the government still declines to take the big banks public with full public oversight. He has yet to explain why he is letting the banks take the government private—and thereby take all of us into permanent captivity.

I said that there are core biblical principles at stake. Biblical scholar and teacher Ched Myers notes how the basic liberation narrative in the Bible has everything to do with abolishing debt servitude. When God says to the newly liberated Israelites, “I am going to rain bread from heaven for you” (Ex. 16:4), God is setting a basic moral test: God is putting in place an alternative moral economy in which want is eliminated provided that hoarding, or surplus accumulation, is also eliminated. The manna reminds Israel that the purpose of economic organization is to guarantee enough for everyone, not to create opportunities for the strong to exploit the weak.

Integral to the manna story is the Sabbath principle: our labor is interrupted each week to remind us the divine economy of abundance for all. The weekly Sabbath in turn leads to the biblical Sabbath of years (Ex. 23), in which cultivation ceases and commonwealth is re-established, and leads finally to the great Jubilee every 49th year (Lev. 25), in which all concentrated power and wealth is to be dismantled, all expropriated land is to be restored, and all other forms of debt peonage are to be abolished.

Whether historic Israel ever fully implemented Sabbath and Jubilee prescriptions is beside the point: Sabbath and Jubilee remain moral economy touchstones for the prophets, for Jesus, and for us.

Thus Isaiah to his bankers in the eighth century BCE: “The spoil of the poor is in your houses; what do you mean by crushing my people, by grinding the face of the poor?” (Isa. 3:14f) And thus Jesus to his bankers—to the money changers in the Temple courtyard—“It is written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer’; but you are making it a den of robbers.” (Mt. 21:13)

What will we say to our bankers? Obama’s administration is apparently content to hope and pray that they will start lending again, once we’ve given them enough public subsidy. I was kind of hoping that we might begin to imagine something a little different from the world we have known: a world of infinite debt, infinite captivity, and infinite pain.

Tags: bailout, ben franklin, capitalism, credit, debt, economic crisis, ethics, infinite debt, morality, peter laarman

Related Stories
Comments
View:
Turn comments off sitewide
Regulatory Cupidity?

Mr. Laarman, some excellent points but also some real misses too.

Yes, usury had made a comeback, but remember that no one forced a sub-prime, interest-only adjustable rate mortgage onto another.

You assert, "Yeah, we all went for it." No, we all didn't. But this is sounding like a defense of unethical lenders, which it is not. There were bad actors indeed and not just in the mortgage business.

The unfortunate fact is that unethical opportunists took advantage of the unwise and/or the greedy. The latter must take their lumps; the formers' thrashing should be that much worse.

You claim that Geithner is "letting the banks take the government private." Are you not paying attention?! News reports now abound of banks offering to pay back TARP funds earlier than expected, but Obama says "not so fast." Apparently, the administration enjoys having hiring/firing power and setting compensation for the likes of AIG, General Motors, and Bank of America and Citi.

You are right that easy credit took our misplaced devotion for a time. But be careful not to replace one form of cupidity for another - almighty federal regulation is good for smiting the usurious and ethically challenged, but it rarely stops regulating at its ostensibly predetermined end.

Newby comment

Thanks so much for saying what you've said here. As an Obama supporter I hoped for more, maybe naively. But as a Christian I always have to keep in mind that any power structure built on violence and coercion is called to account by God's prophetic voice. In the last eight years, it's been easy to use the term "prophetic voice" as a synonym for left wing critiques for right wing politics using Christianese. Of course that was true in reverse with right wing Christianese against any liberal policies. At least in respect to usury, this essay was spot on!

You have made it a den of robbers.

If you lend money to my people, to the poor among you, you shall not deal with them as a creditor; you shall not exact interest from them. If you take your neighbor’s cloak in pawn, you shall restore it before the sun goes down; for it may be your neighbor’s only clothing to use as cover; in what else shall that person sleep? And if your neighbor cries out to me, I will listen, for I am compassionate.
(Exodus 22:25-27)
- -
Do not take interest in advance or otherwise make a profit from them, but fear your God; let them live with you. You shall not lend them your money at interest taken in advance, or provide them food at a profit.
(Leviticus 25:36-37)
- -
10 Woe is me, my mother, that you ever bore me, a man of strife and contention to the whole land! I have not lent, nor have I borrowed, yet all of them curse me.
(Jeremiah 15:10)
- -
[If one] does not oppress anyone, but restores to the debtor his pledge, commits no robbery, gives his bread to the hungry and covers the naked with a garment, does not take advance or accrued interest, withholds his hand from iniquity, executes true justice between contending parties, follows my statutes, and is careful to observe my ordinances, acting faithfully—such a one is righteous; he shall surely live, says the Lord God.
(Ezekiel 18:7-9)
- -
[If one] takes advance or accrued interest; shall he then live? He shall not. He has done all these abominable things; he shall surely die; his blood shall be upon himself.
(Ezekiel 18:13)
- -
[One who] withholds his hand from iniquity, takes no advance or accrued interest, observes my ordinances, and follows my statutes; he shall not die for his father’s iniquity; he shall surely live.
(Ezekiel 18:17)
- -
In you, they take bribes to shed blood; you take both advance interest and accrued interest, and make gain of your neighbors by extortion; and you have forgotten me, says the Lord God.
(Ezekiel 22:12)
- -
Then they came to Jerusalem. And he entered the temple and began to drive out those who were selling and those who were buying in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money-changers and the seats of those who sold doves; and he would not allow anyone to carry anything through the temple. He was teaching and saying, ‘Is it not written, “My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations”? But you have made it a den of robbers.’
(Mark 11:15-17)

Login / Signup Join the conversation

Comments closed

The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.