Pages:
Author

Topic: USURY is it good or bad or neutral ? - page 3. (Read 6127 times)

hero member
Activity: 812
Merit: 1000
July 05, 2012, 01:09:20 PM
#26
Did you know that the earth receive more energy from the sun then we receive in one year?

Did you know that some asteroid in outer space contains at least 1 trillion dollars worth of precious metals?

Also, economic growth isn't always about using more resource. It can be that we get more out of the current resource we have.

Please participate in my recent thread entitled 'Resources'. Your simplifications indicate a certain ignorance that desperately needs to be corrected.
legendary
Activity: 1050
Merit: 1002
July 05, 2012, 12:45:51 PM
#25
I think the moral issues don't stem from the practice of lending money itself.  I don't see any issue with that (and there are good arguments already in this thread of why it's in fact essential to an economy).  The moral issues are related to what you allow as collateral for a debt and what happens in the event someone is unable to repay a debt.  For example, I'd argue that it's immoral to allow a person to be enslaved when they cannot repay a debt.  Few people would probably disagree…however, the question of what constitutes enslavement is not so straightforward.  Lenders will just have to factor into their risk model that they cannot turn someone into a slave in the event they don't repay their debt.

The negative views toward usury stem from two things: 1) a misunderstanding what economic impact it can have, and 2) the question of its morality.

My comment above shows how it mistakenly becomes a sort of scapegoat for economic problems. As for morality I personally don't like usury, but don't have any problem with its use. The only time it becomes a moral issue for me is when the percentage charged ventures too high. I'd wager most would agree with that on a sliding scale. For me "too high" is anything over about 20%. But 1%, for example, wouldn't register as immoral to me at all.
hero member
Activity: 900
Merit: 1000
Crypto Geek
July 05, 2012, 12:44:12 PM
#24
Bitcoin addresses the inflation and debt interlinking that fiat has but you can still have HTC denoted loans so it doesn't address the usury problem.

Usury has its roots in religious leadership but I'd like to see a more scientific look at debt.

When I ask some people they sometimes say 'its just greed'. I don't accept that as a full explanation at all.
I believe that debt creates a different acting network and that network flows with natural bias. A business operating in gold and credit is a completely different thing to a business running in fiat and indebted to a bank. The business indebted is not answering to the government, but to the bank. the gov answers to the bank, not the other way round.

Religions have all insurrected against this effect in different ways. In Christianity Jesus went bat shit crazy in the money changing house so the Romans gave the death sentence, then we had a terrorist martyr.

the network is massive and it can seem like there is no escape. but if you trade your service for btc you've immediately
 freed yourself from the system and if things collapse around you that can carry on.

The whole thing happens again and again throughout history and its been going on since before the Egyptians. why ignore it? why not study it?

I don't believe debt creates wealth I. the long term. i believe overall it enables corruption and inefficiency. by creating a network and linking it to herd mentality all you do is create flow from which we can profit or loss by prediction, overall a destructive process. don't be fooled by those who try to direct your attention into certain isolated parts of the flow.
hero member
Activity: 868
Merit: 1008
July 05, 2012, 12:16:04 PM
#23
Usury (the practice of charging interest on lending money) was illegal almost everywhere and morally frowned upon until the middle ages (see a play by a little known English author  "William Shakespere!" called The Merchant of Venice) . I would argue that the fundamentals of our current economic malaise rest in it being legalised and bought into general use. Whilst not suggesting it be banned again-wishing to avoid legal and contractual problems at least in relation to bitcoin (a new economic approach) should it not be discouraged and considered morally reprehensable again? discuss. reg.
I think the moral issues don't stem from the practice of lending money itself.  I don't see any issue with that (and there are good arguments already in this thread of why it's in fact essential to an economy).  The moral issues are related to what you allow as collateral for a debt and what happens in the event someone is unable to repay a debt.  For example, I'd argue that it's immoral to allow a person to be enslaved when they cannot repay a debt.  Few people would probably disagree…however, the question of what constitutes enslavement is not so straightforward.  Lenders will just have to factor into their risk model that they cannot turn someone into a slave in the event they don't repay their debt.
legendary
Activity: 1050
Merit: 1002
July 05, 2012, 11:56:44 AM
#22
I would argue that the fundamentals of our current economic malaise rest in it being legalised and bought into general use.

And you would be wrong. That would be like saying guns are responsible for world violence, which is incorrect. Guns may certainly have an influence on the amount of world violence, but they are not the source. And of course violence is possible without guns.

