3 ms·

Charging interest within a voluntary agreement is shameful? Or just for a bank? Why? This point of view seems to be associated with Islam, is that your faith?

andrepd 8y ago
What? Re-read the comment you just replied too.
beagle3 8y ago
I am not OP and not muslim, but I hold a similar PoV: The bank is a business, not your friend. In the 2008 crisis, banks (and hotels and many other businesses) had mailed the keys back to lenders when their non-recourse loans were underwater. As long as one does not fraudulently acquire the credit, and makes a good faith effort to repay it, there is no problem. It is NOT shameful for the bank to take interest, which takes into account both the lost-time-value-of-money (inflation and opportunity cost) and the probability of default. They are a business, and the interest takes defaulting loans into account. It is NOT shameful to use bankruptcy if you qualify. It wasn't added to the legal code to give people a "get out of jail free" card - It was added because, done right, it is more helpful to society at large (as well as individuals) to be able to reset debts that cannot be paid. So these things are as shameful, which is to say, not shameful.
salawat 8y ago
Islam is mot the only religion which frowns on usury. Christianity for most of its' history condemned the practice, even if in modern times no one bothers to enforce it. It was quite a contentious topic. St. Anselm, and Thomas Aquinas both condemned the practice, and the only positive (in favor of contemplation) I can find in a 3 minute search were the musings of Cardinal Hostiensis in the 13th century which were never elevated to the level of doctrine. All in all, it is somewhat ironic that in the western world, a large part of the inner workings of the economy is predicated on practices condemned or otherwise historically shunned by the major 3 religions. Yes, yes, I know, times change, women can work and vote, slavery ended, and all that, but there's still value in understanding those pesky historical details to keep one in the present from shooting oneself in the foot. The main gist of Christian theological thinking though is that living on interest charged to others is immoral and sinful. Lending is a practice through which those that can absorb risk do so, with the hope of some reward come success of the venture. Lending only goes foul when the lender places their right to profit ahead of of their obligation to shoulder risk. My two cents anyway.

andrepd 8y ago

What? Re-read the comment you just replied too.

beagle3 8y ago

I am not OP and not muslim, but I hold a similar PoV: The bank is a business, not your friend. In the 2008 crisis, banks (and hotels and many other businesses) had mailed the keys back to lenders when their non-recourse loans were underwater. As long as one does not fraudulently acquire the credit, and makes a good faith effort to repay it, there is no problem. It is NOT shameful for the bank to take interest, which takes into account both the lost-time-value-of-money (inflation and opportunity cost) and the probability of default. They are a business, and the interest takes defaulting loans into account. It is NOT shameful to use bankruptcy if you qualify. It wasn't added to the legal code to give people a "get out of jail free" card - It was added because, done right, it is more helpful to society at large (as well as individuals) to be able to reset debts that cannot be paid. So these things are as shameful, which is to say, not shameful.

salawat 8y ago

Islam is mot the only religion which frowns on usury. Christianity for most of its' history condemned the practice, even if in modern times no one bothers to enforce it. It was quite a contentious topic. St. Anselm, and Thomas Aquinas both condemned the practice, and the only positive (in favor of contemplation) I can find in a 3 minute search were the musings of Cardinal Hostiensis in the 13th century which were never elevated to the level of doctrine. All in all, it is somewhat ironic that in the western world, a large part of the inner workings of the economy is predicated on practices condemned or otherwise historically shunned by the major 3 religions. Yes, yes, I know, times change, women can work and vote, slavery ended, and all that, but there's still value in understanding those pesky historical details to keep one in the present from shooting oneself in the foot. The main gist of Christian theological thinking though is that living on interest charged to others is immoral and sinful. Lending is a practice through which those that can absorb risk do so, with the hope of some reward come success of the venture. Lending only goes foul when the lender places their right to profit ahead of of their obligation to shoulder risk. My two cents anyway.