The Bingham County news. [volume] (Blackfoot, Idaho) 1918-1930, 1923-08-10
|ED|SON-FORD PLANS
ATTACK ON INTEREST
Abolition of Rent No More Plausl.
BILE Than Abolition Of Pay
on Loans, Expert Shows.

| Il 10 no more unreasonable to pay II
terest on q loan of money than 70
pay rent on q house, declares William
T. Foster, Director Of the Pollack
Foundation for Economic Research. N
exposing the fallacy Of the attack on
Interest charges by Henry Ford ana
Thomas A. Edison in their commodity
money scheme to do away with the
present financial system. Mr.. Fosters
argument is reviewed IN the present
article which 10 one Of . series pre-
pared by the American Bankers Asse-
citation.
1.-THE Ford-Edison commodity money
plan IL regarded as . step toward the
abolition of all interest charges." NJ
Foster says. Interest says the
Dearborn Independent, IL . tax that
few ancient tyrants would have dared
impose. Interest In actual modern
practice 10 q contrivauee whereby AL
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 moro
terrible about paying for the use Of
money than about paying for the use
of anything else? Suppose farmer
finds himself in need of a 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 . machine.
The farmer would consider 1t right
to pay in some way for the use Of the
machine. Why should he expect tol
borrow money-which 10 honored In |
the markets in payment for the same
machine-without paying for the use
of the money! -.
Nov lot u suppose that the .fsrm-l
or uses the machine 70 successfully |
that he saves . thousand doilsrs-
With that money he can buy . farnf
and he can let Neighbor Brown havtt
the use Of it. Neighbor Brown mats.
rally would expect to pay rent. mi
stead of buying the farm, however, he
could lend the thousand dollars to his
neighbor in order that his neighborl
might buy the farm. In that easel
Neighbor Brown should expect to payl
for the rent Of the money. All this
seems clear. When the transactionsl
are as simple as these it IL plain that
there is just as great propriety inf
charging for the use of money as in
charging for the use Of things that
money will buy.
Loaned Money Builds q School
1--WE may assume, however, that the
farmer does not want to buy land and
Neighbor Brown does not want toI
borrow money. In that case the
farmer deposits his thousand dollars
in bank and the bank pays him in-
terest for the use Of his money. But
the bank can pay interest only if 1T
makes profitable use of his money!
Now the bank, finds that the city
needs high-school building, and has
decided to borrow enough money to
construct 1t. In order to obtain the
money the city has issued bonds, each
Of which is a promise to pay one thou1
sand dollars at a specified date, and
interest in the m eantime at a specified
rate. The bank buys one Of these
bonds. Thus the farmer has had al
part in providing the city with q
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 .in1
directly to Neighbor Brown"