”Interest” is a Latin compound word composed of the preposition “inter” meaning “between” and “est” the 3rd person plural present active indicative of the verb “to be.” “Inter est” is literally “(it) is between” and more colloquially, “There is between.” The problem for us is that a presumed “differentium” or “difference” is missing, as in, “There is (a difference) between A and B.” This difference may be in substance or accidence, such as with respect to quality or quantity. With respect to quantity, one might recall the formula for calculating simple interest, that is, the principal amount (P) multiplied by the interest rate (R) and the time of accrual (T) equals the simple interest (I) or P x R x T = I. The Interest (I) was the Balance Due (B) less the Principal Amount (P), or I = B – P.
Our concerns at present for this more literal use of interest, are whether the interest calculated in this way is a real thing or an abstracted reality and, in addition, what the source of the interest is with respect to reality or abstraction. In the first case, it seems important to determine whether interest is real, that is, a real thing. In one example that brackets for the moment the use of money or currency, a farmer requires more seeds to plant his crops than he has available. He seeks the loan of additional seeds from a seed merchant which form the principal amount of his loan. After the harvest, he is able to repay the principal amount of seeds and the additional interest both from his harvest. The wealth generated is a real substance, that is, seeds. Furthermore, the source of this wealth as interest is God’s providential care for the crop and the farmer’s labor, his agricultural participation in God’s creation.
Now let us add money into this situation in the form of gold. The farmer’s real need is still seeds and so he may seek out gold through a debt obligation to a lender such as a bank or other unsavory institution instead of the seed merchant directly. Returning to the seed merchant the farmer exchanges the gold for the seeds. Notably here, the gold has become the medium of exchange and the unit of measure for the interest after the harvest. Indeed, after the harvest the farmer sells his seeds to the merchant in exchange for gold with which to payback the principal and the interest. Now the interest is measured in gold, which is still a real thing and its source is still traceable either by exchange to the abundance of the crop as above or directly through God’s creation of gold within the earth’s crust and the labor to mine and refine it.
A problem ensues, however, when this generation of wealth through interest is detached from what is real. Our modern fiat currencies since President Nixon in 1971 are no longer backed by real commodities such as gold or silver but by the full faith and confidence in the U. S. Government. This is true for the currencies of most countries who have pegged their currencies to the U.S. Dollar since that time. In the last three years we have seen a steady and consistent movement of other sovereign states away from using the U. S. Dollar as the medium of exchange and the means of accounting in their international transactions. The motivation behind this trend is that the U.S. Dollar is no longer properly money. Pull out a dollar bill and read at the top, “Federal Reserve Note.” It is a promissory note backed by nothing as collateral. It is a debt abstracted from reality, pulled into existence as an obligation in our future.
I realize that this is a very complicated topic and also that this is a primarily audio platform, and so the fundamental seed crystal that I offer to you is this. If the interest generated from an abstraction such as $1 brings into existence more abstracted debt, for example, 5 extra cents, there will never be enough currency to payoff every debt. Whereas the generosity of God and the labor of the farmer produced more seeds in the real world, the generation of abstracted interest in the financialized world today outpaces what can be generated in reality. So far, this outpacing has been met with the abstraction of even more debt and interest, but reality, and reality’s God, will soon be vindicated. I do not claim to think that those who put this system of subterfuge into place will be met with justice in this life, but rather that full faith and confidence will be restored to its proper object and king.
Even still, that analysis of interest understood literally is not my principal interest in this episode but rather the figurative use of the term. Just as the now banal “sincere” derived from “sine cere” or “without wax” described literally the absence of wax to fill imperfections on imported statutes for the ancient Romans, “inter est” through the English, “interesting” has come to describe, but not truly describe, things, ideas, and people in modern parlance. True, certain iterations of American pronunciation verge on “intressing” as if some alternative title for the retelling of Rapunzel. “Interesting,” nevertheless, has become a filler expression for something that merely catches the attention, triggers an inferiority complex, or fails to undo a speaker’s apathy.
In this season of new beginnings, I suggest being more reflective on our use of the term “interesting.” If a thing is interesting, let it be so because it is discernably different in some kind or degree from the rest. If an idea is interesting, let it be so because it changes what your thought or how you think. If a person is interesting, let it be because that person changes you by his or her excellence or tenacity in the face of adversity. It is my hope that BetterPears always remains interesting. The comparative “better” presumes a difference both in quality and its effect.
Be the first to know when the next episode of The BetterPears Podcast arrives!
Subscribe to The BetterPears Podcast
BetterPears 