4 ms·

> houses would be at prices which people can afford through their salary. Isn’t this how a mortgage works? Put some money down, and allocate a portion of your

> houses would be at prices which people can afford through their salary. Isn’t this how a mortgage works? Put some money down, and allocate a portion of your monthly salary to pay the remainder. > Interest seeks to empower people who have money by making them more and more richer. The largest and most profitable companies in the world are oil/gas and technology. Wealth inequality would definitely still exist

monlockandkey 4y ago
With a mortgage, you are usually paying for an asset for 20+ years because the cost of the house is really high. It is "bondage" in a sense. Without a mortgage system, at most a few years of saving to fully buy a house. I understand what you are saying when you think it is a similar thing, just the scale of numbers is different. Debt is a responsibility, and a really serious one. At all costs avoid it because there is no guarantee you will have the capabilities to pay it back + interest . If we can champion a system whereby buying assets does not involve an individual taking on a life destroying risk and instead they can use their normal income to save up in a reasonable amount of time, then this would be the best way. Yes there will always be people and entities that are richer than the rest. The aim is not to squash every class into the same income bracket, rather stop the propogation of abuse that rich companies inflict by extracting wealth from the poor. Stoping usurious interest loans means the economic interaction of rich with the poor. If they want to make money from their hoard, then they have to engage with the lower class on a level playing field (in terms of risk) with investing. In stark contrast to sitting on a throne and receiving guaranteed wealth from poor people who have no choice but to take on soul crushing debt. An endless treadmill of debt which failing to pay substantially speeds it up until an individual can not sustain themselves.
- quesera 4y ago
  > Without a mortgage system, at most a few years of saving to fully buy a house. Bizarre statement. You should look at the cost to build a house. And the cost of maintenance. Builders don't make obscene profits. You can cherry pick good years, but you need to average over 10-20 years. You can buy an older/used house for significantly less than its replacement cost. Are you arguing that without the mortgage system, skilled trades would work for lower wages? Labor is 70% of the cost of building a house. Materials are 25%, Paperwork is 5%. Would lower wages for skilled trades be a good thing? For whom? Land cost varies from almost 0% to more than 100% of the build cost, depending on location.
- throwaway3838g 4y ago
  Thanks for the explanation. Do you think humans will find creative ways to make non-usurious interest loans usurious? I am doubting that the line will be as clear as you describe. It sounds good in theory but the reality will be far more complex. Perhaps the solution to such a complex problem isn’t as simple as a “do this and don’t do that”. Perhaps a complex problem should be looked at more multi-dimensionally. Like most things, loans can be good and loans can be bad. Context matters. The rule of law is meant to protect people and keep the economy healthy. The law is ever-evolving. Sometimes it comes up short but in a healthy nation it can adapt itself to the times. Regarding mortgage, most people in the west use their home as their retirement fund. After 10-15 years of ownership, the house is often worth twice as much as their total mortgage. The difference between what the outstanding debt and the value of the asset is called equity, and this can be quite substantial.

monlockandkey 4y ago

With a mortgage, you are usually paying for an asset for 20+ years because the cost of the house is really high. It is "bondage" in a sense. Without a mortgage system, at most a few years of saving to fully buy a house. I understand what you are saying when you think it is a similar thing, just the scale of numbers is different. Debt is a responsibility, and a really serious one. At all costs avoid it because there is no guarantee you will have the capabilities to pay it back + interest . If we can champion a system whereby buying assets does not involve an individual taking on a life destroying risk and instead they can use their normal income to save up in a reasonable amount of time, then this would be the best way. Yes there will always be people and entities that are richer than the rest. The aim is not to squash every class into the same income bracket, rather stop the propogation of abuse that rich companies inflict by extracting wealth from the poor. Stoping usurious interest loans means the economic interaction of rich with the poor. If they want to make money from their hoard, then they have to engage with the lower class on a level playing field (in terms of risk) with investing. In stark contrast to sitting on a throne and receiving guaranteed wealth from poor people who have no choice but to take on soul crushing debt. An endless treadmill of debt which failing to pay substantially speeds it up until an individual can not sustain themselves.

quesera 4y ago
> Without a mortgage system, at most a few years of saving to fully buy a house. Bizarre statement. You should look at the cost to build a house. And the cost of maintenance. Builders don't make obscene profits. You can cherry pick good years, but you need to average over 10-20 years. You can buy an older/used house for significantly less than its replacement cost. Are you arguing that without the mortgage system, skilled trades would work for lower wages? Labor is 70% of the cost of building a house. Materials are 25%, Paperwork is 5%. Would lower wages for skilled trades be a good thing? For whom? Land cost varies from almost 0% to more than 100% of the build cost, depending on location.
throwaway3838g 4y ago
Thanks for the explanation. Do you think humans will find creative ways to make non-usurious interest loans usurious? I am doubting that the line will be as clear as you describe. It sounds good in theory but the reality will be far more complex. Perhaps the solution to such a complex problem isn’t as simple as a “do this and don’t do that”. Perhaps a complex problem should be looked at more multi-dimensionally. Like most things, loans can be good and loans can be bad. Context matters. The rule of law is meant to protect people and keep the economy healthy. The law is ever-evolving. Sometimes it comes up short but in a healthy nation it can adapt itself to the times. Regarding mortgage, most people in the west use their home as their retirement fund. After 10-15 years of ownership, the house is often worth twice as much as their total mortgage. The difference between what the outstanding debt and the value of the asset is called equity, and this can be quite substantial.