4 ms·

> Our system is 100% entirely dependent upon ARTIFICIALLY low interest rates driven by Central Banks. It's the other way around: the entire reason why everythi

by apta 6y ago

> Our system is 100% entirely dependent upon ARTIFICIALLY low interest rates driven by Central Banks. It's the other way around: the entire reason why everything is so screwed is because of interest. It's an evil and exploitative practice that has destroyed so many people, only for a relative few to become wealthy. It's obvious today how this works out, but it's been going on for thousands of years, which is why it's banned in many religions, and for good reason.

hpkuarg 6y ago
A moral argument against the time value of money? Isn't that like legislating that the value of pi is 3?
- apta 6y ago
  It's a moral argument against the inherent exploitation involved in usury. No one denies the time value of money, it's about how to extract that value morally and ethically, and not at the expense of the needy.
  - missedthecue 6y ago
    A loan is when someone sells money. The interest is the profit to compensate for the risk. Is all profit, (including that derived from selling labour) to be thought of as theft? Should everyone sell everything at cost to avoid "exploiting" others?
    - apta 6y ago
      Selling money is unethical because of the inherent exploitation involved, by taking advantage of someone who is in need of it. No one is saying not to make profit, just do it properly. You can rationalize interest as being compensated for risk, but it doesn't make any less exploitative. We have already seen how the economy keeps getting screwed, yet we don't learn.
      - missedthecue 6y ago
        "Selling money is unethical because of the inherent exploitation involved, by taking advantage of someone who is in need of it" This logic holds no water. The great majority of things sold are sold to people to need them. Why should money be any exception?
        apta 6y ago
        When you're selling a good or a service, you're exchanging one type for another, usually hand-in-hand. You buy food, furniture, etc. in exchange for money. There's value in the thing you're selling in exchange for a certain amount of money (which also has value). When you sell money for money, this equation breaks. You're exchanging $1 for a different amount in the future, taking advantage of the fact that the borrower cannot pay you in the present. This is what defines interest and usury. It's easy to get bogged down in the details to legislate or rationalize a certain action. Take a step back and see the destruction that interest based lending has caused throughout history, and in the present.
        missedthecue 6y ago
        The increase in money lending us directly correlated with a vast increase in the standard of living for the average human. Just because you buy a dollar rather than a shirt does not suddenly make you exploited. Imagine if everything debt is used for had to be bought in full. Very few people would own homes. Very few capital investment projects would be undertaken. Very few automobiles would be owned. Your life is far better because debt exists. There is no society where debt does not exist that is doing better than societies that allow debt.
        apta 6y ago
        > The increase in money lending us directly correlated with a vast increase in the standard of living for the average human. You said it yourself, it's correlation, not causation. There are other factors that occurred in that time frame that increased the standard of living for people. > Imagine if everything debt is used for had to be bought in full That's how things were generally run back in the day, people saved up, then bought what they wanted. Also, people purchased on installments. Your argument is basically that the ends justifies the means. That economic growth is the end goal, sell more cars, etc. so we need to put everyone in debt. We are already seeing the huge wealth gaps that exist in hyper capitalistic societies, due to no small part to running everything on interest and other immoral practices. I posit that if there were no interest, things would be more fair, and producers would have to reduce prices, making it easier for people to own stuff, compared to the inflation we see.
  - voisin 6y ago
    What are you proposing as a solution? Is this a situation along the lines of “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others”? People with capital need an incentive to provide it to people without capital. You can argue reasonably that the distribution of capital isn’t “fair” but to argue there should be no interest charged seems irrational. Help me understand your position.
    - apta 6y ago
      There are true risk sharing models that do not involve interest. For example, I want to start a business, instead of taking a interest-bearing loan, I have someone invest in my business in return for equity. This way, risk is shared by both (or more) of us. If the business fails, we both lost effort and money and time. If it succeeds, we both profit. With lending money, there's usually a collateral involved. If the borrower defaults, then the lender simply comes after his property, taking more than what was originally lent, purely by the passing of time (which accrues interest). When you read about student loans for instance, especially higher loans for people who go into law or med schools, how even after those people are employed and making good money, their outstanding amounts barely budge (or even accrue) even after a while. This is unjust, unfair, unethical, and exploitative.

