PDA

View Full Version : Did the Jews invent interest?


Oblisk
03-05-2007, 12:26 PM
Today I heard from a co-worker that the Jews, sometime in the 1600's or the 1700's invented the interest system. It was the only way that they could make money to live at the time.

Is this true?

///M power
03-05-2007, 12:43 PM
well they didn't invent it, but they had to work that way to survive, they weren't allowed in other professions so they needed to use their intelligent brains in a different way on making money and surviving. maybe this is why Jews are very good in math/economics/banking. they are good with numbers..

Steppenwolf
03-05-2007, 03:12 PM
Usury was practiced much earlier than that. Christians were forbidden from practicing it so it became, in Europe, a Jewish monopoly.

Fitz
03-05-2007, 08:47 PM
well they didn't invent it, but they had to work that way to survive, they weren't allowed in other professions so they needed to use their intelligent brains in a different way on making money and surviving. maybe this is why Jews are very good in math/economics/banking. they are good with numbers..

That MP is flawed history that often gets repeated. The Jews practiced usury because they could and because it made them rich. I personally find it impossible to believe that Jews who charged interest ranging from "43 and 86 percent" were somehow victims of the system who would have been happier working the fields with their own hands.

This is an excerpt from The Jewish Question: A Marxist Interpretation by Abram Leon, Part Three, The Period Of The Jewish Usurer. I encourage anyone who is interested in Jewish history to follow the link and read the entire section , as well as the rest of the book.

With the development of exchange economy in Europe, the growth of cities and of corporative industry; the Jews are progressively eliminated from the economic positions which they had occupied. [10] This eviction is accompanied by a ferocious struggle of the native commercial class against the Jews. The Crusades, which were also an expression of the will of the city merchants to carve a road to the Orient, furnished them with the occasion for violent persecutions and bloody massacres of the Jews. From this period on, the situation of the Jews in the cities of Western Europe is definitely compromised.

In the beginning, the economic transformation reaches only certain important urban centers. The seignorial domains are very little affected by this change and the feudal system continues to flourish there. Consequently, the career of Jewish wealth is still not ended. The seignorial domains still offer an important field of action to the Jews. But now Jewish capital, primarily commer- cial in the preceding period, becomes almost exclusively usurious. It is no longer the Jew who supplies the lord with Oriental goods but for a certain time it is still he who lends him money for his expenses. If during the preceding period “Jew” was synonymous with “merchant,” it now begins increasingly to be identified with “usurer.” [11]

It is self-evident that to claim, as do most historians, that the Jews began to engage in lending only after their elimination from trade, is a vulgar error. Usurious capital is the brother of commercial capital. In the countries of Eastern Europe, where the Jews were not evicted from commerce, we encounter, as we shall see later, a considerable number of Jewish usurers. [12] In reality, the eviction of the Jews from commerce had as a consequence their entrenchment in one of the professions which they had already practiced previously.....

........

As it is infantile to see the economic position of Judaism as the result of the “predispositions of the Jews,” just so it is puerile to consider it as the fruit of persecutions and of legal bans against exercising other professions than commerce or usury “In numerous writings on the economic life of the Jews in the Middle Ages, it is stated that they were excluded, from the very beginning, from artisanry; from traffic in goods, and that they were prohibited from possessing land property That is only a fable. In fact, in the twelfth century and in the thirteenth century, living in practically all of the great cities of Western Germany, they dwelt among the Christians and enjoyed the same civil rights as the latter .... At Cologne, during an entire period, the Jews even possessed the right to compel a Christian, who -had a claim to make against a Jew to appear before Jewish judges in order to have the matter adjudged according to Hebraic law .... It is just as false to assert that the Jews could not be admitted into the artisan guilds. True, several guilds did not admit what were termed ‘Jewish children’ as apprentices but this was not the case for all the guilds. The existence of Jewish goldsmiths and silversmiths, even in the period when the guild rules become far more severe, is sufficient proof of this. There were certainly few Jewish blacksmiths, masons, and carpenters among the artisans of the Middle Ages, but Jewish parents who gave their children into apprenticeship in these trades were very rare. Even the guilds which excluded the Jews did not do so out of religious animosity or racial hated but because the trades of usury and peddling were reputedly ‘dishonest’ .... The guilds excluded the children of Jewish businesspeople engaged in usury or peddling, in the same way that they did not accept the sons of simple laborers, carters and boatsmen, barbers, and weavers of linen into their ranks.” [17]

http://www.marxists.de/religion/leon/ch3a.htm

kane123123/Eagle Eye/stumbler/iceman
03-05-2007, 08:52 PM
Today I heard from a co-worker that the Jews, sometime in the 1600's or the 1700's invented the interest system. It was the only way that they could make money to live at the time.

Is this true?
It is an irrefutable fact that the differences between christianity and judaism in europe lead to division, and this division lead to jews being kept out of certain jobs. Banking happened to be one of the jobs that jews weren't forced out of, so out of their limited options, many chose it.

They, of course, did not, on their own, invent interest.

Hadding
03-05-2007, 09:06 PM
well they didn't invent it, but they had to work that way to survive, they weren't allowed in other professions so they needed to use their intelligent brains in a different way on making money and surviving. maybe this is why Jews are very good in math/economics/banking. they are good with numbers..
This is not the reason why Jews have specialized in money-lending. Jews were known as usurers even in the ancient world, e.g. Alexander the Alabarch.

Kodos
03-05-2007, 09:13 PM
Today I heard from a co-worker that the Jews, sometime in the 1600's or the 1700's invented the interest system. It was the only way that they could make money to live at the time.

Is this true?

No, even if the jews did invent it they did it during ancient times. Livy's roman history mentions interest in the part about the conflict of the orders (between patricians and plebians).

What DID happen in the 1500s was fractional reserve banking was legalized in most of Europe.

///M power
03-05-2007, 09:36 PM
This is not the reason why Jews have specialized in money-lending. Jews were known as usurers even in the ancient world, e.g. Alexander the Alabarch.

interests and money lending were done all over the world.
you are saying that in all the countries it was a Jewish business? thats stupid.

Hadding
03-05-2007, 09:43 PM
interests and money lending were done all over the world.
you are saying that in all the countries it was a Jewish business? thats stupid.
It would be stupid if I had said it.

username deleted
03-05-2007, 10:09 PM
This is an excerpt from The Jewish Question: A Marxist Interpretation by Abram Leon, Part Three, The Period Of The Jewish Usurer. I encourage anyone who is interested in Jewish history to follow the link and read the entire section , as well as the rest of the book.

Abram Leon died in 1944. Anybody who has any knowledge of historical study knows that historical interpretations from that far back are generally flawed. Moreover, he was a Marxist historian, and the views of Marxist historians from that period should be treated with a LOT of suspicion. Therefore, although I don't pretend to knbow the current historical opinion on the subject, I would recommend that anybody treat the quote in Fitz's post with extreme caution, since it almost certainly presents an interpretation debunked long ago.
(Edit: sorry about the bad grammar)

Don Quixote
03-05-2007, 10:48 PM
Abram Leon died in 1944. Anybody who has any knowledge of historical study knows that historical interpretations from that far back are generally flawed.Nonsense.
Moreover, he was a Marxist historian, and the views of Marxist historians from that period should be treated with a LOT of suspicion. Genetic fallacy - I'm not even a Marxist and I have to point that out.
Therefore, although I don't pretend to knbow the current historical opinion on the subject, I would recommend that anybody treat the quote in Fitz's post with extreme caution, since it almost certainly presents an interpretation debunked long ago.This is tribal damage limitation control swinging into action. Not very effectively either I might add.

Kodos
03-05-2007, 10:54 PM
Genetic fallacy - I'm not even a Marxist and I have to point that out.


You tested more socialist then any of the socialist or marxists here on the little how socialist are you test.

