INTEREST

Press, Volume LXXI, Issue 21582, 19 September 1935, Page 7

INTEREST

*n THE sditob or THE pbess. Sir, —In his little discourse on "Interest," in reply to "Magneto," your correspondent "Rothschild" puts forth some rather feeble arguments, if they can be called such. He passes over the arrangement suggested in Leviticus by saying that it was "of doubtful success among a primitive tribe of nearly 3000 years ago," and that conditions have changed in the interim. Granted, but he gives no reasons why the arrangement should not be successful in these enlightened times. "Most people," writes your correspondent, "are willing to pay for the trouble they cause lenders." This fact does not legalise the transactions at all. I might be willing to pay for stolen goods, but I have a vague idea it would be hardly legal. And if "Rothschild" wishes to legalise the payment of interest on money because it is "the sole means" of some persons' support, there is quite a number of illegal services, the sole means of some persons' support, i.iat he would have to legalise if he were going to be consistent. However, I think that is more, than we can expect from your correspondent, who has apparently seized this opportuntiy of jumping into print about something of which he appears to know nothing. Of course there are sound -reasons, , economic and otherwise, for legalising the payment cf interest, and I sug- I gest that your correspondent, "Rothr

child." that able supporter of the payment of interest, who so far appears to have nothing to support his stand but a bias in favour of this payment, should support his statements if possible by accurate economic and sociological proofs.—Yours, etc., ROTHSFATHER. September 18. 1935.