7 ms·

This, along with innumerable other things like lifting the ban on usurious interest rates, is ultimately a consequence of the same phenomenon Nietzsche describe

This, along with innumerable other things like lifting the ban on usurious interest rates, is ultimately a consequence of the same phenomenon Nietzsche describes as “the death of God.” We have forgotten the deeper reasons that certain things were prohibited or discouraged, assuming that these rules were only there because of a belief in a religion society doesn’t follow anymore. That was a naive view and it turns out that many “old” rules are actually pragmatic social codes disguised as beliefs. This isn’t limited to a particular tradition, either: pretty much every major religion has frowned upon things like gambling. And so in the absence of any real coherent philosophy that aims to deal with complex problems like gambling, addiction, or excessive interest rates, you’re only going to get an expansion of what is already dominant: markets. Don’t expect this to change until knowledge of ethics and philosophy becomes widespread enough to establish a new mental model for thinking about these issues.

hgomersall 2y ago
What are usurious interest rates? Is some amount of interest ok?
- keiferski 2y ago
  Depends on whom you ask, but this case had a major effect on removing restrictions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marquette_National_Bank_of_Minneapolis_v._First_of_Omaha_Service_Corp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marquette_National_Bank_of_Min.... Prior to that, usury laws existed in most states that restricted consumer loans to something like 5-13%. Personally I don’t have an issue with the concept of interest itself, but if you look at the huge amount of Americans in debt paying 20-30% on credit cards, it certainly seems excessive and usurious to me.
- CamelCaseName 2y ago
  It depends (especially with inflation), and yes.
  - hgomersall 2y ago
    So it's ok to have high interest rates with the hope it will cause unemployment in the hope that reduces inflation?
    - aprilthird2021 2y ago
      Probably yeah, that's not usurious. Usurious is where you are basically using the loan to give you an excuse to repo / sell off the assets or collateral of the debtor.
      - potato3732842 2y ago
        >using the loan to give you an excuse to repo / sell off the assets or collateral of the debtor. <cough> buy here pay here car lots <cough>.
    - fdfgyu 2y ago
      People cannot borrow money from the central bank. Also, the deflationary effects of high interest rates are not because it causes unemployment, but because it reduced the rate of increase of the money supply. Of course, lowered money is recessionary, which leads to unemployment which puts downward pressure on wages; but wages aren't the reason for inflation - the increase in monetary mass is.
      - throwaway2037 2y ago
        Overall, I like this post. Solid reasoning. This part I have small nitpick about: > Also, the deflationary effects of high interest rates are not because it causes unemployment, but because it reduced the rate of increase of the money supply. I would prefer to say: reduced money supply has an indirect effect upon unemployment. If it costs more to borrow money, corps will expand slower (fewer new jobs), or reduce costs (labour) to increase profits.
        fdfgyu 2y ago
- fodkodrasz 2y ago
  Although not directly interest, but in similar vein: There was once a so called fair profit rate of 4% in the middle ages and early modern age, in Hungary. Greek wine traders operating there featured the number 4 on their seals and ornaments of their houses. (They were also often tried for violating this rule) In those ages of course there was no constant inflation in the current sense, gold standard was used for payments, etc. source, in Hungarian language, the site of the greek ethnic minority's cultural institute (the pictures feature one such ornament): https://gorogintezet.hu/kultura/2022/07/gorog-kereskedok-szerepe-a-borkereskedelemben/ https://gorogintezet.hu/kultura/2022/07/gorog-kereskedok-sze... https://gorogintezet.hu/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/15264.jpg https://gorogintezet.hu/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/15264.jpg
  - sidewndr46 2y ago
    The entire concept of inflation comes from the fact that various Med. cultures figured out you could issue coinage with a high percentage of gold and then slowly drop the percentage over time to increase the purchasing power of the government. It got insanely bad at some points, with "gold" coinage being less than 50% gold. Inflation wasn't just constant, it was an everyday fact of life.
    - ejstronge 2y ago
      > The entire concept of inflation comes from the fact that various Med. cultures figured out you could issue coinage with a high percentage of gold and then slowly drop the percentage over time to increase the purchasing power of the government. It got insanely bad at some points, with "gold" coinage being less than 50% gold. Inflation wasn't just constant, it was an everyday fact of life. I'm not an expert on this - how does this idea differ from that of 'seigniorage' where the sovereign can profit from the creation of money? Your example only addresses the buying power of the sovereign; it's not obvious that it should affect the prices of goods between private parties. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seigniorage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seigniorage
      - TheGeminon 2y ago
- throwaway2037 2y ago
  This is a fair question. It is arbitrary, but usually over 20-30%.
- fdfgyu 2y ago
  Depends who you ask. Historically, no amount of compound interest was allowed because it is immoral to receive what is not yours. Then, in the Middle Ages, Catholic theologians added nuance introducing a concept of time value of money - ie when you lend out $100 you also lose the ability to use that $100 for the time of the loan. The concept of a small interest rate was adopted. Which is fine, except it opened the flood gates until we eventually got the high interest rates we have today. What makes our rates usurious? That they are issued with the issuer knowing the principal will never be paid off.
- jollyllama 2y ago
  As others said, it depends who you ask. The Augustinian view was that usury isn't defined by the rate but when, and I'm explaining this rather poorly, interest is charged for the use of money. Hence "usury." So a typical American mortgage would be usurious in the Augustinian definition, even if the interest rate were, say, 1%. The alternative non-usurious loan would require you to post some other kind of security to receive the money, such as giving the lender the use of some other productive land until the principal debt is paid. More like pawning something at a pawn shop and then buying it back when you get paid.
- gen220 2y ago
  If you're curious, Martin Luther (of Lutheranism) wrote on this [1], summarized here [2] although the original is quite legible. Mercantilism (i.e. profit-making on the exchange of goods) was a very popular way of making ones' livelihood in his time and place, so it was a frequent question religious leaders were asked to weigh in on. Essentially, "how much profit is too much profit?" [1]: (PDF) https://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5018&context=ocj https://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=501... [2]: (PDF) https://history.hanover.edu/hhr/18/HHR2018-fergus.pdf https://history.hanover.edu/hhr/18/HHR2018-fergus.pdf
highwayman47 2y ago
In a couple of years people will feel the same way about college athletes being compensated.
- aprilthird2021 2y ago
  I don't think it's the same though. College athletes don't get addicted to being paid for the work they put in to attract paying spectators, and they don't ruin their families lives with that addiction
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- DonsDiscountGas 2y ago
  There was already tons of money in college sports, having the same overall corrupting influence. Just that the students themselves didn't get any of it. If we want less money around college sports there need to be a lot more rules all over the place to make sure there is less profit to be had. Or we could just let people get paid for labor even though they are also students, which is the fair things to do and it's something we do in just about every other context.
- fdfgyu 2y ago
  It's already ruined college sports, but the old regime was abusive. Million dollar salaries for the coach, hundreds of millions poured into the administration all on the backs of kids who were ruining their health (bad hits, concussions) had no benefits, and nothing to show for it after the left [1]. It was abusive [1] their college tuition was free, but they weren't given an education since they were expected to train 40 hr and TAs were expected to give free passing grades.
- snapcaster 2y ago
  Can you explain more? not a huge sports guy but isn't this an entirely different thing? I've been looking at that situation (from a distance) as messy but overall good to see people compensated for their labor and the physical risks they take on
tgv 2y ago
Gambling was already an issue 100 years ago, when we were closer to God, allegedly. "God" and religion also aren't particularly interested in gambling, or it would have been forbidden in those holy books. On the other hand, you can blame Protestantism directly for subverting individualism to greed, and hence for exploiting human frailty, such as gambling addiction. The only working moral on this mortal coil is a dose of empathy for your fellow human (and if you can bring yourself to it: your fellow animal). It doesn't require a new mental model, just proper stewardship.
- keiferski 2y ago
  Well Nietzsche died in 1900 and was writing about forces he perceived as already under way, long before he was alive. So I don’t think using a hundred years ago as an example really works, and even then, gambling wasn’t the massive legal operation it is today. And yes, most religions have weighed in on gambling as most societies have been shaped by religion. Secularism is a recent thing.
  - tgv 2y ago
    If you think Nietzsche's writing are representative, then we've never been "close to God". > Secularism is a recent thing. Sokrates and Buddha would like a word.
    - keiferski 2y ago
      The death of God idea by Nietzsche is not about a real being actually dying. It is about the concept losing influence on society and what that means for things like ethics. Socrates and Buddha were 2,500 years ago and I don’t think I’d describe them as being secularists. Secularism is something that came out of the Enlightenment, in the West at least. It is absolutely a recent thing for the purposes of the discussion.
    - fdfgyu 2y ago
      To describe Buddha as a secularist would be projecting our modern values onto a man 2500 years ago. Reincarnation, the soul, karma, etc aren't exactly compatible with materialistic secularism.
ccppurcell 2y ago
I have a trivial example: saying grace. As a lapsed catholic I found all manner of religious traditions extremely tedious as a child and especially as a teenager. I expunged all of them as soon as I turned 18. But recently we have been expressing gratitude before meals. This helps me slow down as I've always been a rapid eater and suffered indigestion; I also enjoy the food more as a result. The grace prayer is gratitude to God in whom I no longer believe. But I think acknowledging the enormous role played by pure chance in our lives is very important.
- aprilthird2021 2y ago
  I am the opposite of you, a lapsed atheist I suppose. And I noticed that among the religious there is an openness to professing gratitude about everything. Amongst my secular friends, there is rarely a time anyone professes thankfulness (outside receiving something new). It's not as if the latter are ingrates, but the social ritual of showing gratitude is not there among them, and maybe in some small way, that does breed less thankfulness in the long run...
  - vladms 2y ago
    What is for you the purpose (or result) of (undirected) thankfulness? I find religious people passionate about following the rituals of their religion (for many more than the intention), in a similar way as atheists are passionate about other rituals (their sport, their eating routines, etc.). For me the absence of thankfulness equals more with awareness. Should I be thankful I have a house? I prefer to be annoyed other people don't have, or that I can't do better (ex: have a house that generates less carbon, etc.).
    - tempodox 2y ago
      I found this to be a good answer: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41667503 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41667503
    - anon291 2y ago
      There's a major problem with having too little of a sense of agency. From that we see cycles of poverty and violence from people who seem unable to help themselves. I think this problem is widely recognized. There's however also a problem with too much agency. It breeds anxiety, discontent, unhappiness. Not everything in your life is under your control, and expressing undirected gratitude is one way of acknowledging that.
renewiltord 2y ago
[flagged]
asah 2y ago
Sadly, I'm not sure there's a correlation here: a lot of these learnings and restrictions are newer than secularism.
anon291 2y ago
I think this is honestly ahistorical. While many Christian (speaking about what I know) philosophies would certainly not label gambling a virtue, it's also not widely considered innately sinful. Yes you can do it poorly, but it was always a tolerated evil. I'm not aware of any place other than the puritanical places like America where it's even enters much into the legal discourse. As far as I'm aware, the 'old world' which you reference -- to this day -- has much laxer gambling laws than America. Imagine my surprise when I go to Europe and gambling is everywhere.
- keiferski 2y ago
  Most of Europe is more secular / less religious than America, so I don't know why it would be surprising that they have more lax gambling laws. That only supports my point. It has nothing to do with the geographical Old World.
  - anon291 2y ago
    Even in Europe's religious past, gambling was tolerated. The prohibitions on gambling are uniquely american. In general, America is very puritanical about a wealth of topics (and not just socially conservative ones), which is -- in my opinion -- a result of the descendants of the puritans losing their religion but not their genetic predisposition towards fanaticism.
anthonypasq 2y ago
this presumes everyone is going to the same conclusions about these things
carapace 2y ago
"Of vices I am Gambling." ~Krishna, Gita