by apta 6y ago

hpkuarg 6y ago

A moral argument against the time value of money? Isn't that like legislating that the value of pi is 3?

apta 6y ago
It's a moral argument against the inherent exploitation involved in usury. No one denies the time value of money, it's about how to extract that value morally and ethically, and not at the expense of the needy.
- missedthecue 6y ago
  A loan is when someone sells money. The interest is the profit to compensate for the risk. Is all profit, (including that derived from selling labour) to be thought of as theft? Should everyone sell everything at cost to avoid "exploiting" others?
  - apta 6y ago
    Selling money is unethical because of the inherent exploitation involved, by taking advantage of someone who is in need of it. No one is saying not to make profit, just do it properly. You can rationalize interest as being compensated for risk, but it doesn't make any less exploitative. We have already seen how the economy keeps getting screwed, yet we don't learn.
    - missedthecue 6y ago
      "Selling money is unethical because of the inherent exploitation involved, by taking advantage of someone who is in need of it" This logic holds no water. The great majority of things sold are sold to people to need them. Why should money be any exception?
      - apta 6y ago
        When you're selling a good or a service, you're exchanging one type for another, usually hand-in-hand. You buy food, furniture, etc. in exchange for money. There's value in the thing you're selling in exchange for a certain amount of money (which also has value). When you sell money for money, this equation breaks. You're exchanging $1 for a different amount in the future, taking advantage of the fact that the borrower cannot pay you in the present. This is what defines interest and usury. It's easy to get bogged down in the details to legislate or rationalize a certain action. Take a step back and see the destruction that interest based lending has caused throughout history, and in the present.
        missedthecue 6y ago
        The increase in money lending us directly correlated with a vast increase in the standard of living for the average human. Just because you buy a dollar rather than a shirt does not suddenly make you exploited. Imagine if everything debt is used for had to be bought in full. Very few people would own homes. Very few capital investment projects would be undertaken. Very few automobiles would be owned. Your life is far better because debt exists. There is no society where debt does not exist that is doing better than societies that allow debt.
        apta 6y ago
        > The increase in money lending us directly correlated with a vast increase in the standard of living for the average human. You said it yourself, it's correlation, not causation. There are other factors that occurred in that time frame that increased the standard of living for people. > Imagine if everything debt is used for had to be bought in full That's how things were generally run back in the day, people saved up, then bought what they wanted. Also, people purchased on installments. Your argument is basically that the ends justifies the means. That economic growth is the end goal, sell more cars, etc. so we need to put everyone in debt. We are already seeing the huge wealth gaps that exist in hyper capitalistic societies, due to no small part to running everything on interest and other immoral practices. I posit that if there were no interest, things would be more fair, and producers would have to reduce prices, making it easier for people to own stuff, compared to the inflation we see.
- voisin 6y ago
  What are you proposing as a solution? Is this a situation along the lines of “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others”? People with capital need an incentive to provide it to people without capital. You can argue reasonably that the distribution of capital isn’t “fair” but to argue there should be no interest charged seems irrational. Help me understand your position.
  - apta 6y ago
    There are true risk sharing models that do not involve interest. For example, I want to start a business, instead of taking a interest-bearing loan, I have someone invest in my business in return for equity. This way, risk is shared by both (or more) of us. If the business fails, we both lost effort and money and time. If it succeeds, we both profit. With lending money, there's usually a collateral involved. If the borrower defaults, then the lender simply comes after his property, taking more than what was originally lent, purely by the passing of time (which accrues interest). When you read about student loans for instance, especially higher loans for people who go into law or med schools, how even after those people are employed and making good money, their outstanding amounts barely budge (or even accrue) even after a while. This is unjust, unfair, unethical, and exploitative.