So too would be our economic troubles without usury. The real source of our economic problem is debt as a basis for economic growth coupled with unsound (inflationary) money.
legendary
Activity: 3066
Merit: 1147
The revolution will be monetized!
July 05, 2012, 11:52:44 AM
#21
Nothing wrong with borrowing and lending. Unless you believe the Bible, in which case it is an abomination and one of the worst sins against God that can be committed. 
reg
sr. member
Activity: 463
Merit: 250
July 05, 2012, 11:47:23 AM
#20
We should all become monks, take away womens right, give all our freedom to our overlrds cuz we are now all serfs (or slaves).
Thank you for your comment. Firstly it seems to me slightly sarcastic- I was hoping to discuss the point that sprinkling words like liberty and freedom through economic policies that have bought us to the position we are now is an obvious dichotomy (to me) where the mises school still advocates usury and private ownership of property! Secondly I only mentioned the lack of trust today is a pity. All the other abhorences of the middle ages (words that you have applied to me by association) are well rid of.  Thirdy I am through the first two stages of Ghandis proposition- first they ignore you- then they ridicule you etc. reg

Talking about being sarcastic ... have you maybe noticed the "quote" button
in the upper right corner of each post ? Wonder what it does ? Why not try ?


thank you- that's not sarcastic its a constructive comment. reg
legendary
Activity: 980
Merit: 1014
July 05, 2012, 10:43:59 AM
#19
Quote from: kiba
Did you know that the earth receive more energy from the sun then we receive in one year?

I meant that the earth receive more energy from the sun then we use in one year.
reg
sr. member
Activity: 463
Merit: 250
July 05, 2012, 10:41:44 AM
#18
electricMucus

So till we know how to prosper of our planet we should not use any means to unnecessary inflate resource usage that goes well together with charging interest.

yes. but to get from here where its almost blasphemy to suggest usury is harmful to convincing those who  live and prosper by it is not easy. suggesting "to desire is to suffer" is not a rallying call to most. a later point that subjectively you can have infinite growth is true because subjectively you can have anything you want - father christmas, fairies, utopia to name few but for pragmatists its harder. reg
legendary
Activity: 1666
Merit: 1057
Marketing manager - GO MP
July 05, 2012, 10:16:08 AM
#17
Explain why it is possible then.

I say it's not, at least not real growth. (What would yield an increase in population)
Number games... there can be plenty, but even technological progress does not constitute growth.
hero member
Activity: 868
Merit: 1000
July 05, 2012, 10:10:05 AM
#16


Re: USURY
Today at 10:17:18 AM
   
Reply with quote  #4
Quote from: reg on Today at 09:51:45 AM
should it not be discouraged and considered morally reprehensible again? discuss. reg.

Absolutely not. Interest is the price of money. How is the market suppose to work efficiently without knowing this price? Such a suggestion could only be made by someone economically illiterate so please go and first read a few books and get your knowledge up to par before attempting to reshape the way a whole market works. You'll find a lot of free stuff here: www.mises.org and an excellent low level of understanding required piece you should read (watch) is here: How an Economy Grows and Why It Doesn't (by Irwin Schiff)

Thank you for raising the point I was hoping would come to the fore. I accept I may be economically illiterate but I have read Mises (who I consider to be plain wrong). My point- continual growth at any level (currently wanted to be 3% p/a per economy) is fundamentally incompatible with finite resources. Why because at the basic level stuff is the asset you barter and exchange with others. When the last grain of sand has been used as an asset -what then? refering to another comment about middle age morals (not religious but social) a mans word was his bond- not any more -what a great shame!. reg.

You clearly don't understand the concept of subjective value, or why a infinite growth is possible within a finite world.

Ok enough already.
hero member
Activity: 868
Merit: 1000
July 05, 2012, 10:08:15 AM
#15
Usury (the practice of charging interest on lending money) was illegal almost everywhere and morally frowned upon until the middle ages (see a play by a little known English author  "William Shakespere!" called The Merchant of Venice) . I would argue that the fundamentals of our current economic malaise rest in it being legalised and bought into general use. Whilst not suggesting it be banned again-wishing to avoid legal and contractual problems at least in relation to bitcoin (a new economic approach) should it not be discouraged and considered morally reprehensable again? discuss. reg.

Yes because before the dark ages people were so rich, now we're all starving on the streets. Arf life is hard.
legendary
Activity: 1666
Merit: 1057
Marketing manager - GO MP
July 05, 2012, 09:55:16 AM
#14
Did you know that the earth receive more energy from the sun then we receive in one year?

Did you know that some asteroid in outer space contains at least 1 trillion dollars worth of precious metals?

Also, economic growth isn't always about using more resource. It can be that we get more out of the current resource we have.

This is irrelevant.

It is no possible to have exponential growth for a infinite amount of time if the universe is finite. It may be infinite we don't know that for certain (anyone who does mistakes scientific theory for a fact.)
But the Earth is finite that's a fact.

So till we know how to prosper of our planet we should not use any means to unnecessary inflate resource usage that goes well together with charging interest.
reg
sr. member
Activity: 463
Merit: 250
July 05, 2012, 08:33:35 AM
#13
ghaang noi

the love of money is the root of all evil..... money is not evil but to lust for it is where the fail is...

well this is more positive- perhaps I could  press you a little further and suggest whilst you are right that money itself (however it is denominated) is not good or bad it's what you can do with it that is sought. Satisfying wants over and above needs is the objective and i want to really know if we are trapped in a system where its always going to be a free for all of who can gain domination over another or is there some hope that enough people can see further and be perhaps more altruistic- after all I read recently that the good vibes from that help you live longer anyway? what do you think? reg
reg
sr. member
Activity: 463
Merit: 250
July 05, 2012, 08:17:02 AM
#12
kiba
Also, economic growth isn't always about using more resource. It can be that we get more out of the current resource we have.
thank you kiba. yes I am aware of the truisms you have laid out. There is nothing in existence that has not always existed. Harnessing solar energy and gathering asteroids I would hope humans live long enough to see (as a species) I have my doubts but the above comment is a direction we should be thinking more about- in my opinion. reg
reg
sr. member
Activity: 463
Merit: 250
July 05, 2012, 08:00:48 AM
#11
Gabi
Also on wiki i read money lending exist since the Roman Empire

Yes thank you for that. Again my point is (to coin a phrase) "money is the root of all evil". as we know all empires have so far fallen. The attempt in the early middle ages to curb usury may well have been in reaction to the devastation caused by the fall of the roman empire.  I know money lending will not stop because if you have a little more than you need right now why go and earn more by your own labor when you can lend at interest and get someone else to labor for you? I just can't see it as being morally justifiable! reg.
legendary
Activity: 980
Merit: 1014
July 05, 2012, 07:45:47 AM
#10
Thank you for raising the point I was hoping would come to the fore. I accept I may be economically illiterate but I have read Mises (who I consider to be plain wrong). My point- continual growth at any level (currently wanted to be 3% p/a per economy) is fundamentally incompatible with finite resources. Why because at the basic level stuff is the asset you barter and exchange with others. When the last grain of sand has been used as an asset -what then? refering to another comment about middle age morals (not religious but social) a mans word was his bond- not any more -what a great shame!. reg.

Did you know that the earth receive more energy from the sun then we receive in one year?

Did you know that some asteroid in outer space contains at least 1 trillion dollars worth of precious metals?

Also, economic growth isn't always about using more resource. It can be that we get more out of the current resource we have.
reg
sr. member
Activity: 463
Merit: 250
July 05, 2012, 07:39:17 AM
#9
We should all become monks, take away womens right, give all our freedom to our overlrds cuz we are now all serfs (or slaves).
Thank you for your comment. Firstly it seems to me slightly sarcastic- I was hoping to discuss the point that sprinkling words like liberty and freedom through economic policies that have bought us to the position we are now is an obvious dichotomy (to me) where the mises school still advocates usury and private ownership of property! Secondly I only mentioned the lack of trust today is a pity. All the other abhorences of the middle ages (words that you have applied to me by association) are well rid of.  Thirdy I am through the first two stages of Ghandis proposition- first they ignore you- then they ridicule you etc. reg
legendary
Activity: 1148
Merit: 1008
If you want to walk on water, get out of the boat
July 05, 2012, 07:36:55 AM
#8
Usury (the practice of charging interest on lending money) was illegal almost everywhere and morally frowned upon until the middle ages (see a play by a little known English author  "William Shakespere!" called The Merchant of Venice) . I would argue that the fundamentals of our current economic malaise rest in it being legalised and bought into general use. Whilst not suggesting it be banned again-wishing to avoid legal and contractual problems at least in relation to bitcoin (a new economic approach) should it not be discouraged and considered morally reprehensable again? discuss. reg.

Because, well known fact, middle age morals and ethics are
absolutely something we want to take inspiration from.
+1

and

Usury let us exit from middle ages? Well then it isn't so bad!

Also on wiki i read money lending exist since the Roman Empire

Quote
Banking during Roman times was different from modern banking. During the Principate, most banking activities were conducted by private individuals, not by such large banking firms as exist today; almost all moneylenders in the Empire were private individuals because anybody that had any additional capital and wished to lend it out could easily do so.[6]

The rate of interest on loans varied in the range of 4–12 percent; but when the interest rate was higher, it typically was not 15–16 percent but either 24 percent or 48 percent. The apparent absence of intermediary rates suggests that the Romans may have had difficulty calculating the interest due on anything other than mathematically convenient rates. They quoted them on a monthly basis, as in the loan described here, and the most common rates were multiples of twelve. Monthly rates tended to range from simple fractions to 3–4 percent, perhaps because lenders used Roman numerals.
legendary
Activity: 1078
Merit: 1003
July 05, 2012, 06:43:48 AM
#7
but I have read Mises (who I consider to be plain wrong).

Well then, there's your mistake.
Pages:
Jump to: