"Oh, Shit" said the King, and ten thousand arseholes heaved in the noonday sun,
for in those days the King's word was law, and the King ruled with an iron hand"
from, allegedly, "The Night of the King's Castration" - anonymous authors.
If some recent data is correct, approximately 7 Billion bums are in danger of sunburn,
because this moment marks the beginning of the end of the Industrial Age, and sooner or
later, the world will be crapping itself.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/buttonwood/2017/01/light-bulb-moment
"Measuring productivity is far from easy; it tends to be the residual left over when all other factors have been accounted for. The OECD says it "can often be a measure of our ignorance". Still, the attached table is very striking. It comes from the US Conference Board (here's the link, with thanks to Gervais Williams of Miton and Andrew Lees of Macrostrategy Partnership for drawing it to my attention). And it shows that, at the global level, total factor productivity fell last year, was flat the two years before, and has barely budged since 2007. Before the crisis, it was growing at 0.9% a year."
I'll begin by thanking Coincube for the link to "Sacred Economics". I'd met Charles Eisenstein
briefly some years ago, before I had got a grasp of the numbers driving economics, so while
his thoughts on living in a world without money were interesting, I couldn't see his
philosophy surviving the wider community's onslaught. That vein of thought continues through
his arguments in that book for and against Usury, though very much biased toward doing right by
others and being able to assess the ultimate benefits to communities of any action. In some
ways it's Adam Smith's "Invisible Hand" but without the individual profit motive and with
limited competition.
We play games with winners and losers; we compete; in most cases we intuitively understand
the rules of the game. Hence when we play Monopoly, everyone knows here will be one
winner and many losers. We also understand that at the end of the game, when the winner is
declared, that the board folds, and together with the pieces, goes back into the box.
Nobody expects that the price of losing could be vital organs like kidneys, a liver, or
a heart.
Why should it be different in real life? Why participate in a system that creates unpayable
debt via Usury? Despite claims by some prominent Economists that our "debts don't matter",
any internet search for "India kidney Debt" will produce returns like this:
http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/deep-in-debt-farmers-fuel-kidney-donation-racket-ap-india-today/1/256628.html
"According to Vijay Kumar, an employee working in Rentachintala milk chilling centre, there are at least seven other farmers who have been paid a few thousand rupees for "donating" their kidneys in Hyderabad. The reason for this alarming situation, Vijay said, is the big kidney sale racket that surfaced in the Palnad area between 1998 and 2000. The Palnad area, comprising Macherla, Kambhampadu, Rentachintala, Dachepalli and Piduguralla blocks, has mostly rain-fed cultivation. It is dominated by big farmers who lease out their land to landless farmers."
The consequences of unpayable debt are not always so extreme.
http://www.moonofalabama.org/2008/10/volkswagen-shor.html
"Shares in Volkswagen were nearly halved on Wednesday after the controlling shareholder, Porsche, took steps to ease a squeeze on short sellers that more than quadrupled the stock in days.
Porsche itself had prompted the meteoric rise in VW stock with its announcement on Sunday that it had effective control of 74.1% of VW, leaving less than 6 percent in the market.
"In order to avoid further market distortions and the resulting consequences for those involved," Porsche said, it intends "to settle hedging transactions in the amount of up to 5 percent of the Volkswagen ordinary shares.""
Thus an unpayable debt, a squeezed naked short, became payable though Porsche's
pragmatic decision to take its profits and sell some shares into the market.
"You can't get blood out of a stone/turnip" - Sayings like these, and the need for a fit
and healthy common man to fight wars, have, in the past, limited inhumanity's excesses.
Today, to judge by some of the more lurid posts om the internet, the profit from
harvesting the right cadaver could be over $100,000. Of course, things like Limited
Liability and Bankruptcy Law stand in the way of such excess profits. If it weren't for
these things companies could: grown and sell foods that over a lifetime, destroy organs,
creating a market for transplants; build transplant hospitals, prisons, airports, and
transportation; push the world's most impoverished people into unpayable debt via access
to credit; encourage governments such as that of India to declare fiat paper savings
worthless; make organ donor contracts enforceable in law.
Result : Profits! and Real Economic Growth! and higher GDP! What's not to like?
Well, generally, in the Western World, unpayable debt doesn't get paid, but that's
because Limited Liability and Bankruptcy Law have been grafted onto Usury. The system
still cranks out unpayable debt, and we've learned to live with it, mostly because
the economies have been growing, and inflation raises all the boats, just some more than
others. Banning Usury would reverse the flow of profit from the poor to the already
wealthy. It will not solve all our problems. There's more to this, but space, and time,
is limited.
