8 ms·
Just goes to show how much of a net negative the parasitic banking system is on society.
by apta 6y ago
Just goes to show how much of a net negative the parasitic banking system is on society.
- closeparen 6y agoYour lifestyle must be pretty ascetic then? A society that only contains business bootstrapped by independently wealthy owners is pretty small. Almost everything we have required somebody else's capital to build. There was a reason unemployment spiked when lending stopped in 2008.
- apta 6y agoThere are other ways of bootstrapping businesses: people pitch in money in exchange for owning a percentage of said business. That's exactly using someone else's capital to build, but without the parasitic and immoral practice of lending with usury (aka interest).
- unishark 6y agoThat's not bootstrapping, just investment funding. We have that, though many still prefer debt financing instead for whatever reason. For example you can often get money "cheaper" via debt versus giving up too much ownership.
- apta 6y agoPreferring something doesn't automatically make it good or acceptable. Just like how some people prefer to smoke or prefer to gamble or prefer to drink. Regarding your point, debt today is only cheaper because it is available and widely pushed by the government through banks. If lending money on interest were hypothetically banned, then everything would have to change, and we'd have a fair equilibrium.
- closeparen 6y agoWhat exactly is the moral framework that makes equity financing okay but debt financing not? The financier is still getting a consideration in exchange for his capital.
- pbhjpbhj 6y agoLock up all capital with a small group of individuals and you will then need to acquire that capital in order to create large projects, that's pretty truistic. A system where you instead has to convince a "capital" assignment group (really a work+resources assignment)- who would only profit if your project benefitted society - could also work. You'd get different assignment of resources too as ability to extract maximum value from the system and lodge it with a small group of capital holders wouldn't be the principle aim. This only works with systems where everyone is on board and there are no greedy people, ...
- apta 6y agoIt may come as a surprise to people, but there have been societies which banned interest/usury, yet got things done just fine (e.g. Islam bans usury, but the Islamic Golden Age speaks for itself). Even until relatively recently, when Western colonialists forced their usurious banking system onto Islamic nations post WWII, things were done interest-free.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- andresgottlieb 6y agoComing from a jewish background (Judaism also "bans interest/usury"), I advise you to take these rules with a grain of salt. In the case of Judaism, there were (sometimes still are) many tricks to the system, for example: you could lend with interest to non-jews, you could have and trade slaves, etc. I'd assume Islam, being similar to Judaism, uses the same kind of tricks. For example, after a quick search, I found this: "The common view of riba (usury) among classical jurists of Islamic law and economics during the Islamic Golden Age was that it is only riba and therefore unlawful to apply interest to money exnatura sua— exclusively gold and silver currencies—but that it is not riba and is therefore acceptable to apply interest to fiat money—currencies made up of other materials such as paper or base metals—to an extent." Source: https://books.google.cl/books?id=1MKrCQAAQBAJ&pg=PA23&lpg=PA23&dq=%22surplus+value+without+counterpart%22+%22to+ensure+equivalency+in+real+value%22&redir_esc=y&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=true https://books.google.cl/books?id=1MKrCQAAQBAJ&pg=PA23&lpg=PA...
- vangelis 6y agoPostal banking!