Lender renounces his right to demand the repayment of his money in a certain time, and leaves the Borrower free to keep it as long as he wishes on condition only that he pays the interest. The reason of this toleration was, that then it is no longer a loan for which interest was taken, it is a rent purchased with a sum of money, as one purchases an estate of land. This was a petty subtlety to which they had recourse, in order to yield to the absolute necessity there is of borrowing money in the course of the transactions of society, without distinctly recognising the falsity of the principles in accordance with which they had condemned it; but this condition of the alienation of the capital is not an advantage to the Borrower, inasmuch as he remains just as much charged with the debt until he shall have repaid this capital, and his property continues throughout to be burdened by the lien involved in its position as security for the capital.[1] It is even a disadvantage, in that he finds money to borrow, when he has need of it, with more difficulty: for a man who would readily agree to lend for a year or two a sum of money he intends to buy an estate with, would not be ready to lend it for an indefinite time. Moreover, if it is permitted to sell one's money for perpetual rent, why cannot one let[2] it for a certain number of years, in return for a rent to continue only for that number of years? If a rent of a thousand francs a year is the equivalent for a sum of twenty thousand francs in the case of a man who keeps that sum in perpetuity, a thousand francs will be the equivalent each year of the possession of that sum during a year.
Page:Reflections on the Formation and the Distribution of Riches by Anne Turgot.djvu/97
70
REFLECTIONS ON THE FORMATION