Fitz
03-05-2007, 11:30 PM
Abram Leon died in 1944. Anybody who has any knowledge of historical study knows that historical interpretations from that far back are generally flawed.

With standards like yours every History Department at every university in the world would close its doors. I imagine you wouldn't touch Plutarch with a ten foot pole :confused:

Moreover, he was a Marxist historian, and the views of Marxist historians from that period should be treated with a LOT of suspicion.

His book is well footnoted, as you would have seen if you'd bothered to look before posting. If he had an axe to grind it was with capitalism and not with his fellow Jews.

Therefore, although I don't pretend to knbow the current historical opinion on the subject, I would recommend that anybody treat the quote in Fitz's post with extreme caution, since it almost certainly presents an interpretation debunked long ago.

Extreme caution? What an odd and paranoid thing to say. Why do I get the feeling that we've crossed paths around here before?

Don Quixote
03-06-2007, 12:20 AM
Genetic fallacy - I'm not even a Marxist and I have to point that out.


You tested more socialist then any of the socialist or marxists here on the little how socialist are you test.Palpstein, Marxists do not have a monopoly on anti-capitalism or even socialism. I reject Marxism for the same reaosn I reject capitalism; they are both forms of materialism.
However I'm not against private property, but private property rights are not absolute. It has to be subordinated to the common good, which means limitations. For example, and end to corporations which can evade responsibility by beig treated as persons, of operating transnationally and of limited liability.

Also, in line with the thread topic, an end to usury.

Choppy deroute
03-06-2007, 12:25 AM
Let's remember that the European disagreement with the practise of usury is at least as old as Aristotle, who gave the basic working definition of usury as taking any kind of interest, since it was a misapplication of money, which proper use was solely as a means of exchange.

So one would assume that usurers lived in ancient Greece, and while usury was illigal according to Roman law, we know that various arrangements were leagal, including fees, which made up for money lending in Roman times.

This was then accepted and expanded upon by the Scholastics when Aristotle was rediscovered in Middle Ages. The scholastics gave money lending a further negative dimension as money lending was expressly forbidden according to divine/ natural law, and therefore it came to be seen as "unnatural", against God's order, that money could breed money and as a result it was considered a mortal sin.

This rather radical view of taking interest, was expressly persued during early medieval times and against anyone who took any kind of interest. According to this radical view, large segments of society, including the church itself engaged in some kind of usury. Essentially anyone who agreed to any deal with the intention of any kind of gain, not only monetary, was taking interest, and was thus an usurer commiting a sin.

My point is that because of the way Europeans have traditionally viewed usury as taking any kind of interest, due to their perception that money is barren, it hardly seems fair to suggest Jews "invented" a widespread practise a huge number of non-Jews engaged in due to the radical definition of usury in those times.

Don Quixote
03-06-2007, 12:27 AM
Let's remember that the European disagreement with the practise of usury is at least as old as Aristotle, who gave the basic working definition of usury as taking any kind of interest, since it was a misapplication of money, which proper use was solely as a means of exchange.

So one would assume that usurers lived in ancient Greece, and while usury was illigal according to Roman law, we know that various arrangements were leagal, including fees, which made up for money lending in Roman times.

This was then accepted and expanded upon by the Scholastics when Aristotle was rediscovered in Middle Ages. The scholastics gave money lending a further negative dimension as money lending was expressly forbidden according to divine/ natural law, and therefore it came to be seen as "unnatural", against God's order, that money could breed money and as a result it was considered a mortal sin.

This rather radical view of taking interest, was expressly persued during early medieval times and against anyone who took any kind of interest. According to this radical view, large segments of society, including the church itself engaged in some kind of usury. Essentially anyone who agreed to any deal with the intention of any kind of gain, not only monetary, was taking interest, and was thus an usurer commiting a sin.

My point is that because of the way Europeans have traditionally viewed usury as taking any kind of interest, due to their perception that money is barren, it hardly seems fair to suggest Jews "invented" a widespread practise a huge number of non-Jews engaged in due to the radical definition of usury in those times.This is essntially correct but they did invent compound interest, afaik. And what is certain is that all decent people despise usury and ususers.

