The Caldwell tribune. [volume] (Caldwell, Idaho Territory [Idaho]) 1883-1928, 1923-08-21
EDIS0N-FORD PLANS
ATTACK ON INTEREST
Abolition Of Rent No More PIausi-
Bile Than Abolition OF Pay
on Loans, Expert Shows.

II is no more unreasonable to pay in
terest on loan OF money than to
pay rent on house. declares William
T. Foster. Director OF the Pollock
Foundation for Economic Research, in
exposing the fsllacy OF the attack on
interest charges by Henry Ford and
Thomas A. Edison In their commodity
money scheme to do away with the
present financial system. MIR. Fosters
argument is reviewed In the present
article which is one OF a series pre-
pared by the American Bankers Assoc
citation.
The Ford-Edison commodity money
plan is regarded as a step toward the
abolition of all interest charges" MIR.
Foster says. Interest says the
Dearborn Independent. Is a tax that
few ancient tyrsnts would have dared
Impose. Interest In actual modern
practice is a continuance whereby all
production Is taxed by parasites. and
whereby money is given a supremacy
over men. material and management
which IT cannot sustain
Renting Money
But is there really anything more
terrible about paying for the use Of
money than about paying for the use
OF anything else? Suppose a farmer
nnds himself In need of q harvesting
machine. and without enough money
to buy one. In that case he can either
borrow a machine OF NeiGhbor Brown
or borrow money and buy a machine.
The farmer would consider 1t right
to pay In some way for the use OF the
machine. Why should he expect to
borrow money-whtch is honored In
the markets In payment for the same
machine-without paying for the use
OF the money!
Nov lot US suppose that the farm
or uses the machine SO successfully
that he saves a thousand dollars.
With that money he can buy a farm
and he can let NeiGhbor Brown have
the use Of 1t. Neighbor Brown natu-
rally would expect to pay rent. In
stead Of buying the farm. however. he
could lend the thousand dollars to his
neighbor In order that his neighbor
might buy the farm. In that case
Nsighbor Brown should expect to pay
for the rent OF the money. All this
seems clear. When the transactions
are az simple as these It is plain that
there IL just as great propriety In
charging for the use OF money as In
charging for the use OF things that
money will buy.
Loaned Money Builds q School
We may assume. however, that the
farmer does not want to buy land and
Neighbor Brown does not want to
borrow money. In that case the
farmer deposits his thousand dollars
In bank and the bank pays him In
tsrest for the use of his money. But
the bank can pay interest only IL 1t
makes profitable use OF his money.
Now the bank finds that the city
needs q high-school building and has
decided to borrow enough money to
construct It. In order to obtain the
money the city has issued bonds, each
OF which Is 4 promise to pay one thou
sand dollars at q specified date, and
interest in the meantime at a specified
rate. The bank buys one OF these
bonds. Thus the farmer has had .
part IN providing the city with .
school building; and the farmer has
just as much right to expect interest
for the use Of his money as though he
had loaned the money directly or In
-irectiy to Neighbor Brown"