both lender and borrower are exercising basic human drives and the lender is profiting not from his own work but from a privileged position in an irrational behavior.
I see. I agree exploiting detrimental human drives, such as the desire for instant gratification, or the will to benefit over greater expense for others, is not "right" or "good" in the larger scheme of things.
However, there are several points where your claims for the necessity of forcing near future cessation of charging interest (as I understand your intention) fail:
1.) The degradatory issues in charging interest are not separate from the shortcomings in all aspects of
business. Business, and life in general, is based on the goal of making personal profit, and unfortunately still at this point in time commonly regardless of the harm caused to others. People put price for everything: health, love, children, basic needs etc. They exploit their privileged position.
2.) You don't approve my attempts to define interest by whatever means making it understandable to you, that charging interest essentially can not be separated from any other activity of charging a price. Fine, let us try ways based on your definition of "good" and "moral".
By prohibiting interest you can not logically let other forms of business continue. Paying interest is an agreement where a more privileged party exploits the counterparty who doesn't have what he needs [money], thus to get what he wants he needs to pay. The same applies when you go to the grocery store, living far away from another one. You pay a price the shopkeeper wants, because you don't have another way to get what you immediately need, such as food. You are being exploited and immediate gratification is encouraged for both parties? Yes.
Like mentioned previously, not having these shortcomings of human nature would require an idealistic-altruistic society where all people realize that contributing towards common good is for the best of themselves. This comes at its own pace, it can not be forced.
3.) Work can not be separated from time, time is required for work. When you sell work, you sell part of your time on earth. It is physics, the law of this universe. Work in physics:
the total work along a path is the time-integral of instantaneous power applied along the trajectory of the point of application.
Regardless if we agree that having money for a period of time is of value and that value can be denominated in the same money then we can express it as a percentage, typically around 5% per year and then try to answer the question of what gives rise to that value.
What are you wanting to say here? 5% per year, what's that?
When the future valuation is corrected we should see interest eliminated as the borrower is willing the receive back 1 for 1 each dollar lent because they defer demurrage costs, the time preferences still exist underneath their decision but is cancelled out.
Currencies based on demurrage are very idealistically appealing. I would like to see them taken into wide acceptance eventually.
Let me fall into hypocrisy: If I had all the power I would as the first thing ban
compound interest worldwide. Half of the problem solved, with tolerable compromise to the structural bases of global business. Separate balance for capital and interest, why not.
RenegadeMind said it; interest and fractional banking combined is great evil.
Secondly, I would enforce usage of demurraged currencies only. Just to test how things would work out
But I don't have the power, so on my bold moments I seek ways to
encourage slow transfer away from compound interest and maybe into demurraged currencies if they prove their worth in improving the goodness of the world (which I think nearly
any monetary system different to the current one would do).
Meanwhile, I submit to the allure of personal profit through compound interest.