Hartmann von Aue
03-06-2007, 12:40 AM
Today I heard from a co-worker that the Jews, sometime in the 1600's or the 1700's invented the interest system. It was the only way that they could make money to live at the time.

Is this true?

From Exodus:

And when the buyers wanted money, all Egypt came to Joseph,
saying: Give us bread: why should we die in thy presence, having now no
money?

47:16. And he answered them: Bring me your cattle, and for them I will
give you food, if you have no money.

47:17. And when they had brought them, he gave them food in exchange for
their horses, and sheep, and oxen, and asses: and he maintained them
that year for the exchange of their cattle.

47:18. And they came the second year, and said to him: We will not hide
from our lord, how that our money is spent, and our cattle also are
gone: neither art thou ignorant that we have nothing now left but our
bodies and our lands.

47:19. Why therefore shall we die before thy eyes? we will be thine,
both we and our lands: buy us to be the king's servants, and give us
seed, lest for want of tillers the land be turned into a wilderness.

47:20. So Joesph bought all the land of Egypt, every man selling his
possessions, because of the greatness of the famine. And he brought it
into Pharao's hands:

47:21. And all its people from one end of the borders of Egypt, even to
the other end thereof,

47:22. Except the land of the priests, which had been given them by the
king: to whom also a certain allowance of food was given out of the
public stores, and therefore they were not forced to sell their
possessions.

47:23. Then Joseph said to the people: Behold, as you see, both you and
your lands belong to Pharao; take seed and sow the fields,

47:24. That you may have corn. The fifth part you shall give to the
king; the other four you shall have for seed, and for food for your
families and children.

47:25. And they answered: our life is in thy hand; only let my lord look
favourably upon us, and we will gladly serve the king.

47:26. From that time unto this day, in the whole land of Egypt, the
fifth part is paid to the kings, and it is become as a law, except the
land of the priests, which was free from this covenant.

From Cicero:

The next thing is that charge about the Jewish gold. And this, forsooth, is the reason why this cause is pleaded near the steps of Aurelius. It is on account of this charge, Laelius, that this place and that mob has been selected by you. You know how numerous that crowd is, how great is its unanimity, and of what weight it is in the popular assemblies. I will speak in a low voice, just so as to let the judges hear me. For men are not wanting who would be glad to excite that people against me and against every eminent man; and I will not assist them and enable them to do so more easily. As gold, under pretense of being given to the Jews, was accustomed every year to be exported out of Italy and all the provinces to Jerusalem

Did they spread out over the world to live among goyim because no one would let them be farmers or craftsmen?

Nyx
03-06-2007, 12:55 AM
Today I heard from a co-worker that the Jews, sometime in the 1600's or the 1700's invented the interest system. It was the only way that they could make money to live at the time.

Is this true?Does this co-worker happen to be the Muslim you were talking about in the other thread?

Kodos
03-06-2007, 12:58 AM
Also, in line with the thread topic, an end to usury.

At what level does interest become usurious?

Stick to the Facts
03-06-2007, 01:01 AM
This is essntially correct but they did invent compound interest, afaik. And what is certain is that all decent people despise usury and ususers.

What's wrong with usury? Besides, you're free to avoid paying it if you so choose.

Kodos
03-06-2007, 01:03 AM
What's wrong with usury?

Real estate bubbles.

I do not think the government should be allowed to borrow money for anything except war.

Stick to the Facts
03-06-2007, 01:08 AM
Real estate bubbles.

How would anyone buy a house without interest? Keep in mind that it wouldn't lower the prices of real estate by that much because wealthy people would just buy it as investment property and rent it out to people who don't have up-front cash.

Also, are the negative effects of real estate bubbles grater than all of the benefits of interest in other regards?

I do not think the government should be allowed to borrow money for anything except war.

That's not a reason to dispense with interest entirely. Plus, without interest, no one's going to be doing a lot of borrowing for any reason.

