Indeed. What an arrogant statement. A true investment shares in the risk. That's what the whole "skin in the game" talk was about soon after the subprime mortga

Indeed. What an arrogant statement. A true investment shares in the risk. That's what the whole "skin in the game" talk was about soon after the subprime mortgage crisis. And besides, housing (or debt!) is not per se an investment for the banks, but a place for people to live that they can own. Usury (which effectively includes all compound interest) is banned in Islamic banking, and condemned by the Catholic Church (still is and always will be, contrary to misconception), for a reason. And it will impoverish your society and drive it into debt slavery, and put it at the mercy of the lenders. We need banking, we need finance, but these are only legitimate when they make money from licit investments in productive enterprise, and from legitimate service fees, not compound interest. When I hear arguments like "well, the banker has to charge interest, because why else would he loan money?" or "he has to charge interest because he might not get his money back, and because of opportunity cost", I am floored. This is shameless narcissism. No one forced the banker to loan money. Lending is not supposed to be about making money. If you are making lots of money off lending, then you are by definition stealing it, because housing is not a productive asset where the loan is concerned. You aren't funding a startup that you have good reason to believe will make a profit from its labor and resulting value.