> The argument is that we have known for literally thousands of years that charging interest on loans is a destructive practice. We don’t know that, we only kn

> The argument is that we have known for literally thousands of years that charging interest on loans is a destructive practice. We don’t know that, we only know that Abrahamic theocrats have prohibited it. > They're owed more money than the capital. That's what is prohibited. It doesn't matter if it's profit or revenue. Yes, this is foolish. > Banks operate and generate ridiculous profits on this basis. Banks generate ridiculous profits in fractional reserve banking. In a system where they have to survive on the difference between interest collected and interest paid then they only profit when they make good loans and are able to collect them in a timely manner. > So the law can't protect the contract? What's the point in writing a contract then in the first place? How does the law draw blood from a stone? You yourself said the law is wrong for continuously accumulating interest on an unpaid debt. It seems youkve forgotten the problems you already identified. > Take that away and no business contract makes sense anymore since it can't be enforced by the law. This only applies to the business contract that we have both identified as problematic.