Kodos
03-06-2007, 01:14 AM
How would anyone buy a house without interest? Keep in mind that it wouldn't lower the prices of real estate by that much because wealthy people would just buy it as investment property and rent it out to people who don't have up-front cash.

Depends on how bad the bubble has been. If the median price for a shack in your state is 400 grand ish... then its all fueled by credit.

Also, are the negative effects of real estate bubbles grater than all of the benefits of interest in other regards?

Im not actually arguing against interest entirely, merely pointing out negative effects on those who live within their means and don't borrow.

That's not a reason to dispense with interest entirely. Plus, without interest, no one's going to be doing a lot of borrowing for any reason.

I agree.

Stick to the Facts
03-06-2007, 01:21 AM
Depends on how bad the bubble has been. If the median price for a shack in your state is 400 grand ish... then its all fueled by credit.

But don't think that prices of houses would be at a price that people would be able to afford without a loan. They wouldn't. Weathy people would simply buy them and rent them for whatever amount the market will bear. If you can buy a unit and rent it for 1000 bucks, the selling price is still going to be far too high for someone without a lot of cash up front to buy. And if you're paying a lot of money for rent it is going to take you a long, long time to save enough to pay the full price of a house.

Trojan
03-06-2007, 02:13 AM
Today I heard from a co-worker that the Jews, sometime in the 1600's or the 1700's invented the interest system. It was the only way that they could make money to live at the time.

Is this true?

No :viking:

Don Quixote
03-06-2007, 06:39 AM
What's wrong with usury? What's wrong with murder, theft, fornication, or any vicious behaviour? I'll get back to you later on the specifics. (On the way out shortly.) Besides, you're free to avoid paying it if you so choose.Well, I don't owe any money to anyone so it does not affect me personally. That's not the point. I mean what bearing does my perosnal situation have on the objective assessement of a moral issue? None. usury is socially corrosive and undermines the polity. See Solon's reforms in 6th century Athens and why he abolished all debts.

Johnson
03-06-2007, 06:41 AM
Uh, no. Don't be daft, Junichiro-san.

Thomas777
03-06-2007, 06:50 AM
What's wrong with usury?
Is this a serious question? You attended law school and you are unaware of the secondary effects of predatory lending and the reasons why this is an issue of paramount concern to ALL responsible people?


Besides, you're free to avoid paying it if you so choose.

Actually, the opposite is true. I guess you don't practice much in Bankruptcy.

Stick to the Facts
03-06-2007, 07:00 AM
What's wrong with murder, theft, fornication, or any vicious behaviour? I'll get back to you later on the specifics. (On the way out shortly.) Well, I don't owe any money to anyone so it does not affect me personally. That's not the point. I mean what bearing does my perosnal situation have on the objective assessement of a moral issue? None. usury is socially corrosive and undermines the polity. See Solon's reforms in 6th century Athens and why he abolished all debts.

How would people go to college? Only the very wealthiest could afford it. So long technology.

How would people buy houses? All but the richest would pay rent forever, never scraping together enough money to buy a home. It is wrong to think that property values will fall to the point where people can buy homes for far less. It doesn't work that way. The rich will merely buy homes in order to rent them out at whatever amount the market will bear.

If there's no interest, why would anyone ever loan any money to anyone?

If banks can't make any money making loans, why would they bother insuring your money for free? What have they got to gain? No more free checking accounts. No more credit cards - only debit. The reason why these services cost little or nothing is that the bank makes money from lending your money out. If they can't do that they have no incentive to handle it for you.

Choppy deroute
03-06-2007, 12:38 PM
This is essntially correct but they did invent compound interest, afaik.

Oh? How do you know?

And what is certain is that all decent people despise usury and ususers.

I have never given it much thought, but usury certainly becomes immoral at some point. On the other hand money makes the world go round, and people should be compensated by their lost profit.

So where do you draw the line?

