10 ms·
Someone buying a tractor on a loan doesn’t take away someone else’s ability to buy a tractor. We have no shortage of tractors. Practically all new tractors toda
by xyzzyz 2y ago
Someone buying a tractor on a loan doesn’t take away someone else’s ability to buy a tractor. We have no shortage of tractors. Practically all new tractors today are bought on a loan, by the way.
Imagine what would happen if loans on tractors would not be allowed. Then, someone who needs a tractor would need to rent it, instead of buying it. In that world, pretty much the same people who use tractors now would also use tractors. Tractors use would be similarly allocated as today. The main difference is that instead of a bank earning income by renting you money, it would earn income by renting you tractors. The ultimate outcome would be effectively the same.
Loans is just renting, but instead of renting physical objects, you rent money. If you object to renting money, all your objections should apply to renting physical things. Have you thought of that?
- Anotheroneagain 2y agoYes, I have. It's not the same thing. Money isn't a resource that is objectively needed, its role is to regulate economy. You could do anything that you do just as well without it, if people could agree on it. It isn't like a tractor that is needed, and there is no problem with renting tractors. The problem is that you do use money in your example: you use it to store your savings. By lending it,it gets used twice - once to buy the tractor, the second time it's still used to store your savings. It does take away somebody's ability to buy a tractor, as you buy one, so there is one less, or one extra needs to be manufactured. That can also be a problem - too many tractors can be created, so that food gets so cheap that it's basically free,and the farmers now can't make money. Which is what literally happened in the great deoression.