3 ms·

The lender is paid for the service of lending money out (which incurs risk). You want to incentivize this behavior. Without interest, it would be harder for pe

The lender is paid for the service of lending money out (which incurs risk). You want to incentivize this behavior. Without interest, it would be harder for people to get loans. Lots of financial services wouldn’t exist (or would demand some other form of payment). This would keep people who aren’t already rich unable to access capital. People react to incentives, good incentives lead to beneficial behavior. Interest is extremely net positive, both for lenders and for borrowers (and society). Everyone wins. Crashes aren’t really built into the system or a fault of capitalism, they happen because problems are hard to predict and the environment changes. The wealth created isn’t only for the rich: https://press.stripe.com/#stubborn-attachments https://press.stripe.com/#stubborn-attachments everyone benefits from economic growth. I think Islamic law (or really any religious framework) has very little of value to say on the topic of morality or running a productive society.

gher-shyu3i 6y ago
> The lender is paid for the service of lending money out (which incurs risk). You want to incentivize this behavior. Not all forms of payment are ethical or moral (e.g. prostitution). This is an exploitative practice, and should definitely not be incentivized as we've seen time and time again the destructive effect it has on society and the economic system. > This would keep people who aren’t already rich unable to access capital. This is why Islam has Zakat laws to ensure the poor are lifted out of poverty. We keep seeing the dems trying to solve the problem by increasing taxation, but to no avail. Islam solved the problem over 1400 years ago. > I think Islamic law (or really any religious framework) has very little of value to say on the topic of morality or running a productive society. Morality does not exist without religion. Secondly, Islam has proven to have run one of the most successful societies of all time, and definitely the most moral since Islam came. We still benefit of the discoveries made during the Islamic Golden Age.
- fossuser 6y ago
  > "Not all forms of payment are ethical or moral" Ok sure, but interest is fine. > "This is why Islam has Zakat laws to ensure the poor are lifted out of poverty." Charity isn't as good as letting people get access to capital that they can leverage for themselves. We're not going to agree on this so can probably leave it here. I will say I think morality exists in spite of religion. It's not hard to pick out examples where Islam fails on the morality issue, see: women's rights and the recent Charlie Hebdo murders, both driven by ideology. This is off-topic flame war material though.
  - gher-shyu3i 6y ago
    > Ok sure, but interest is fine. As I originally pointed out, interest is prohibited in Islam, Judaism, and Christianity (at least) for a good reason. It's not ethical nor moral, in fact, it's destructive and parasitic. > Charity isn't as good as letting people get access to capital that they can leverage for themselves. It lifts people out of poverty to get them on their feet. There are many funds that provide people with access to capital (e.g. accelerators). Capital is not limited to interest bearing loans. The simplest example is pitching an idea to investors who in return own a portion of a potential company. If it works out, both parties benefit, otherwise, both parties equally took on the risk. > women's rights Those are cherry picked by anti-Islamic rhetoric drivers who have shown their ignorance and lies time and time again, and whose arguments fall apart the moment they're critically discussed. It's really meaningless talk that gets thrown around. > and the recent Charlie Hebdo murders, Easy refutation: you're going to have to show that Islam itself condones or required such murders to take place.
    - fossuser 6y ago
      You just state it’s destructive for ideological reasons because of religious law, that’s not a good argument and it ignores contrary evidence. Why is taking a percentage of someone’s company better? If anything that’s more exploitive. On women’s rights: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An-Nisa,_34 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An-Nisa,_34 You’re the one cherry picking here and rationalizing anything that doesn’t fit into a narrative you’ve already decided is true. There won’t be any ability for us to agree, because you can’t update based on new evidence. https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/CqyJzDZWvGhhFJ7dY/belief-in-belief https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/CqyJzDZWvGhhFJ7dY/belief-in-... You can pretend Charlie Hebdo and any other negative action that’s clearly driven by ideologically motivated Islam is not “true Islam”, but then you’re just creating some special reference class that ignores the bad stuff. I’m not trying to get into a fight. It’s rare for religious people to break free from their religion, but it’s possible. I succeeded when I was young and seeing counter arguments is part of it.
      - gher-shyu3i 6y ago
- selimthegrim 6y ago
  So, how is ISIS doing on the Islamic morality scale?
  - gher-shyu3i 6y ago
    Terribly. I do not want to be in their place when they face God.

gher-shyu3i 6y ago

> The lender is paid for the service of lending money out (which incurs risk). You want to incentivize this behavior. Not all forms of payment are ethical or moral (e.g. prostitution). This is an exploitative practice, and should definitely not be incentivized as we've seen time and time again the destructive effect it has on society and the economic system. > This would keep people who aren’t already rich unable to access capital. This is why Islam has Zakat laws to ensure the poor are lifted out of poverty. We keep seeing the dems trying to solve the problem by increasing taxation, but to no avail. Islam solved the problem over 1400 years ago. > I think Islamic law (or really any religious framework) has very little of value to say on the topic of morality or running a productive society. Morality does not exist without religion. Secondly, Islam has proven to have run one of the most successful societies of all time, and definitely the most moral since Islam came. We still benefit of the discoveries made during the Islamic Golden Age.

fossuser 6y ago
> "Not all forms of payment are ethical or moral" Ok sure, but interest is fine. > "This is why Islam has Zakat laws to ensure the poor are lifted out of poverty." Charity isn't as good as letting people get access to capital that they can leverage for themselves. We're not going to agree on this so can probably leave it here. I will say I think morality exists in spite of religion. It's not hard to pick out examples where Islam fails on the morality issue, see: women's rights and the recent Charlie Hebdo murders, both driven by ideology. This is off-topic flame war material though.
- gher-shyu3i 6y ago
  > Ok sure, but interest is fine. As I originally pointed out, interest is prohibited in Islam, Judaism, and Christianity (at least) for a good reason. It's not ethical nor moral, in fact, it's destructive and parasitic. > Charity isn't as good as letting people get access to capital that they can leverage for themselves. It lifts people out of poverty to get them on their feet. There are many funds that provide people with access to capital (e.g. accelerators). Capital is not limited to interest bearing loans. The simplest example is pitching an idea to investors who in return own a portion of a potential company. If it works out, both parties benefit, otherwise, both parties equally took on the risk. > women's rights Those are cherry picked by anti-Islamic rhetoric drivers who have shown their ignorance and lies time and time again, and whose arguments fall apart the moment they're critically discussed. It's really meaningless talk that gets thrown around. > and the recent Charlie Hebdo murders, Easy refutation: you're going to have to show that Islam itself condones or required such murders to take place.
  - fossuser 6y ago
    You just state it’s destructive for ideological reasons because of religious law, that’s not a good argument and it ignores contrary evidence. Why is taking a percentage of someone’s company better? If anything that’s more exploitive. On women’s rights: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An-Nisa,_34 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An-Nisa,_34 You’re the one cherry picking here and rationalizing anything that doesn’t fit into a narrative you’ve already decided is true. There won’t be any ability for us to agree, because you can’t update based on new evidence. https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/CqyJzDZWvGhhFJ7dY/belief-in-belief https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/CqyJzDZWvGhhFJ7dY/belief-in-... You can pretend Charlie Hebdo and any other negative action that’s clearly driven by ideologically motivated Islam is not “true Islam”, but then you’re just creating some special reference class that ignores the bad stuff. I’m not trying to get into a fight. It’s rare for religious people to break free from their religion, but it’s possible. I succeeded when I was young and seeing counter arguments is part of it.
    - gher-shyu3i 6y ago
selimthegrim 6y ago
So, how is ISIS doing on the Islamic morality scale?
- gher-shyu3i 6y ago
  Terribly. I do not want to be in their place when they face God.