On the other hand, there are things the use of which does not consist in their consumption: thus to use a house is to dwell in it, not to destroy it. Wherefore in such things both may be granted: for instance, one man may hand over to another the ownership of his house while reserving to himself the use of it for a time, or vice versa, he may grant the use of the house, while retaining the ownership. For this reason a man may lawfully make a charge for the use of his house, and, besides this, revendicate the house from the person whom he has granted its use, as happens in renting and letting a house.
- St Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologica Secunda, Secunda Q78 A1
So, we’ve examined loans in a general way to see that money is inherently infertile, that loans of favors can be usurious, or that they’re trying to rent a friendship.
Now we’ll look at the stubborn, twisted rationalization of usury towards things like home loans.
So, someone will read the above quote by St Thomas, and rationalize that what the bank does in the case of a home loan is buy the house, and then rent it out to you.
However, this defies what actually happens.
They gauge how much money you have ability to pay.
Pre-approve you for a loan.
You find a house you desire and go through the house inspection process. You are the one that decides if you want to purchase the house with the money. You are the one, or an agent approved by you, negotiating prices and repairs, looking at neighborhoods, school districts, etc.
The bank, only looks at it when it comes in at the end of negotiations - is the house suitable collateral, as is, given the contractual terms?
The bank takes a down payment. (We won’t get into fractional banking, all these still apply in a gold standard)
Money, in your name (not theirs), and now with your liability, is spent on the house and goes to the previous owners account.
Congratulations! You now own a house!
Despite all the “The bank owns xx% of the house” talk, this is clearly false.
You see, all the laws that protect renters don’t apply to them. They’re not obliged to fix your house. Not your electricity. Not your plumbing. They don’t have to worry about anything but whether the value goes down and you stop making payments while they’re underwater.
That is, if they didn’t sell your loan to another institution already.
So, in order for this to apply, they would have to go through all the process. The bank would have to legally own the home. The Bank would be liable for all repairs. They would be liable for the health and safety of the occupants, and/or take out insurance for them.
They could, in such a case, obviously make money doing so.
They could set up a lease with option.
There are moral and immoral ways of doing so.
Predatory ways of doing so.
But, what should be abundantly clear is that the current way is a usurious pile of trash and simply reasoning left over from liberal and libertarian mindsets on contract law, applied to St Thomas Aquinas. It is not what the fact and laws actually accomplish.
And that, dear readers, are what we examine as uncouth barbarians, uncivilized and unblinded by the glare of cosmopolitan lies.
So, make sure that as you build communities, you keep these lessons in mind.
And don’t get caught courting the lies of usury.
Hence it is by its very nature unlawful to take payment for the use of money lent, which payment is known as usury: and just as a man is bound to restore other ill-gotten goods, so he is bound to restore the money which he has taken in usury.
- St Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologica Secunda, Secunda Q78 A1