pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 8 replies \ @Rothbardian_fanatic OP 6 Jun \ parent \ on: Why Lending Money (at Interest) Is Not Usury in the Modern World econ
You first have to define usury correctly. What is usury?
Usury in our current system is the charging of interest. Banks take no real risk when extending credit, since they benefit from fractional reserve banking and freshly printed money — and on top of that, they still charge interest. It’s a completely unbalanced operation that, in my view, qualifies as usury and shouldn’t exist.
reply
What about time preference in your definition of usury and interest?
reply
What time preference do banks and governments have when they lend money backed by debit and that doesn’t even belong to them?
reply
Banks and governments do not derive the natural rate of interest! They arbitrarily create a number pulled out of thin air for their convenience and the convenience of their closest cronies. The time preference is determined by individuals.
reply
That’s exactly what I’ve been saying all along.
The time preference is determined by individuals.
Now, at this point, usury doesn’t seem entirely right to me either. What would be fairer, in my view, is to collateralize something proportional instead of charging interest.
reply
Why is it not right to ask for more than you lend out in return for lending it out for the amount of time someone needs the money? Perhaps not lending money is the best situation, right? No matter how badly someone needs money immediately, you immediately need it more, right? Collateral is only realized if the borrower defaults, so where’s the payment for the time?