9 ms·

I think the argument is funny: We will continue to arbitrarily create money, and create incentives which force us into subpar investments in order to motivate

• apta 7y ago
  It's no wonder interest (usury) is banned in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. It's absolutely at the root of the financial problems we're seeing today.
  • adeelk93 7y ago
    Usury is not interest in general, but rather, unreasonably high interest
    • PopePompus 7y ago
      Not in the context of Abrahamic religions.
      • dpark 7y ago
        Strange then that so many millions of Christians and Jews worldwide engage in money lending and borrowing.
        • kungtotte 7y ago
          People also use profanity, work on their rest days, drink alcohol, eat pork and shellfish, covet other people's things, and do lots of other things they're not supposed to according to their religion.
          • dpark 7y ago
            People do lots of things that they acknowledge are against their religion. However I’ve never heard a Christian (or Jew for that matter) tell me that their religion prohibits lending or that it’s a sin. It’s not that they simply do it anyway, but that they aren’t even supposed to avoid it. In this respect it seems that lending isn’t like consuming pork for Jews but like drinking caffeine for Christians.
            • apta 7y ago
              It could simply be that they are not aware that it's prohibited. If you look up early Christianity, they definitely loathed money lending due to interest.
              • dpark 7y ago
                If you look at modern Christianity, they don’t. You cannot hold a religion to an outdated set of beliefs they do not hold themselves to.
                • apta 7y ago
                  There are Christians today that still uphold the rules in the Old Testament (e.g. not eating pork), as early Christianity still followed Judaic law before straying away from those teachings.
        • Thorentis 7y ago
          Borrowing if you have no choice, and lending if you know it's wrong (according to your religion) are two different things. Many people participate in the shit system they find themselves, without trying to make the system worse. I'd say this doesn't just apply to interest, but all sorts of things. Climate activists acknowledge that plastic and consumerism are bad for the planet, and yet the vast majority continue to purchase and use products that rely on pollution, single use plastic, and resource waste.
        • apta 7y ago
          It just means they're not following the teachings of their respective religion.
          • dpark 7y ago
            Or they don’t believe that those are teachings of their religions. You don’t get to define what other religions should hold themselves to, even if they did in the past.
            • apta 7y ago
              You read their original teachings and see what they said. It's clear that there was deviation from them. This is acknowledged by those who studied the subject well.
              • dpark 7y ago
                You don’t get to define what other religions should hold themselves to, even if they did in the past.
    • simula67 7y ago
      Zippy Catholic has a FAQ on this : https://zippycatholic.wordpress.com/2014/11/10/usury-faq-or-money-on-the-pill/ https://zippycatholic.wordpress.com/2014/11/10/usury-faq-or-... His claim seems to be that usury is when interest is charged on loans where the lender has full recourse to the borrower in case of default.
      • apta 7y ago
        Modern day Christianity strayed from the early teachings. If I'm not mistaken even during Shakespeare's time, money lenders were loathed (because of them charging interest), and it was prohibited then.
    • apta 7y ago
      I'm referring to charging money on money, at any rate no matter how small. There is no difference.
  • hnick 7y ago
    What are the reasonable alternatives? In terms of business investment I mean, personal loans are a whole other problem. Without interest (or fees) on loans then anyone lending money would have to take an active interest in the business as a proper partner or shareholder, which is a lot of overhead and headache for everyone involved. Though I suppose keeping it impersonal and at arm's length like this has pros and cons, I think it's what I would prefer personally in most cases as a borrower. Another alternative of course is not borrowing money but that would tend to limit business ventures to those with minimal setup costs that start nearly cash-flow positive - or initiated by the already wealthy elite.
    • apta 7y ago
      Alternatives include engaging in a partnership (basically investment). Someone wants to start a business, they gather interest from investors who put in money for a share of the business. The founder contributes effort (and perhaps some money), and the investors contribute money. If the business succeeds, great, everyone wins. If it doesn't, the founder(s) are not stuck with debt + interest to pay back. So, basically what you mentioned. And yes, it does involve more work. But that's how life is if you want to be fair. The alternative with lending money with interest is that now the lendee owes you money just for simply borrowing money. We see what this practice gave us when we look at the current financial situation (in its many forms, bonds for example are a form of usury). It is a predatory practice. Simply making money for having money is extremely dangerous and unethical. You have to work to make money, either by putting in effort to do physical labor, or by doing your research in deciding whom to invest your money with, etc. You can't get money "for free" (I realize that nothing is 100% guaranteed, e.g. if the lendee declares bankruptcy, but the contract itself is predatory).
  • tmn 7y ago
    Judaism has a mitzvot to lend to gentiles with interest (mandatory) It's number 58: http://www.jewfaq.org/613.htm http://www.jewfaq.org/613.htm They also have a mitzvot that one shall not lend to another jew with interest. It's number 171 To be clear. I acknowledge there is a difference between lending with interest and usury
    • deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
  • zarro 7y ago
    You misunderstood the meaning of my post. Whats funny is the idea that you could somehow "create" money out of nothing by simply printing it, then attempt to balance its value by creating incentives for people to use. The part I think is funny, is that the people that have the prerogative to lend out the recently printed money, don't have to take the same risk as the people who have borrow it to create value. The "unfair" part is the part where money is printed, and given away for "free" to "investors" who don't "deserve" it, but make the argument that without them, the system will collapse because market valuations have been distorted for so long that only prolonged distortion can stabilize it. Its not some nefarious scheme, its just the best way that has arisen to do things thus far. It wasn't "designed" or "planned" and in order to make the system more efficient, a new method of transactions needs to be established, and many groups are working hard to come up with a cryptocurrency to solve this problem. Regarding interest and "usury" there is no difference, because there is no definition for "unreasonable" interest. I have an irresponsible friend, that I know if I give $100 to, there's a 1% chance that I will get my money back. So than why would I give him money at a rate that would be unprofitable for me when I can do other more useful things with it? Say I have another friend who I have good reason to believe will give me back my money 99% within our agreement. Obviously the second would get a better interest rate because there is less risk and he might be more useful with the money than I could be. How do you calculate risk? Well let 10,000 other people with money offer him better terms (driving down the interest rate) if they think my judgement is wrong, and if it turns out to be the case they make money, if not they lose money. Its not for you to say, ALL Investors you have to get involved with the business, for one, the person receiving the money might not want to give up control, nor the investor give it, because that might not be his area of expertise. Then again, maybe it is, and you have specific investors called VC's that do get involved. Its actually ridiculous that people in the 21st century could consider the usury argument valid and actually praise Dogmatism. The greater concern is actually about creating and maintaining a competitive marketplace of creators and investors, then about the rates they charge -which is determined by simple supply and demand. Try limiting the rates to your definition of "Fair", see what happens. Hint: Google "the cobra effect".
• SubiculumCode 7y ago
  Sounds like they are doing everything they can to not do the helicopter drops they should probably be doing.