The link above shows that world growth will probably reverse. I'm adding "probably"
because the world is in a place it's never visited before, a place with no foreseeable
good outcomes and unprecedented uncertainty. A time when, if you can keep your
head when all around you are losing theirs, you haven't been fully briefed.
Topic: Banning Usury will promote cryptocurrencies - page 5. (Read 4337 times)
Interest rates aka usury implies that the borrower will get more money from the economy than he had put it. If half of the people would borrow someone else money, from where the additional percent of the money would come? From heaven? Or from nowhere because it is impossible.
Interest rates and not printing new money leads to a complete disaster and lack of money. Sorry bitcoiners to burst your bubble but if the world would to be financially stable it cannot and will not use only bitcoins.
yes it is a fact but i think when bitcoin will become mature and when bitcoin will become more popular and all the people will start using bitcoin then i think bitcoin will certainly reduce the use of other fiat currencies. Interest rates and not printing new money leads to a complete disaster and lack of money. Sorry bitcoiners to burst your bubble but if the world would to be financially stable it cannot and will not use only bitcoins.
usury is not the core of bank. and bank is the heart of economy for a country. it seem that a country can't ban the usury because if they do then their economy will be in danger, this world was growing wrong that usury now rule the whole economy and beat the non-usury thing. as you can see you can see it on many aspects even for shopping you must be offered an installments
You can not ban usury, but with bitcoin you can "ban" fractional reserve, and that's MUCH MORE important
You really cannot "ban" fractional reserve.
If banks/companies which are trusted start accepting bitcoins, people would be ready to deposit. A portion of this can be lent out by the companies. Voila - you have fractional reserves.
That's why to properly use btc you need to always be in control of your private keys, no matter if you trust a company or not
You can not ban usury, but with bitcoin you can "ban" fractional reserve, and that's MUCH MORE important
You really cannot "ban" fractional reserve.
If banks/companies which are trusted start accepting bitcoins, people would be ready to deposit. A portion of this can be lent out by the companies. Voila - you have fractional reserves.
You can not ban usury, but with bitcoin you can "ban" fractional reserve, and that's MUCH MORE important
You making a post about "banning usury" on an internet forum means absolutely nothing and isn't really worth a discussion. This is what banks and money lenders do. Of course companies offering exorbitant rates like pay day loans should be restricted, but since the beginning of time it has been around and it will continue long after you are dead. It sounds like you are trying to push the Muslim way of banking, they're welcome to it but the West has arguably been way more successful without it.
Why not ban Usury?
Before attempting to answer the question, I'll lay out a "best case"
for an economy. The USA has the best data, so it's the choice.
If the USA continues its present course, except that spending
on Defence and they somehow manage to keep the present trade balance
then I suggest the following outcomes in ten years time:
Wages and prices will double, there will be a ten percent increase
in population and in real GDP, and the national debt will increase
from $20Tn to 30Tn.
In real terms, defence spending halves, the trade balance halves,
and the US national debt falls by one third. Pensions and entitlements
increase in line with inflation, and employment remains near it's
present level.
While I expect things will turn out worse than that, if you want to
make a case for banning Usury, you'd best think of ways to improve
economic performance, because present economics relies totally on
the ability to charge interest. Bear in mind also, that when you
strip away things like the power to create debt, you may find that
things like GDP are no more substantial than the imaginings of a
collective delusion.
It seems to me that promoting cryptocurrencies, for example Bitcoin,
promotes the idea of a ban on Usury, because it would be difficult to
have one without the other. I'm keen to hear any views on why that
isn't a good idea.
What is Usury?I`ve never heard about this.
Paper money and central banks mean only one thing-debt.
All the world economies are addicted to debt.They need debt to maintain economic growth.
Are cryptocurrencies the solution?
Really good points brought up here. The reason usury is fundamentally wrong is that lenders expect guaranteed returns when risk - and gain - should be shared by both lender and borrower.
Profit sharing or dividends systems are somewhat better, of course with more weight on the lender or investor. Though to me, since the borrower is the one with effort and lender only capital, even equal share of profit/loss is very fair.
Profit sharing or dividends systems are somewhat better, of course with more weight on the lender or investor. Though to me, since the borrower is the one with effort and lender only capital, even equal share of profit/loss is very fair.
