Topic: Banning Usury will promote cryptocurrencies - page 6. (Read 4372 times)

Would you lend out your money to strangers without interest? I don't think so. There was an opportunity cost for lending out your money, whether it's in fiat or bitcoins. People should be allowed to charge for interest for the money relieved them. Consumers can then decide whether they'll accept the terms and if not they can try talking to another lender.

I don't get it the point, what the thing usury related to cryptocurrency?
Look at lending section, there are a lot some usury/interest by load bitcoin, it's not affect to bitcoin itself.

And what the way if bitcoin banning usury, however people still not really familiar with bitcoin?

It is possible to loan bitcoins with interest, so I don't see your point.

In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with interest. Having money now vs. later has value, and people are willing to pay for that value. People should be allowed to pay interest in order to obtain a loan.


Also, the term "usury" generally means charging an excessive interest rate, though in the past it meant charging any interest (perhaps because any interest was considered excessive).

Usury is not about not charging interest. It is ensuring that the interest charged is not exorbitant.
If you think of an interest-free, debt-free world, you are living in a fool's paradise. This is not going to happen, whether Bitcoin succeeds or not. There are always those who are in need of money and there will be others who are ready to lend for a small price. There is no case for "banning" the transaction between the two.

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.