3 ms·

As other posters have mentioned, but to put a little more emphasis on how this worked: the Christian world of early to middle Europe banned Christians collectin

As other posters have mentioned, but to put a little more emphasis on how this worked: the Christian world of early to middle Europe banned Christians collecting interest on loans (which, effectively, banned Christians from operating loan-based financial service businesses). They didn't ban interest on loans in general, and in fact depended on loans with interest. They outsourced their financial services to their minority Jewish populations, and then every hundred years or so when the interest payments piled up too high, they evicted and/or massacred all their Jews, and seized their property. Not a great deal for the Jews! Although they were also legally barred from doing almost any other work (they could also be tax-collectors, which was hardly a better job)[1]. But it's definitely not the case that the civilizations of Christian Europe didn't have loans with interest. This was also largely true in Islamic societies: they did rely on loans with interest, by once again relying on their minority Jewish population to provide financial services. [2] Unlike the Christians, though, the Muslims generally paid back their loans instead of murdering their creditors. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_antisemitism#Restrictions_to_marginal_occupations_(tax_collecting,_moneylending,_etc.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_antisemitism#Restrict... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riba#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riba#History

rossdavidh 7y ago
True, but "ok we will have interest but periodically massacre the people interest is owed to", is much like not having interest, except nastier. You are, in a sense, avoiding the problem of an interest load spiraling up out of control. But, it's true, it was not a perfect ban, but it certainly did have the practical impact of not allowing those to whom interest is owed, from hijacking control of the state. Again, not in a good way, but I think it shows that long-lived civilizations eventually find that the Mathew Effect is particularly strong with interest, and must be reined in somehow. Hopefully in a better way than the medieval Christian one.
- reissbaker 7y ago
  Or, alternatively, you could notice how the Islamic states managed to do exactly the same thing but without massacres.
hangonhn 7y ago
It's actually much, much more devious than that in the Christian world. In England, Jews aren't consider the subject of the local lords. They're subjects of the king directly so they paid their taxes to him directly. Thus by raising taxes on the Jews, the kings of Englands were able to indirectly tax his nobles (because the cost would be passed on to their creditors) while throwing the Jews under the bus. This is why you see at various times in English history that the nobles call for the eviction of the Jews.

rossdavidh 7y ago

True, but "ok we will have interest but periodically massacre the people interest is owed to", is much like not having interest, except nastier. You are, in a sense, avoiding the problem of an interest load spiraling up out of control. But, it's true, it was not a perfect ban, but it certainly did have the practical impact of not allowing those to whom interest is owed, from hijacking control of the state. Again, not in a good way, but I think it shows that long-lived civilizations eventually find that the Mathew Effect is particularly strong with interest, and must be reined in somehow. Hopefully in a better way than the medieval Christian one.

reissbaker 7y ago
Or, alternatively, you could notice how the Islamic states managed to do exactly the same thing but without massacres.

hangonhn 7y ago

It's actually much, much more devious than that in the Christian world. In England, Jews aren't consider the subject of the local lords. They're subjects of the king directly so they paid their taxes to him directly. Thus by raising taxes on the Jews, the kings of Englands were able to indirectly tax his nobles (because the cost would be passed on to their creditors) while throwing the Jews under the bus. This is why you see at various times in English history that the nobles call for the eviction of the Jews.