5 ms·

> As far as I am aware, every single economical system in history has produced wealth inequality Check out the Islamic perspective on economics and finance. It

by azth 11y ago

> As far as I am aware, every single economical system in history has produced wealth inequality Check out the Islamic perspective on economics and finance. It sets certain restrictions, while keeping many things open to the requirements of the society: no interest, shared risk, the population is responsible for the poor, etc. while still allowing the opportunities to acquire wealth. It was during the days of Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz[0] that it was reported that there were no more poor people left to take Zakat[1], because everyone did their duties. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umar_II https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umar_II [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zakat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zakat

BerislavLopac 11y ago
So how sustainable was that?
- azth 11y ago
  It is unfortunate that you see today in many Muslim countries branches of (international) banks that deal in usury and interest. This is due to globalization, and the willingness of the rulers to allow anything the West wants. There are Islamic alternatives to many of traditional interest based transactions. Unfortunately there is still quite some debate around them, as there does not seem to be any sense of urgency or proper funding being provided to push for that, given that many people are lax, and accept the status quo. What there is _no_ debate about, is that dealing in usury (e.g. savings accounts, or taking an interest bearing loan) is prohibited Islamically. Certain exemptions are made to people that have this as their only alternative, other than being thrown out on the street if they can't pay their rent for instance. However, this is only reserved for dire situations, and some people take this too far, and think that they can be exempted, whereas they cannot. It is the responsibility of the community to provide for the poor first and foremost. I would need to look up to see where this shift started to happen, but I would not be surprised if it started to take place at, or around WWI (that's when a lot of other problems started to happen in the region). If that turns out to be the case, then yes, it is quite sustainable that it lasted for over 1250 years.
SixSigma 11y ago
World population in 700AD is estimated at about 200M, the current combined population of the six largest cities.
- azth 11y ago
  Yes, and? Does that give an excuse to exploit most of them (which is what usury, interest, insurance, etc. are), only to have a few benefit? As I pointed out, Islamically, the rich people of the community would be responsible to aid the society. A tremendous amount of wealth is in the hands of a tiny, tiny minority of the population. They can put their money in interest bearing accounts and bonds, and live purely off of interest. This is exploitative, and not fair, and makes the problem worse.
  - SixSigma 11y ago
    A population of strangers changes Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma - a game of co-operation where tit-for-tat is pretty much the optimal, to Prisoner's where default is optimal
    - azth 11y ago
      Sorry, I did not get what you are saying. How is this related to the Prisoner's Dilemma? In an Islamic system, the rich would have an obligation toward the rest of society to lift it up, particularly in the case where there is a massive wealth gap, as we see today. The poor are consistently getting penalized, whereas the rich just get richer. This article was posted here on HN not too long ago: http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21663262-why-low-income-americans-often-have-pay-more-its-expensive-be-poor http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21663262-why-low...
      - SixSigma 11y ago
        > there were no more poor people ... because everyone did their duties. In a society where people are scarce and visible, the social contract is enforced by association. Just like everyone looked after each other in most places around the world in small villages etc. - iterated prisoner's dilemma In a city of 20 million people this breaks down. - more defectors
zo1 11y ago
>"shared risk, the population is responsible for the poor" I pay taxes for those two already. Must I still blame capitalism? Not trying to be obtuse, but some of the thing mentioned are already supposedly part of our society. Represented by proxy through our government, yet we don't hold it accountable. Capitalism is not our problem.
- azth 11y ago
  Look at what the big corporations around us are doing. Capitalism is about maximizing profit, with seemingly no regard for ethics or morals. Things like opening slave shops in China for cheap manufacturing, with horrible working conditions? That would be banned Islamically, because humans have the right to work in safe places, and in decent conditions. HFT and whatever Wall street is up to? Same thing. It's all exploitative and benefits only a few, while harming most. Edit: sharing risk on certain transactions, and paying taxes are two different things. Edit: another example: what about mind numbing advertisements? What about ads for prescription only medication? Purely a product of capitalism. Sexist car advertisements with naked women in them? Yep. Edit: isn't tax evasion by inversion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_inversion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_inversion) also a product of capitalism?
  - BerislavLopac 11y ago
    "with seemingly no regard for ethics or morals" Are you saying that economic systems have morality? And that all capitalist lack ethics and morals? There are many different forms of the two -- who is to decide which form is acceptable? Again, the reason for everything happening in the society is not any single political and economical system -- like soylent green, it's the people.
    - azth 11y ago
      On their own, no, purely economic systems don't have anything to do with morality. This is why the Islamic system is different, it is not a purely economic system, but a comprehensive one, which does include morality. You are right, it is the people. But, left to their own whim, people will do terrible things. We have seen this time and time again, all throughout history.

by azth 11y ago

BerislavLopac 11y ago

So how sustainable was that?

azth 11y ago
It is unfortunate that you see today in many Muslim countries branches of (international) banks that deal in usury and interest. This is due to globalization, and the willingness of the rulers to allow anything the West wants. There are Islamic alternatives to many of traditional interest based transactions. Unfortunately there is still quite some debate around them, as there does not seem to be any sense of urgency or proper funding being provided to push for that, given that many people are lax, and accept the status quo. What there is _no_ debate about, is that dealing in usury (e.g. savings accounts, or taking an interest bearing loan) is prohibited Islamically. Certain exemptions are made to people that have this as their only alternative, other than being thrown out on the street if they can't pay their rent for instance. However, this is only reserved for dire situations, and some people take this too far, and think that they can be exempted, whereas they cannot. It is the responsibility of the community to provide for the poor first and foremost. I would need to look up to see where this shift started to happen, but I would not be surprised if it started to take place at, or around WWI (that's when a lot of other problems started to happen in the region). If that turns out to be the case, then yes, it is quite sustainable that it lasted for over 1250 years.

SixSigma 11y ago

World population in 700AD is estimated at about 200M, the current combined population of the six largest cities.

azth 11y ago
Yes, and? Does that give an excuse to exploit most of them (which is what usury, interest, insurance, etc. are), only to have a few benefit? As I pointed out, Islamically, the rich people of the community would be responsible to aid the society. A tremendous amount of wealth is in the hands of a tiny, tiny minority of the population. They can put their money in interest bearing accounts and bonds, and live purely off of interest. This is exploitative, and not fair, and makes the problem worse.
- SixSigma 11y ago
  A population of strangers changes Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma - a game of co-operation where tit-for-tat is pretty much the optimal, to Prisoner's where default is optimal
  - azth 11y ago
    Sorry, I did not get what you are saying. How is this related to the Prisoner's Dilemma? In an Islamic system, the rich would have an obligation toward the rest of society to lift it up, particularly in the case where there is a massive wealth gap, as we see today. The poor are consistently getting penalized, whereas the rich just get richer. This article was posted here on HN not too long ago: http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21663262-why-low-income-americans-often-have-pay-more-its-expensive-be-poor http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21663262-why-low...
    - SixSigma 11y ago
      > there were no more poor people ... because everyone did their duties. In a society where people are scarce and visible, the social contract is enforced by association. Just like everyone looked after each other in most places around the world in small villages etc. - iterated prisoner's dilemma In a city of 20 million people this breaks down. - more defectors

zo1 11y ago

>"shared risk, the population is responsible for the poor" I pay taxes for those two already. Must I still blame capitalism? Not trying to be obtuse, but some of the thing mentioned are already supposedly part of our society. Represented by proxy through our government, yet we don't hold it accountable. Capitalism is not our problem.

azth 11y ago
Look at what the big corporations around us are doing. Capitalism is about maximizing profit, with seemingly no regard for ethics or morals. Things like opening slave shops in China for cheap manufacturing, with horrible working conditions? That would be banned Islamically, because humans have the right to work in safe places, and in decent conditions. HFT and whatever Wall street is up to? Same thing. It's all exploitative and benefits only a few, while harming most. Edit: sharing risk on certain transactions, and paying taxes are two different things. Edit: another example: what about mind numbing advertisements? What about ads for prescription only medication? Purely a product of capitalism. Sexist car advertisements with naked women in them? Yep. Edit: isn't tax evasion by inversion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_inversion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_inversion) also a product of capitalism?
- BerislavLopac 11y ago
  "with seemingly no regard for ethics or morals" Are you saying that economic systems have morality? And that all capitalist lack ethics and morals? There are many different forms of the two -- who is to decide which form is acceptable? Again, the reason for everything happening in the society is not any single political and economical system -- like soylent green, it's the people.
  - azth 11y ago
    On their own, no, purely economic systems don't have anything to do with morality. This is why the Islamic system is different, it is not a purely economic system, but a comprehensive one, which does include morality. You are right, it is the people. But, left to their own whim, people will do terrible things. We have seen this time and time again, all throughout history.