@Yo - The land of the Underpants Gnomes seems not too distant ...
1. Hyperinflation of, inter alia, the US Dollar, turning the world into Zimbabwe
and Venezuela.
2 ...
3. Profit!!! (Cryptocurrencies to the rescue!)
Step 1 _requires_ the loss of faith in the ability of a government to govern, and
a loss of control the supply of money leading to excess quantities of money in
circulation. There are prior conditions necessary for that to happen. It is also
possible that money flows into banks as interest, while unemployment soars, and
prices fall. Generally speaking governments never lose control, they just impose
mistakes. Following that logic, I see no reason to suppose that hyperinflation
must happen in the western economies anytime soon (even in the Euro area).
Logically, there seems no reason for Central Banks setting interest rates near
zero. The large quantities of debt on their books increase the sensitivity of the
systems to shocks and to any other changes. This increases risk within the system,
hence unless the Central Banks have good reason to believe they can control outcomes,
interest rates should be increasing to compensate depositors for the risks they face.
The problem is that the population at large, and many who post on these boards
are too trusting of banks, politicians, and governments. They promise "growth"
whereas they mean debt expansion providing profit to the few. This can continue
until the pockets of the savers are completely empty and the bankruptcies begin.
1. Hyperinflation of, inter alia, the US Dollar, turning the world into Zimbabwe
and Venezuela.
2 ...
3. Profit!!! (Cryptocurrencies to the rescue!)
Step 1 _requires_ the loss of faith in the ability of a government to govern, and
a loss of control the supply of money leading to excess quantities of money in
circulation. There are prior conditions necessary for that to happen. It is also
possible that money flows into banks as interest, while unemployment soars, and
prices fall. Generally speaking governments never lose control, they just impose
mistakes. Following that logic, I see no reason to suppose that hyperinflation
must happen in the western economies anytime soon (even in the Euro area).
Logically, there seems no reason for Central Banks setting interest rates near
zero. The large quantities of debt on their books increase the sensitivity of the
systems to shocks and to any other changes. This increases risk within the system,
hence unless the Central Banks have good reason to believe they can control outcomes,
interest rates should be increasing to compensate depositors for the risks they face.
The problem is that the population at large, and many who post on these boards
are too trusting of banks, politicians, and governments. They promise "growth"
whereas they mean debt expansion providing profit to the few. This can continue
until the pockets of the savers are completely empty and the bankruptcies begin.
quote
I personally don't believe Usury is the problem. Usury is just the price of credit -- everything having a proper price is OK as long as the market is not manipulated by state power.
The problem is the state power that artificially cheapens credit over the long term, to benefit the elites who issue debt. When too much debt is issued, whose value is then supported by all kinds of manipulative and deceptive actions like inflating other bubbles and starting military adventures, we have problems.
In a constant-money-supply world, prices would just go down as real wealth accumulates. Economic growth would be fuelled by credit, on which there would be no limit. (The key here, again, is that credit be totally market driven -- any state intervention would create distortion and bubbles.)
The Great Fear of deflation that has been pounded into the minds of modern economists only applies to this world of centrally planned money. Since too much money and credit have been created (from artificial, state-driven demand,) the economy has been distorted. People have honed their skills and made investments based on the financially (artificially) inflated world that demands a lot of luxury for the rich, etc. Once the bubbles are so big that market forces wake up and wipe out asset values, this demand disappears immediately and people lose jobs and savings.
Since the constant-money-supply world doesn't have the major man-made distortions to start with, asset value corrections would be minor in their impact and actually healthy for the economy.
unquote
@BobK71 - I have a problem with the morality of Usury. Usury can create a situation where
the borrower is unable to ever make good on the debt. Legally, the law is on the side
of the Lender, but that tends to encourage excessive risk taking. This seems wrong
from both a moral (and a technical) point of view.
I reach a diametrically opposed view on credit creation. Credit flows from it's source
to a sink, be that bankruptcy or discharge, and wealth provides the reverse circulation.
If anyone could set up a bank, and or print their own money, this would be less of a
problem because there would be competition to provide loans in various formats, much
like today's altcurrencies. The problem begins with the creation of a legal monopoly
on the printing of money. There seems to be some jumps in your logic where your
intermediate steps need to be validated before your conclusions can be reached. I
suspect your solutions only apply in a very narrow set of prior conditions.
We need to talk more about the constant-money-supply, but let's take one step at a time.
I personally don't believe Usury is the problem. Usury is just the price of credit -- everything having a proper price is OK as long as the market is not manipulated by state power.
The problem is the state power that artificially cheapens credit over the long term, to benefit the elites who issue debt. When too much debt is issued, whose value is then supported by all kinds of manipulative and deceptive actions like inflating other bubbles and starting military adventures, we have problems.
In a constant-money-supply world, prices would just go down as real wealth accumulates. Economic growth would be fuelled by credit, on which there would be no limit. (The key here, again, is that credit be totally market driven -- any state intervention would create distortion and bubbles.)
The Great Fear of deflation that has been pounded into the minds of modern economists only applies to this world of centrally planned money. Since too much money and credit have been created (from artificial, state-driven demand,) the economy has been distorted. People have honed their skills and made investments based on the financially (artificially) inflated world that demands a lot of luxury for the rich, etc. Once the bubbles are so big that market forces wake up and wipe out asset values, this demand disappears immediately and people lose jobs and savings.
Since the constant-money-supply world doesn't have the major man-made distortions to start with, asset value corrections would be minor in their impact and actually healthy for the economy.
unquote
@BobK71 - I have a problem with the morality of Usury. Usury can create a situation where
the borrower is unable to ever make good on the debt. Legally, the law is on the side
of the Lender, but that tends to encourage excessive risk taking. This seems wrong
from both a moral (and a technical) point of view.
I reach a diametrically opposed view on credit creation. Credit flows from it's source
to a sink, be that bankruptcy or discharge, and wealth provides the reverse circulation.
If anyone could set up a bank, and or print their own money, this would be less of a
problem because there would be competition to provide loans in various formats, much
like today's altcurrencies. The problem begins with the creation of a legal monopoly
on the printing of money. There seems to be some jumps in your logic where your
intermediate steps need to be validated before your conclusions can be reached. I
suspect your solutions only apply in a very narrow set of prior conditions.
We need to talk more about the constant-money-supply, but let's take one step at a time.
Interest rates aka usury implies that the borrower will get more money from the economy than he had put it. If half of the people would borrow someone else money, from where the additional percent of the money would come? From heaven? Or from nowhere because it is impossible.
The flaw in this oft-repeated fallacy is that it ignores the fact that money is a medium-of-exchange. Value is produced and consumed in an economy. As long as borrowers can produce enough value, loans can be repaid. It doesn't matter if there is a finite amount of money -- money is a tool used to exchange value. A loan can potentially be paid back using the same dollar over and over again.
Interest rates aka usury implies that the borrower will get more money from the economy than he had put it. If half of the people would borrow someone else money, from where the additional percent of the money would come? From heaven? Or from nowhere because it is impossible.
Interest rates and not printing new money leads to a complete disaster and lack of money. Sorry bitcoiners to burst your bubble but if the world would to be financially stable it cannot and will not use only bitcoins.
Interest rates and not printing new money leads to a complete disaster and lack of money. Sorry bitcoiners to burst your bubble but if the world would to be financially stable it cannot and will not use only bitcoins.
@Yo - "Cryptocurrencies will be successful exactly because of usury in the fiat system."
It seems most of history is against you, in that bad money always drives out good money,
and as far as I know, every paper currency has ended in inflation. So, somehow,
cryptocurrency to the rescue?
You have a fair point regarding prohibition. I'll ask you to define exactly you choices to
avoid the present system. Can you pay your taxes with, say, bitcoin? It seems
prohibition is already in place, I merely suggest a different prohibition to make you
look at the options from a different point of view.
It seems most of history is against you, in that bad money always drives out good money,
and as far as I know, every paper currency has ended in inflation. So, somehow,
cryptocurrency to the rescue?
You have a fair point regarding prohibition. I'll ask you to define exactly you choices to
avoid the present system. Can you pay your taxes with, say, bitcoin? It seems
prohibition is already in place, I merely suggest a different prohibition to make you
look at the options from a different point of view.
I'm not sure if you really understood what I tried to express. I'm very much convinced that fiat currency will end in inflation. And that's exactly the reason of why Cryptocurrencies will become more and more attractive as a store of value. I think you're mixing concepts a little bit: Of course will people be eager to get rid of "bad money" and throw it on the market. But they will be interested to purchase "good money" (Bitcoin) with it. So history is clearly not against your or mine assessment of situation, because we have pretty much the same opinion.