hgomersall 2y ago

What are usurious interest rates? Is some amount of interest ok?

keiferski 2y ago
Depends on whom you ask, but this case had a major effect on removing restrictions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marquette_National_Bank_of_Minneapolis_v._First_of_Omaha_Service_Corp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marquette_National_Bank_of_Min.... Prior to that, usury laws existed in most states that restricted consumer loans to something like 5-13%. Personally I don’t have an issue with the concept of interest itself, but if you look at the huge amount of Americans in debt paying 20-30% on credit cards, it certainly seems excessive and usurious to me.
CamelCaseName 2y ago
It depends (especially with inflation), and yes.
- hgomersall 2y ago
  So it's ok to have high interest rates with the hope it will cause unemployment in the hope that reduces inflation?
  - aprilthird2021 2y ago
    Probably yeah, that's not usurious. Usurious is where you are basically using the loan to give you an excuse to repo / sell off the assets or collateral of the debtor.
    - potato3732842 2y ago
      >using the loan to give you an excuse to repo / sell off the assets or collateral of the debtor. <cough> buy here pay here car lots <cough>.
  - fdfgyu 2y ago
    People cannot borrow money from the central bank. Also, the deflationary effects of high interest rates are not because it causes unemployment, but because it reduced the rate of increase of the money supply. Of course, lowered money is recessionary, which leads to unemployment which puts downward pressure on wages; but wages aren't the reason for inflation - the increase in monetary mass is.
    - throwaway2037 2y ago
      Overall, I like this post. Solid reasoning. This part I have small nitpick about: > Also, the deflationary effects of high interest rates are not because it causes unemployment, but because it reduced the rate of increase of the money supply. I would prefer to say: reduced money supply has an indirect effect upon unemployment. If it costs more to borrow money, corps will expand slower (fewer new jobs), or reduce costs (labour) to increase profits.
      - fdfgyu 2y ago
fodkodrasz 2y ago
Although not directly interest, but in similar vein: There was once a so called fair profit rate of 4% in the middle ages and early modern age, in Hungary. Greek wine traders operating there featured the number 4 on their seals and ornaments of their houses. (They were also often tried for violating this rule) In those ages of course there was no constant inflation in the current sense, gold standard was used for payments, etc. source, in Hungarian language, the site of the greek ethnic minority's cultural institute (the pictures feature one such ornament): https://gorogintezet.hu/kultura/2022/07/gorog-kereskedok-szerepe-a-borkereskedelemben/ https://gorogintezet.hu/kultura/2022/07/gorog-kereskedok-sze... https://gorogintezet.hu/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/15264.jpg https://gorogintezet.hu/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/15264.jpg
- sidewndr46 2y ago
  The entire concept of inflation comes from the fact that various Med. cultures figured out you could issue coinage with a high percentage of gold and then slowly drop the percentage over time to increase the purchasing power of the government. It got insanely bad at some points, with "gold" coinage being less than 50% gold. Inflation wasn't just constant, it was an everyday fact of life.
  - ejstronge 2y ago
    > The entire concept of inflation comes from the fact that various Med. cultures figured out you could issue coinage with a high percentage of gold and then slowly drop the percentage over time to increase the purchasing power of the government. It got insanely bad at some points, with "gold" coinage being less than 50% gold. Inflation wasn't just constant, it was an everyday fact of life. I'm not an expert on this - how does this idea differ from that of 'seigniorage' where the sovereign can profit from the creation of money? Your example only addresses the buying power of the sovereign; it's not obvious that it should affect the prices of goods between private parties. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seigniorage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seigniorage
    - TheGeminon 2y ago
throwaway2037 2y ago
This is a fair question. It is arbitrary, but usually over 20-30%.
fdfgyu 2y ago
Depends who you ask. Historically, no amount of compound interest was allowed because it is immoral to receive what is not yours. Then, in the Middle Ages, Catholic theologians added nuance introducing a concept of time value of money - ie when you lend out $100 you also lose the ability to use that $100 for the time of the loan. The concept of a small interest rate was adopted. Which is fine, except it opened the flood gates until we eventually got the high interest rates we have today. What makes our rates usurious? That they are issued with the issuer knowing the principal will never be paid off.
jollyllama 2y ago
As others said, it depends who you ask. The Augustinian view was that usury isn't defined by the rate but when, and I'm explaining this rather poorly, interest is charged for the use of money. Hence "usury." So a typical American mortgage would be usurious in the Augustinian definition, even if the interest rate were, say, 1%. The alternative non-usurious loan would require you to post some other kind of security to receive the money, such as giving the lender the use of some other productive land until the principal debt is paid. More like pawning something at a pawn shop and then buying it back when you get paid.
gen220 2y ago
If you're curious, Martin Luther (of Lutheranism) wrote on this [1], summarized here [2] although the original is quite legible. Mercantilism (i.e. profit-making on the exchange of goods) was a very popular way of making ones' livelihood in his time and place, so it was a frequent question religious leaders were asked to weigh in on. Essentially, "how much profit is too much profit?" [1]: (PDF) https://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5018&context=ocj https://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=501... [2]: (PDF) https://history.hanover.edu/hhr/18/HHR2018-fergus.pdf https://history.hanover.edu/hhr/18/HHR2018-fergus.pdf

highwayman47 2y ago

In a couple of years people will feel the same way about college athletes being compensated.

aprilthird2021 2y ago
I don't think it's the same though. College athletes don't get addicted to being paid for the work they put in to attract paying spectators, and they don't ruin their families lives with that addiction
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
DonsDiscountGas 2y ago
There was already tons of money in college sports, having the same overall corrupting influence. Just that the students themselves didn't get any of it. If we want less money around college sports there need to be a lot more rules all over the place to make sure there is less profit to be had. Or we could just let people get paid for labor even though they are also students, which is the fair things to do and it's something we do in just about every other context.
fdfgyu 2y ago
It's already ruined college sports, but the old regime was abusive. Million dollar salaries for the coach, hundreds of millions poured into the administration all on the backs of kids who were ruining their health (bad hits, concussions) had no benefits, and nothing to show for it after the left [1]. It was abusive [1] their college tuition was free, but they weren't given an education since they were expected to train 40 hr and TAs were expected to give free passing grades.
snapcaster 2y ago
Can you explain more? not a huge sports guy but isn't this an entirely different thing? I've been looking at that situation (from a distance) as messy but overall good to see people compensated for their labor and the physical risks they take on

tgv 2y ago

Gambling was already an issue 100 years ago, when we were closer to God, allegedly. "God" and religion also aren't particularly interested in gambling, or it would have been forbidden in those holy books. On the other hand, you can blame Protestantism directly for subverting individualism to greed, and hence for exploiting human frailty, such as gambling addiction. The only working moral on this mortal coil is a dose of empathy for your fellow human (and if you can bring yourself to it: your fellow animal). It doesn't require a new mental model, just proper stewardship.

keiferski 2y ago
Well Nietzsche died in 1900 and was writing about forces he perceived as already under way, long before he was alive. So I don’t think using a hundred years ago as an example really works, and even then, gambling wasn’t the massive legal operation it is today. And yes, most religions have weighed in on gambling as most societies have been shaped by religion. Secularism is a recent thing.
- tgv 2y ago
  If you think Nietzsche's writing are representative, then we've never been "close to God". > Secularism is a recent thing. Sokrates and Buddha would like a word.
  - keiferski 2y ago
    The death of God idea by Nietzsche is not about a real being actually dying. It is about the concept losing influence on society and what that means for things like ethics. Socrates and Buddha were 2,500 years ago and I don’t think I’d describe them as being secularists. Secularism is something that came out of the Enlightenment, in the West at least. It is absolutely a recent thing for the purposes of the discussion.
  - fdfgyu 2y ago
    To describe Buddha as a secularist would be projecting our modern values onto a man 2500 years ago. Reincarnation, the soul, karma, etc aren't exactly compatible with materialistic secularism.

ccppurcell 2y ago

I have a trivial example: saying grace. As a lapsed catholic I found all manner of religious traditions extremely tedious as a child and especially as a teenager. I expunged all of them as soon as I turned 18. But recently we have been expressing gratitude before meals. This helps me slow down as I've always been a rapid eater and suffered indigestion; I also enjoy the food more as a result. The grace prayer is gratitude to God in whom I no longer believe. But I think acknowledging the enormous role played by pure chance in our lives is very important.

aprilthird2021 2y ago
I am the opposite of you, a lapsed atheist I suppose. And I noticed that among the religious there is an openness to professing gratitude about everything. Amongst my secular friends, there is rarely a time anyone professes thankfulness (outside receiving something new). It's not as if the latter are ingrates, but the social ritual of showing gratitude is not there among them, and maybe in some small way, that does breed less thankfulness in the long run...
- vladms 2y ago
  What is for you the purpose (or result) of (undirected) thankfulness? I find religious people passionate about following the rituals of their religion (for many more than the intention), in a similar way as atheists are passionate about other rituals (their sport, their eating routines, etc.). For me the absence of thankfulness equals more with awareness. Should I be thankful I have a house? I prefer to be annoyed other people don't have, or that I can't do better (ex: have a house that generates less carbon, etc.).
  - tempodox 2y ago
    I found this to be a good answer: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41667503 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41667503
  - anon291 2y ago
    There's a major problem with having too little of a sense of agency. From that we see cycles of poverty and violence from people who seem unable to help themselves. I think this problem is widely recognized. There's however also a problem with too much agency. It breeds anxiety, discontent, unhappiness. Not everything in your life is under your control, and expressing undirected gratitude is one way of acknowledging that.

renewiltord 2y ago

[flagged]

asah 2y ago

Sadly, I'm not sure there's a correlation here: a lot of these learnings and restrictions are newer than secularism.

anon291 2y ago

I think this is honestly ahistorical. While many Christian (speaking about what I know) philosophies would certainly not label gambling a virtue, it's also not widely considered innately sinful. Yes you can do it poorly, but it was always a tolerated evil. I'm not aware of any place other than the puritanical places like America where it's even enters much into the legal discourse. As far as I'm aware, the 'old world' which you reference -- to this day -- has much laxer gambling laws than America. Imagine my surprise when I go to Europe and gambling is everywhere.

keiferski 2y ago
Most of Europe is more secular / less religious than America, so I don't know why it would be surprising that they have more lax gambling laws. That only supports my point. It has nothing to do with the geographical Old World.
- anon291 2y ago
  Even in Europe's religious past, gambling was tolerated. The prohibitions on gambling are uniquely american. In general, America is very puritanical about a wealth of topics (and not just socially conservative ones), which is -- in my opinion -- a result of the descendants of the puritans losing their religion but not their genetic predisposition towards fanaticism.

anthonypasq 2y ago

this presumes everyone is going to the same conclusions about these things

carapace 2y ago

"Of vices I am Gambling." ~Krishna, Gita