Mackie
03-06-2007, 01:19 PM
I've heard the same claim, that they came up with the idea as means to make a living when nothing else was available to them.
And in Finland, money lending business was infact brought in by jewish clergy, dont know about the rest of the story, though.

I however, personally, dont see nothing wrong with interest and such.
As long as its fair, its just business as any :)

Hartmann von Aue
03-06-2007, 07:27 PM
How would people go to college? Only the very wealthiest could afford it. So long technology.

That's right folks, get rid of usury and the US university system will collapse, causing mankind's technological progress to stall.

Don Quixote
03-06-2007, 07:32 PM
That's right folks, get rid of usury and the US university system will collapse, causing mankind's technological progress to stall.
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Leon_de_Poncins again.

That would seem to be the conclusion we must draw from his defence of usury.

Johnson
03-06-2007, 09:37 PM
I'm kinda surprised it wasn't MP who pointed out that usury is in the Old Testament.

Mackie
03-06-2007, 10:46 PM
I'm kinda surprised it wasn't MP who pointed out that usury is in the Old Testament.
Damn. BIG points for you for having kill allen wrench in your avatar. Good, good music.

Stick to the Facts
03-06-2007, 11:02 PM
That's right folks, get rid of usury and the US university system will collapse, causing mankind's technological progress to stall.

If you want to ban interest and still have enough people obtaining college degrees to satisfy the workforce demands, you're going to have to make other changes as well. It could be done, and it has been done elsewhere.

But let's not pretend that we can simply abandon interest and retain a workable system without an entire overhaul.

There is still the matter of preventing the aggregation of property in the hands a a very small wealthy elite. I'd like to see some proposals to prevent that from happening.

Rather than simply saying "we'd be better off without interest", and then merely doing no more than attacking the specific examples I make, I'd like to see some counterproposals.

Stick to the Facts
03-06-2007, 11:05 PM
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Leon_de_Poncins again.

That would seem to be the conclusion we must draw from his defence of usury.



That is simply spendid for you, but I think you will readily acknowledge that such opportunities are not available to enough people to satisfy demand.

It is quite illogical to be presented with a general principle, and then try to prove it false by providing a lone example to the contrary. Didn't you know that?

If you'd like the US to increase its import of technical labor from India and China, just say so. I suspect that is not an outcome you would favor, however.

Don Quixote
03-06-2007, 11:08 PM
That is simply spendid for you, but I think you will readily acknowledge that such opportunities are not available to enough people to satisfy demand.

It is quite illogical to be presented with a general principle, and then try to prove it false by providing a lone example to the contrary. Didn't you know that?Why do you assume its a lone example? Its the system where I live.

Stick to the Facts
03-06-2007, 11:09 PM
Is this a serious question? You attended law school and you are unaware of the secondary effects of predatory lending and the reasons why this is an issue of paramount concern to ALL responsible people?

I do not attend law school. I DID attend law school. Past tense.

I am aware of the effects of predatory lending. That in no way suggests that one must dispense with it entirely.

Actually, the opposite is true. I guess you don't practice much in Bankruptcy.

If you do not spend what you do not have you will never go bankrupt, no? So if you avoid interest utterly you have nothing to fear.

Stick to the Facts
03-06-2007, 11:18 PM
Why do you assume its a lone example? Its the system where I live.

Education is an example of many things that the ability to borrow money provides. Sure, there are some systems under which higher education is free. But such a change here in the US or in other places where it is not free would require far more changes than simply abolishing interest.

Education is one example.

It seems to me that people are operating under the principle that in any interest-paying arrangement, the person paying the interest gets shafted by the person lending the money. That is purely impossible.

Any time a party enters into a contract voluntarily, they are doing so because they believe it is in their best interest. They believe that they will be better off to take the loan than not.

If a corporation could spend 1 million dollars to upgrade equipment in its factory that will lower the cost of production, permitting the company to enjoy more profit while charging less, what are the options if it does not have cash-in-hand and interest is not available?

Sure, it could sell shares in itself. That is a complicated process, however, particularly if the amount to be raised is large. It also means that the shareholders now have a new partner to contend with.