The choices to avoid the present system are to reduce fiat use whenever possible. Governments will quickly become more willing to accept Bitcoin for tax payments, once they collect less taxes overall...
ya.ya.yo!
@Yo - "Cryptocurrencies will be successful exactly because of usury in the fiat system."
It seems most of history is against you, in that bad money always drives out good money,
and as far as I know, every paper currency has ended in inflation. So, somehow,
cryptocurrency to the rescue?
You have a fair point regarding prohibition. I'll ask you to define exactly you choices to
avoid the present system. Can you pay your taxes with, say, bitcoin? It seems
prohibition is already in place, I merely suggest a different prohibition to make you
look at the options from a different point of view.
It seems most of history is against you, in that bad money always drives out good money,
and as far as I know, every paper currency has ended in inflation. So, somehow,
cryptocurrency to the rescue?
You have a fair point regarding prohibition. I'll ask you to define exactly you choices to
avoid the present system. Can you pay your taxes with, say, bitcoin? It seems
prohibition is already in place, I merely suggest a different prohibition to make you
look at the options from a different point of view.
There are 'islamic banking models' which exist today and which tell you they don't charge interest. They are actually work arounds and they end up charging the customer a lot more than a traditional bank. So force-banning something like interest just won't work. It will exist under another name.
That is indeed true. My previous post should not be wrongly interpreted in regard that I would endorse Islamic banking. I do not endorse anything that is based on prohibition. I only endorse systems that provide for free choice of the individual.
To state it more clearly: The idea of "banning usury" to promote cryptocurrencies is a misconception. Cryptocurrencies will be successful exactly because of usury in the fiat system. It's free choice of market participants that will make Bitcoin successful - the possibility to choose a better system.
That said, you have to keep in mind that interest is only reprehensible as an embedded feature of the inflationary fiat slavekeeping mechanism we have today. When it comes to venture capital, interest is acceptable, because the risk taking of the creditor must be compensated.
ya.ya.yo!
Interest is a concept that is deeply intertwined with the current inflationary fiat scam money system. If money would just keep its purchasing power or even increase in purchasing power like it is the case for precious metals and Bitcoin, expecting interest for just holding makes no sense. In the fiat scam system, interest and compound interest is a toxic force that demands ever increasing economic growth at any cost. People are enslaved because of interest and nature is destroyed by excessive resource usage just to fuel economic growth to be able to repay interest.
We don't need to ban interest. We just switch over to Bitcoin. Bitcoin is attractive, because it is not subject to interest-induced inflation. So it will be adopted in the terminal phase of the fiat scam we are experiencing today.
ya.ya.yo!
We don't need to ban interest. We just switch over to Bitcoin. Bitcoin is attractive, because it is not subject to interest-induced inflation. So it will be adopted in the terminal phase of the fiat scam we are experiencing today.
ya.ya.yo!
You have an excellent point here; the fiat currency lost his purchasing power every year. I think interest is fair if they charge only a right amount, and people have the capacity to repay.
In the case of bitcoin with the limited supply of coin in circulation, the price will stay stable.
Usury not related cryptocurrencies
if all bank is baned and close because use usury system
poor country can die, because is PDB can't is develop in country, must loan to world bank and another country G to G
all country can give loan without return is imposible can give loan
if all bank is baned and close because use usury system
poor country can die, because is PDB can't is develop in country, must loan to world bank and another country G to G
all country can give loan without return is imposible can give loan
There are 'islamic banking models' which exist today and which tell you they don't charge interest. They are actually work arounds and they end up charging the customer a lot more than a traditional bank. So force-banning something like interest just won't work. It will exist under another name.
Interest is a concept that is deeply intertwined with the current inflationary fiat scam money system. If money would just keep its purchasing power or even increase in purchasing power like it is the case for precious metals and Bitcoin, expecting interest for just holding makes no sense. In the fiat scam system, interest and compound interest is a toxic force that demands ever increasing economic growth at any cost. People are enslaved because of interest and nature is destroyed by excessive resource usage just to fuel economic growth to be able to repay interest.
We don't need to ban interest. We just switch over to Bitcoin. Bitcoin is attractive, because it is not subject to interest-induced inflation. So it will be adopted in the terminal phase of the fiat scam we are experiencing today.
ya.ya.yo!
We don't need to ban interest. We just switch over to Bitcoin. Bitcoin is attractive, because it is not subject to interest-induced inflation. So it will be adopted in the terminal phase of the fiat scam we are experiencing today.
ya.ya.yo!
Jump to: