I guess this is why they want to get rid of history and anything that reminds of it especially the south which was democrat.
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (38)
sorted by:
I guess this is why they want to get rid of history and anything that reminds of it especially the south which was democrat.
Imagine a world without commercial lending, where people either work for or are given what they have (such as passed down).
Commercial loans are not an issue, interest on money lent is not an issue, the credit system and fractional reserve and socialised losses for wall street are the issue. That, and the fed, but still... I'll lay it out for the slow of thinking below.
You want to rent a car for a week.
You pay 500USD to rent a car for a week.
The car was worth X
You rented X dollars for a week for 500USD.
You want to borrow 20,000 USD for a week.
You pay to rent the money for a week.
The money was worth X
You rented a car's worth of asset for a week for 500 USD.
If anyone is against interest for the mere sake of it being interest, they're against the concept of renting anything at all, whether that be a suit, car, yacht, or wedding ground.
sorry but charging interest absolutely IS an issue. usury needs to be punishable by death like in the good old days.
No retard, charging interest on money you never had and lent out (Fractional lending) is the problem, please keep reading the above until it makes sense. Money now is worth more than money later, if you wish to rent someone's money for a period you pay a rental fee, because rented money can be divvied up into tiny amounts it's called interest and not a rental fee, if it was simply called a rental fee and you had to return the amount you borrowed as a lump sum with the rental fee up front brainlets like you would understand it better.
The idea of usury conceptually is in the vein of "Daylight robbery", like payday loans with an AER of 4800%, usurious loans by China to Africa with the intent they default on it in order to seize assets, charging 5% interest on a mortgage for your house is not usury.
hmmm i wonder why this pissed you off so muchโฆ
We understand what you are saying. Interest is a problem period. You can't pay back.more than what is lent. It doesn't exist just as you say due to fractional banking. Both are the problem and both contribute to the fallacy of what we call money
Bullshit. Interest on money is the problem. If I have the right to print money too then yes interest is ok.
Interest is certainly an issue for money placed into circulation.
Only private money should have the ability to charge interest. Not the fed because it immediately requires more back.than is in circulation.
Interest is NOT usury.
I know hun, that's literally what I'm telling the guy.
maybe I replied to the wrong post, was not disagreeing with ya fren.
uยทsuยทry /หyoอoZH(ษ)rฤ/ Learn to pronounce noun the illegal action or practice of lending money at unreasonably high rates of interest. "the medieval prohibition on usury" Similar: extortionate
Google the definition
unreasonably high interests, yes, this is usury, but reasonably high interests are OK