If they have the capital to secure a loan, and they are more than willing to pay the interest so they can enjoy the greater profit, and the lender would be happy to lend the money in exchange for interest, who exactly is losing out?

Don Quixote
03-07-2007, 07:37 AM
Education is an example of many things that the ability to borrow money provides. Sure, there are some systems under which higher education is free. But such a change here in the US or in other places where it is not free would require far more changes than simply abolishing interest. Yes, quite. You may have noticed from some of my postings that I am not a fan of capitalism?
It seems to me that people are operating under the principle that in any interest-paying arrangement, the person paying the interest gets shafted by the person lending the money. That is purely impossible. You might want to re-phrase that. You are saying that it is impossible to be shafted by money lenders, which is of course false. The danger of ususry is that it subverts the polity; remeber solon's reforms and why he took them? If the citizenry are in debt they are beholden to the creditors. When the creditors also control the political system, we are looking at the rule of plutocrats, i.e. modern capitalist liberal society.

Stick to the Facts
03-07-2007, 07:50 AM
Yes, quite. You may have noticed from some of my postings that I am not a fan of capitalism?
You might want to re-phrase that. You are saying that it is impossible to be shafted by money lenders, which is of course false.

I should have phrased it a bit differently - I should have said

"It seems to me that people are operating under the principle that in any interest-paying arrangement, the person paying the interest must necessarily be getting shafted by the person lending the money. That is purely impossible."

It certainly isn't impossible for the lender to shaft the borrower and if what I said reads that way it was unintentional.

It is axiomatic that, when both parties enter into a contract freely (and not under duress), they both believe that they are better off entering into the contract than they would be if they did not. This is the case when most contracts are created.

People may get "buyers remorse" later on and be very unhappy about having 20,000 dollars in credit card debt at 15% interest - and understandably so. Whether the best solution is to play parent and protect people from themselves is subject to debate, and there are good arguments on both sides.

Banning interest altogether would be a most unneccessary retaliation. There are innumerable situations in which some person or corporation would be able to use some amount of money and earn a far greater profit by investing it in their business or education than the interest on the loan.

Stick to the Facts
03-07-2007, 07:54 AM
Yes, quite. You may have noticed from some of my postings that I am not a fan of capitalism?
You might want to re-phrase that. You are saying that it is impossible to be shafted by money lenders, which is of course false. The danger of ususry is that it subverts the polity; remeber solon's reforms and why he took them? If the citizenry are in debt they are beholden to the creditors. When the creditors also control the political system, we are looking at the rule of plutocrats, i.e. modern capitalist liberal society.

You should make it clear that you want to ban interest in the context of broad changes to the entire economic and political structure then. Simply banning interest, and doing nothing else, would simply destroy the economy in a heartbeat.

Don Quixote
03-07-2007, 07:58 AM
I should have phrased it a bit differently - I should have said

"It seems to me that people are operating under the principle that in any interest-paying arrangement, the person paying the interest must necessarily be getting shafted by the person lending the money. That is purely impossible."That's better but the problem is that the real world is not like that.
In Britain after the Thatcher boom imploded as predicted c. 100,000 homes were re-possessed.

Here in Ireland we see the same scam unfolding. The banks are offering people 100% mortgages. Meanwhile the property market is starting to contract, disaster looms for many.
It is axiomatic that, when both parties enter into a contract freely (and not under duress), they both believe that they are better off entering into the contract than they would be if they did not. This is the case when most contracts are created.In theory yes. But in practise it is largely based on deception when oridnary people are being importuned to borrow. The political system has been hijacked so the state is failing its responsibilities to protect the citizienry from the usurious sharks of capitalism.
Banning interest altogether would be a most unneccessary retaliation. There are innumerable situations in which some person or corporation would be able to use some amount of money and earn a far greater profit by investing it in their business or education than the interest on the loan.Even in a post-capitalist or non-capitalist system there will be payment for financial services, but this is quite a different matter from usury.