Um, why are people not borrowing money at 0% and then lending it out to tother people for more?
The amount of money available at 0% doesn't really make that worthwhile, assuming we could even get the loans in the first place
Topic: usury = not cool (Read 5276 times)
The amount of money available at 0% doesn't really make that worthwhile, assuming we could even get the loans in the first place
Um, why are people not borrowing money at 0% and then lending it out to tother people for more?
nedbert9: Ayn Rand would argue with you -- capitalism is already moral (not only a convenience that seems to work). It is moral from basic principles. And those morals go in contrast to the kind of morals that religion preaches.
-----
...not sure why it seems to be tolerated here. Please support IBB and
help put these thieves out of business ASAP!
(If there is some service you really need which IBB is not providing, I am
willing to work with them to make it happen, e.g. deposits, at
0% interest of course, chequing, whatever.)
-----
HKUQl1SRTIIVWEIiMfM0REEAWbAionmwSftaVOliUtzm/93Zm6iKklSr9z3oyawZon/LPSYu2tB+R0ViSj6dqD0=
...not sure why it seems to be tolerated here. Please support IBB and
help put these thieves out of business ASAP!
(If there is some service you really need which IBB is not providing, I am
willing to work with them to make it happen, e.g. deposits, at
0% interest of course, chequing, whatever.)
-----
HKUQl1SRTIIVWEIiMfM0REEAWbAionmwSftaVOliUtzm/93Zm6iKklSr9z3oyawZon/LPSYu2tB+R0ViSj6dqD0=
It's "tolerated" here because the "usurers" provide a service that others do not, without coercion. We don't have thugs breaking bones, nor do we force people to borrow from us. Additionally, we let people borrow from us without judgment, which I'd imagine you might have trouble doing.
But if you must barge in and start calling honest people thieves (good way to make friends, by the way), would you care to elaborate on how you'd expect large loans to work in this environment? All moralistic "anti-usury" (i.e., interest) proposals I've seen have skirted the issue with fairly minor semantic differences that seem to miss the point. And the actual point is to act against one's own self-interest, so I'm not sure how you'll make that happen without a vengeful god standing menacingly over everyone, ensuring that rational self-interest is preserved with a threat of violence.
Rational Self Interest is operating within the rational and reasonable confines of the "Mutualist" principle(s). Anything operating above a sort of Mutualism is an attempt to profit at anothers expense thus is a form of irrationality as it creates or sews the seeds of societal conflict(s). In order words making enough money to cover expenses and a bit at the top for ones own survival is justifiable but to abuse the people's trust and amass an enormous degree of wealth while doing little to no work (not producing anything) is an exercise in Selfishness not Self Interest. Of course these are "moral" and "ethical" claims... and such ideals are subjective but I am quite sure an inter-subjective consensus can be formed and those who do not comply ostracized from participating in social and economical exchanges.
I don't want children.
Humans have evolved past basic mating, my friend.
Humans have evolved past basic mating, my friend.
OK
I don't want children.
Humans have evolved past basic mating, my friend.
Humans have evolved past basic mating, my friend.
The Objective Standard article illustrates that historically usury was frowned upon by religion, however, was in high demand by everyone, because without it economy doesn't work. This dichotomy is easily resolved when you understand that religion is wrong, and there is no conflict. In fact, this is very simple to understand: when I lend money, I can not use it for some purpose of my own -- in other words, lending, is a kind of service for those who borrow. For that, they pay a fee. It is only natural for this fee to be a percentage of the sum, since I loose a proportional amount of opportunities when I lend more money out. There really is nothing complicated about it. The article talks about historical perspective, in depth, and I highly recommend reading it.
dogmatic/religious dribble
..efficiency has a cost...
The only "cost" is a lower cost of living. If you hate cheaper homes and cheaper food, then I assume you hate the idea of lower classes living an easier life.
"Usury" is your right. If a man is willing to pay the interest on your loan and he does, I see no issue.
Any question is only one of preference. If a state enforces its preference of cheap loans, then I hope it enjoys its stagnant citizenry with little capital to work off of.
Any question is only one of preference. If a state enforces its preference of cheap loans, then I hope it enjoys its stagnant citizenry with little capital to work off of.
The Objective Standard article illustrates that historically usury was frowned upon by religion, however, was in high demand by everyone, because without it economy doesn't work. This dichotomy is easily resolved when you understand that religion is wrong, and there is no conflict. In fact, this is very simple to understand: when I lend money, I can not use it for some purpose of my own -- in other words, lending, is a kind of service for those who borrow. For that, they pay a fee. It is only natural for this fee to be a percentage of the sum, since I loose a proportional amount of opportunities when I lend more money out. There really is nothing complicated about it. The article talks about historical perspective, in depth, and I highly recommend reading it.
Objective Standard is good stuff.
Though, it is a mistake to think that religious views of usury is negative and by extension lending capital is also viewed as negative.
Untrue. The spirit of the view is against evil practices such as predatory lending and inequality of access to capital.
As much as we all believe capitalism is a great system as it fulfills objective needs, fundamentals of common religion place any materialistic system second, and bound, to morality.
The more difficult and vicious ( i.e., efficiency has a cost ) it becomes to make a living the more morality goes out the window.
Usury is a sin. You would not think so talking to American Christians, but it most certainly is according to Christs teachings. America's evangelicals have a weird "get rich" streak in them. They better hope they are wrong about Jesus. He is the dude who was arrested for protesting against the money changers. And the one who said "it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven."
