7 ms·

The Kenyans are right. What they need is money, not loans, and, in particular, not loans against consumption rather than production, which is what broadly avai

The Kenyans are right. What they need is money, not loans, and, in particular, not loans against consumption rather than production, which is what broadly available credit inevitably devolves into. (Look at college loans, which started off ostensibly as an investment in productive assets and has devolved into financing four years of heavily curated consumption followed by crushing student debt.) Even loans against production are dangerous and eventually lead to debt peonage and wealth concentration, as we have seen time and time again, from roman times onward. The problem is usury, and there is a long, historical argument about it that is completely ignored in the west. This is because history is written by the victors, and the usurers won. We are all usurers (or aspiring usurers) now.

telotortium 7y ago
If you'd like some interesting reading, take a look at the traditional Catholic analysis of usury: https://zippycatholic.wordpress.com/2014/11/10/usury-faq-or-money-on-the-pill/ https://zippycatholic.wordpress.com/2014/11/10/usury-faq-or-.... According to this modern summary, anyway, any interest-bearing loans that are personally guaranteed (such as credit card loans or student loans) are immoral. However, investment is permissible, as are collateralized loans (either against property, such as a house, or against a corporation, which is a sort of property); however, in the event of default, it would not be permissible to go after the corporation's owners to recover the rest of the loan (although if the owners illicitly withdrew money from the company they'd still be liable for fraud). EDIT: Submitted at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21032154 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21032154
programmernews3 7y ago
Have you not seen the protests today? Hello? The last thing they need is money as that will lead to increased consumption or even increased population growth! This is a climate EMERGENCY so we should limit their ability to gain money, not ease it
- GhostVII 7y ago
  Somehow I feel like poor people in Kenya are not the primary source of overconsumption. And giving people more money decreases population growth, it doesn't increase it.
saas_sam 7y ago
Don't downvote me here please. Honest question. If you want some of my money, and I am willing to give it to you if you pay me back with a little extra due to compensate for my worry that you'll not pay me back... what's wrong with that? Why am I a bad person for agreeing to it?
- makotech222 7y ago
  It's bad because you are using your heightened position (having lots of capital) to negotiate a relationship with someone in a weakened position (in need of capital) and profiting from it. This same logic applies to landlords/tenants, and to business owners/workers. Throughout history, it also applies to King/Serf, Master/Slave, etc. This is somewhat the basis of Marxist thought. There is lots of material about this, if you want to learn more. The goal of Marxism is to eliminate this dichotomy, and create a single class of people.
- vincent-toups 7y ago
  This is a totally fine and ethical arrangement. What makes someone a bad person is if they see that, for whatever reason, these kinds of arrangements are inadequate to meet the needs of people (and particularly children of people) to have a decent life and they do nothing. High interest rate loans to people who can never repay them don't do much of anything to help actually lift people out of poverty. Being in the loan business is fine, but accepting a world where a kid's entire life is stunted because of who they happen to have been born to is not.
  - 20after4 7y ago
    This seems to me almost impossible to change. Of course a child's entire life is hugely affected by genetics and upbringing. That's not even to mention the connections anf opportunity gained through family ties. It may be unfair (debatable) but it's the way of the world.
    - vincent-toups 7y ago
      Sure, the genetics are not easy to fix, but we can and must fix problems like crushing poverty, shitty infrastructure that poisons kids, and lack of good public education. These are not even remotely intractable problems and its the most ridiculous kind of prevarication to suggest that they are.
kiba 7y ago
I am informed that "History is written by the victor" is bad historical thinking, one that people should not use in their arguments. Presently, the past is constantly interpreted by people, 'winners' and 'losers', historians with expertise, and folks with an axe to grind.
- inerte 7y ago
  History is written by the victor needs to be complemented with "and also by the wealthy" - it was very expensive to learn, produce and store the media used for reading and writing. Then the wealthy could care less about the peasant 500 miles away, but patronage artists dealing with subjects of their interest. This is specially important if you want to know how people truly felt during big historical moments, and compare them with modern lifestyle. We know very little about most of humanity throughout history, their feelings and worries and suffering and if they slept in 2 phases or whatever. So we have records of those big events, and practically no clue what the hell regular folks at that time thought about them.
- jbattle 7y ago
  It's a useful/pithy/concise reminder that "history" is not objective and very very often is a story told by people with an agenda.
- FussyZeus 7y ago
  > I am informed that "History is written by the victor" is bad historical thinking, one that people should not use in their arguments Who informed you of this? The person who wrote the histories of given events absolutely matters. Time and again textbooks have had to be recalled and reprinted because of crazy amounts of slighted disinformation that amounted to little more than sexism or racism on the part of the original authors.
- coldtea 7y ago
  Tell whoever informed you that they are wrong. The past might be "constantly interpreted", but it's the winners of each period who make the re-interpretation...
nickik 7y ago
> Even loans against production are dangerous and eventually lead to debt peonage and wealth concentration, as we have seen time and time again, from roman times onward. > The problem is usury, and there is a long, historical argument about it that is completely ignored in the west. This is because history is written by the victors, and the usurers won. We are all usurers (or aspiring usurers) now. You can say 'it was always like this' as much as you want, that doesn't make it true. Not a single society that didn't have 'usury' ever developed a middle class, human rights, a welfare state and most other things in modernity. The reason the 'usurers' have won is because it is a far superior system and no society that has experiance it actually goes back to the old system. People like to complain and complain, but when somebody actually tries to remove these insitutions from modern society its a total failure. As we have seen with different communist and other revolutions. In fact broad access to credit was a major driver for the industrial revolution and for the modern world. It didn't lead to wealth concentration but rather to a broad wealth explosion.

telotortium 7y ago

If you'd like some interesting reading, take a look at the traditional Catholic analysis of usury: https://zippycatholic.wordpress.com/2014/11/10/usury-faq-or-money-on-the-pill/ https://zippycatholic.wordpress.com/2014/11/10/usury-faq-or-.... According to this modern summary, anyway, any interest-bearing loans that are personally guaranteed (such as credit card loans or student loans) are immoral. However, investment is permissible, as are collateralized loans (either against property, such as a house, or against a corporation, which is a sort of property); however, in the event of default, it would not be permissible to go after the corporation's owners to recover the rest of the loan (although if the owners illicitly withdrew money from the company they'd still be liable for fraud). EDIT: Submitted at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21032154 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21032154

programmernews3 7y ago

Have you not seen the protests today? Hello? The last thing they need is money as that will lead to increased consumption or even increased population growth! This is a climate EMERGENCY so we should limit their ability to gain money, not ease it

GhostVII 7y ago
Somehow I feel like poor people in Kenya are not the primary source of overconsumption. And giving people more money decreases population growth, it doesn't increase it.

saas_sam 7y ago

Don't downvote me here please. Honest question. If you want some of my money, and I am willing to give it to you if you pay me back with a little extra due to compensate for my worry that you'll not pay me back... what's wrong with that? Why am I a bad person for agreeing to it?

makotech222 7y ago
It's bad because you are using your heightened position (having lots of capital) to negotiate a relationship with someone in a weakened position (in need of capital) and profiting from it. This same logic applies to landlords/tenants, and to business owners/workers. Throughout history, it also applies to King/Serf, Master/Slave, etc. This is somewhat the basis of Marxist thought. There is lots of material about this, if you want to learn more. The goal of Marxism is to eliminate this dichotomy, and create a single class of people.
vincent-toups 7y ago
This is a totally fine and ethical arrangement. What makes someone a bad person is if they see that, for whatever reason, these kinds of arrangements are inadequate to meet the needs of people (and particularly children of people) to have a decent life and they do nothing. High interest rate loans to people who can never repay them don't do much of anything to help actually lift people out of poverty. Being in the loan business is fine, but accepting a world where a kid's entire life is stunted because of who they happen to have been born to is not.
- 20after4 7y ago
  This seems to me almost impossible to change. Of course a child's entire life is hugely affected by genetics and upbringing. That's not even to mention the connections anf opportunity gained through family ties. It may be unfair (debatable) but it's the way of the world.
  - vincent-toups 7y ago
    Sure, the genetics are not easy to fix, but we can and must fix problems like crushing poverty, shitty infrastructure that poisons kids, and lack of good public education. These are not even remotely intractable problems and its the most ridiculous kind of prevarication to suggest that they are.

kiba 7y ago

I am informed that "History is written by the victor" is bad historical thinking, one that people should not use in their arguments. Presently, the past is constantly interpreted by people, 'winners' and 'losers', historians with expertise, and folks with an axe to grind.

inerte 7y ago
History is written by the victor needs to be complemented with "and also by the wealthy" - it was very expensive to learn, produce and store the media used for reading and writing. Then the wealthy could care less about the peasant 500 miles away, but patronage artists dealing with subjects of their interest. This is specially important if you want to know how people truly felt during big historical moments, and compare them with modern lifestyle. We know very little about most of humanity throughout history, their feelings and worries and suffering and if they slept in 2 phases or whatever. So we have records of those big events, and practically no clue what the hell regular folks at that time thought about them.
jbattle 7y ago
It's a useful/pithy/concise reminder that "history" is not objective and very very often is a story told by people with an agenda.
FussyZeus 7y ago
> I am informed that "History is written by the victor" is bad historical thinking, one that people should not use in their arguments Who informed you of this? The person who wrote the histories of given events absolutely matters. Time and again textbooks have had to be recalled and reprinted because of crazy amounts of slighted disinformation that amounted to little more than sexism or racism on the part of the original authors.
coldtea 7y ago
Tell whoever informed you that they are wrong. The past might be "constantly interpreted", but it's the winners of each period who make the re-interpretation...

nickik 7y ago

> Even loans against production are dangerous and eventually lead to debt peonage and wealth concentration, as we have seen time and time again, from roman times onward. > The problem is usury, and there is a long, historical argument about it that is completely ignored in the west. This is because history is written by the victors, and the usurers won. We are all usurers (or aspiring usurers) now. You can say 'it was always like this' as much as you want, that doesn't make it true. Not a single society that didn't have 'usury' ever developed a middle class, human rights, a welfare state and most other things in modernity. The reason the 'usurers' have won is because it is a far superior system and no society that has experiance it actually goes back to the old system. People like to complain and complain, but when somebody actually tries to remove these insitutions from modern society its a total failure. As we have seen with different communist and other revolutions. In fact broad access to credit was a major driver for the industrial revolution and for the modern world. It didn't lead to wealth concentration but rather to a broad wealth explosion.