3 ms·

My point is that banning debt wouldn't cause starvation. Apologies for the terminology, the other commenter is right that I was using the original meaning. I d

My point is that banning debt wouldn't cause starvation. Apologies for the terminology, the other commenter is right that I was using the original meaning. I don't think the rate of interest is relevant since the mechanisms that make debt dangerous still exist at 7% or 70%. Lending to a "No Income No Asset" person who has 0 chance of paying off the debt is immoral at any interest rate. I'm interested why you think the GFC is the "opposite" problem. Immoral lending was central in that story.

sanderjd 4y ago
Lending money is like the grease in the gears of a liberal economy. In countries with such economies, the ability to purchase food is downstream of the economy operating smoothly. If you entirely remove the grease from the gears and the economy siezes up, you do put the ability for people to get food at risk. Agricultural business rely on lending, businesses that transport goods rely on lending, businesses that sell goods rely on lending. Sure, you can potentially avoid mass starvation by having a government step in and direct all that top-down. But that has been far from a universally successful "solution" in fairly recent history. I agree that lending to individuals without assets or income is immoral. That is a very small sliver of debt activity. Lending to a business based on an analysis of their future earnings potential is not immoral. It is a risk, but that's the business banks are in. Honestly in the light of the day I'm not sure what point I was trying to make about the GFC, so I'll give you that one :)
- brutusborn 4y ago
  I agree with everything besides “business X relies on lending.” Businesses _in the west_ rely on lending. Islamic businesses _cannot_ morally or legally rely on lending, so they must have alternatives. And if you look at the alternatives you will realise that debt is not essential. Sure, if all western governments banned lending tomorrow there would be crisis, but because any major change shocks an economy, not because economies _need_ debt. Haha I knew you’d come around about the GFC, it’s definitely not a good example of the superiority of Western Financial system LOL
  - sanderjd 4y ago
    Like I've been saying, businesses either rely on lending, or they rely on a state directing things from the top down. The alternatives are giant sovereign wealth funds. I think lending is much better. I've actually come back around on the GFC thing :) The way in which it's the opposite is that with the GFC we had low inflation and high unemployment and right now we have high inflation and low unemployment.
    - brutusborn 4y ago
      You can keep repeating yourself, but it is still false. I've provided an existence proof of why it is false, and you have supplied..."I've been saying" The GFC was caused by bad lending regardless of the levels of inflation and employment. Of course you are free to keep believing it's the "opposite." Doubling down on preconceived ideas is a pretty good strategy to never learn anything new. I'd prefer if you would provide a reason for your beliefs because I might learn something if your reasons contradict my own. Sorry if I sound harsh but it feels like I'm responding to an echo.

sanderjd 4y ago

Lending money is like the grease in the gears of a liberal economy. In countries with such economies, the ability to purchase food is downstream of the economy operating smoothly. If you entirely remove the grease from the gears and the economy siezes up, you do put the ability for people to get food at risk. Agricultural business rely on lending, businesses that transport goods rely on lending, businesses that sell goods rely on lending. Sure, you can potentially avoid mass starvation by having a government step in and direct all that top-down. But that has been far from a universally successful "solution" in fairly recent history. I agree that lending to individuals without assets or income is immoral. That is a very small sliver of debt activity. Lending to a business based on an analysis of their future earnings potential is not immoral. It is a risk, but that's the business banks are in. Honestly in the light of the day I'm not sure what point I was trying to make about the GFC, so I'll give you that one :)

brutusborn 4y ago
I agree with everything besides “business X relies on lending.” Businesses _in the west_ rely on lending. Islamic businesses _cannot_ morally or legally rely on lending, so they must have alternatives. And if you look at the alternatives you will realise that debt is not essential. Sure, if all western governments banned lending tomorrow there would be crisis, but because any major change shocks an economy, not because economies _need_ debt. Haha I knew you’d come around about the GFC, it’s definitely not a good example of the superiority of Western Financial system LOL
- sanderjd 4y ago
  Like I've been saying, businesses either rely on lending, or they rely on a state directing things from the top down. The alternatives are giant sovereign wealth funds. I think lending is much better. I've actually come back around on the GFC thing :) The way in which it's the opposite is that with the GFC we had low inflation and high unemployment and right now we have high inflation and low unemployment.
  - brutusborn 4y ago
    You can keep repeating yourself, but it is still false. I've provided an existence proof of why it is false, and you have supplied..."I've been saying" The GFC was caused by bad lending regardless of the levels of inflation and employment. Of course you are free to keep believing it's the "opposite." Doubling down on preconceived ideas is a pretty good strategy to never learn anything new. I'd prefer if you would provide a reason for your beliefs because I might learn something if your reasons contradict my own. Sorry if I sound harsh but it feels like I'm responding to an echo.