Neither example of which has anything to do with usury.
http://www.tentmaker.org/lists/UsuryScriptureList.html
How can Christianity talk about morals? It is a sin if you believe in God. But, the Christian God permits to kill (crusades, inquisition). But to learn why Christianity is evil I refer you to any atheist forum, or speaker. Start with George Carlin.
Lets get back to usury. If you read the article I posted, you will learn that historically usury was in high demand by those same Christians, so much that they didn't want to convert Jews to Christianity -- Jews were conveniently allowed morally to lend money to Christians , according to the interpretation of the bible.
True laissez fair economics will be such only if usury is not condemned.
Lets get back to usury. If you read the article I posted, you will learn that historically usury was in high demand by those same Christians, so much that they didn't want to convert Jews to Christianity -- Jews were conveniently allowed morally to lend money to Christians , according to the interpretation of the bible.
True laissez fair economics will be such only if usury is not condemned.
Usury is a sin. You would not think so talking to American Christians, but it most certainly is according to Christs teachings. America's evangelicals have a weird "get rich" streak in them. They better hope they are wrong about Jesus. He is the dude who was arrested for protesting against the money changers. And the one who said "it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven."
http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/the-challenge-of-islamic-finance
It could that IBB is well positioned to ride the wave of investment in Islamic banking.
It could that IBB is well positioned to ride the wave of investment in Islamic banking.
The Objective Standard article illustrates that historically usury was frowned upon by religion, however, was in high demand by everyone, because without it economy doesn't work. This dichotomy is easily resolved when you understand that religion is wrong, and there is no conflict. In fact, this is very simple to understand: when I lend money, I can not use it for some purpose of my own -- in other words, lending, is a kind of service for those who borrow. For that, they pay a fee. It is only natural for this fee to be a percentage of the sum, since I loose a proportional amount of opportunities when I lend more money out. There really is nothing complicated about it. The article talks about historical perspective, in depth, and I highly recommend reading it.
Usury is cool, good and moral:
http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2007-fall/morality-of-moneylending.asp
http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2007-fall/morality-of-moneylending.asp
The Objective Standard's notion of good and moral isn't necessarily uncontroversial
Usury is cool, good and moral:
http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2007-fall/morality-of-moneylending.asp
http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2007-fall/morality-of-moneylending.asp
Bitcoins currently have far more than 20% annual inflation... anything below that is basically a loss. You can argue however that the inflation curve for BTC is known since the beginning + can't change, so this means it can be ignored.
You make profit only because (as most people here) you work for free on that project as a hobby.
You make profit only because (as most people here) you work for free on that project as a hobby.
Somewhat agree. But with inflation, one must consider attrition (lost coins), and the percentage of BTC actually in use. Potential for use and actual use are different. If the FED Prints an extra Trillion and just lets it sit there, should it be counted ?
Compared to traditional fiat currency, one could make the argument that BitCoin has the highest savings rate. Maybe to much so.
This thread will get some of those dollars flowing and spurt the economy. If someone loses 10% of his BTC holdings but increase Bitcoin usages by 30%, that 10% loss disappears. No one argued against IBB here, they implied others were 'evil' in some way by charging high interest.
This I believe was realized as a false accusation from the OP.
Bitcoins currently have far more than 20% annual inflation... anything below that is basically a loss. You can argue however that the inflation curve for BTC is known since the beginning + can't change, so this means it can be ignored.
You make profit only because (as most people here) you work for free on that project as a hobby.
You make profit only because (as most people here) you work for free on that project as a hobby.
Due to inflation, in most situations a naïve zero interest loan is a negative interest loan. As senbonzakura notes, he's losing money.
When you advise 0% interest rates, you are asking people to give away money, even if the person pays back on schedule. Taking purchasing power into account, a lender could at best hope to come out slightly behind where she would be if you held the BTC out of circulation, or at worst lose a significant percentage of wealth. Pricing goods and services based on "x USD in BTC" rather than using BTC as the base currency, introduces an even greater risk than usual.
There is a reason even tiny co-op credit unions charge interest, even before the current level of deregulation. Fixed costs, transactional costs, risk, and of course rates set by the fed (which does not apply in this case) are all part of the rake.
When you advise 0% interest rates, you are asking people to give away money, even if the person pays back on schedule. Taking purchasing power into account, a lender could at best hope to come out slightly behind where she would be if you held the BTC out of circulation, or at worst lose a significant percentage of wealth. Pricing goods and services based on "x USD in BTC" rather than using BTC as the base currency, introduces an even greater risk than usual.
There is a reason even tiny co-op credit unions charge interest, even before the current level of deregulation. Fixed costs, transactional costs, risk, and of course rates set by the fed (which does not apply in this case) are all part of the rake.
Hmmm (note not the two "m" version reserved for Sen).
So, I could do zero interest loans, and they are structured like this:
1: Establishment fee 5 BTC (covering credit checks and negotiations)
2: Completion fee 2BTC (covering the costs at the end of the deal - and yes there are some)
3: Default insurance 10 coins per 100 borrowed.
So a one month, 100 coin 0% interest free loan would cost 117 coins. I would expect howls of anguish and complaint, but for 0% it's not necessarily a bargain.
A zero-interest loan is not quite a donation as you are supposed to pay it back
It is a donation just not a donation of the principle. Owning the funds for a certain amount of time has value and you donated that value if you do not charge interest. I would never lend at zero percent to anyone but my friends.
Jump to: