Total Posts:161|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Question...

Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2010 12:01:49 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/21/2010 11:50:01 AM, TulleKrazy wrote:
I don't know which religion this is but why would a person not be allowed to make interest?
Judaism/Christianity/Islam are mostly noticeable here.

Money should be gained though work and with fairness. Interest is the increase of payback of a loan, where the lender pays a specific amount of money to the borrower, whereas he gets it paid back in an increased amount, e.g. 15 percent. This is void money. The wealthy man who can afford to lend money increases his wealth, while the poorer man who can only afford to borrow decreases his wealth by paying off more than he borrowed. This is not justified, and is therefore prohibited by various religions, most noticeably by the Abrahamic ones.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2010 12:07:14 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/21/2010 12:01:49 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 8/21/2010 11:50:01 AM, TulleKrazy wrote:
I don't know which religion this is but why would a person not be allowed to make interest?
Judaism/Christianity/Islam are mostly noticeable here.

Money should be gained though work and with fairness. Interest is the increase of payback of a loan, where the lender pays a specific amount of money to the borrower, whereas he gets it paid back in an increased amount, e.g. 15 percent. This is void money. The wealthy man who can afford to lend money increases his wealth, while the poorer man who can only afford to borrow decreases his wealth by paying off more than he borrowed. This is not justified, and is therefore prohibited by various religions, most noticeably by the Abrahamic ones.

Is this your view, or are you just representing the above religions?
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2010 12:09:10 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/21/2010 12:07:14 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 8/21/2010 12:01:49 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 8/21/2010 11:50:01 AM, TulleKrazy wrote:
I don't know which religion this is but why would a person not be allowed to make interest?
Judaism/Christianity/Islam are mostly noticeable here.

Money should be gained though work and with fairness. Interest is the increase of payback of a loan, where the lender pays a specific amount of money to the borrower, whereas he gets it paid back in an increased amount, e.g. 15 percent. This is void money. The wealthy man who can afford to lend money increases his wealth, while the poorer man who can only afford to borrow decreases his wealth by paying off more than he borrowed. This is not justified, and is therefore prohibited by various religions, most noticeably by the Abrahamic ones.

Is this your view, or are you just representing the above religions?
This is explained by logic and their own arguments. Why does it matter?
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2010 12:21:50 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/21/2010 12:09:10 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 8/21/2010 12:07:14 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 8/21/2010 12:01:49 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 8/21/2010 11:50:01 AM, TulleKrazy wrote:
I don't know which religion this is but why would a person not be allowed to make interest?
Judaism/Christianity/Islam are mostly noticeable here.

Money should be gained though work and with fairness. Interest is the increase of payback of a loan, where the lender pays a specific amount of money to the borrower, whereas he gets it paid back in an increased amount, e.g. 15 percent. This is void money. The wealthy man who can afford to lend money increases his wealth, while the poorer man who can only afford to borrow decreases his wealth by paying off more than he borrowed. This is not justified, and is therefore prohibited by various religions, most noticeably by the Abrahamic ones.

Is this your view, or are you just representing the above religions?
This is explained by logic and their own arguments. Why does it matter?

Because banning usury undermine fundamental economics, the ability to make a return on an investment.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2010 12:25:19 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/21/2010 12:21:50 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Because banning usury undermine fundamental economics, the ability to make a return on an investment.
Not true. Trading does not require usury. Retailers can buy products from companies and sell them for 50% more. This is not usury and functions well.
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2010 12:29:19 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
The wealthy man who can afford to lend money increases his wealth, while the poorer man who can only afford to borrow decreases his wealth by paying off more than he borrowed.

That isn't necessarily the case. Take large corporations for example. They borrow money, with interest, by selling stocks. Most of the lenders are just regular people, saving for their retirement, or child's education, or whatever. Is this morally wrong in your view?
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2010 12:33:56 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/21/2010 12:29:19 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
That isn't necessarily the case. Take large corporations for example. They borrow money, with interest, by selling stocks. Most of the lenders are just regular people, saving for their retirement, or child's education, or whatever. Is this morally wrong in your view?
I find it immorally wrong that the needy ones, e.g. poorly-off students have to take a loan to be able to go through their studies with a computer they have to buy, and then struggle to pay it off, sometimes as much as 30 percent. I find this unjust, as with the case of some religions. A loan should be a solid loan, no extra percentage. A usury-free economy can function well, as with the case of Malaysia, which has had many economic booms for good reasons.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2010 12:34:28 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/21/2010 12:25:19 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 8/21/2010 12:21:50 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Because banning usury undermine fundamental economics, the ability to make a return on an investment.
Not true. Trading does not require usury. Retailers can buy products from companies and sell them for 50% more. This is not usury and functions well.

I want to start up a business. I will, in most cases, need an initial loan. What lending institution will give me a loan if they aren't going to make a profit on it? They make an investment and want a return on it. Without usury lending and entrepreneurship is nearly non-existent.

Also, what laissezfaire said about investors. As well, this would outlaw making money on your savings, which is essentially giving a loan to a bank.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2010 12:35:06 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
And yes, even those who can afford to pay back a loan with an increased amount percentage should not do it. It is just void money for the lenders and unneeded payback.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2010 12:37:04 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Mirza, the essential problem is that without usury, there would be no incentive to make a loan in the first place. Why loan a man $10 when he will either pay back $10, thus breaking even, or will run off with it, thus losing $10?
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2010 12:37:05 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/21/2010 12:34:28 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
I want to start up a business. I will, in most cases, need an initial loan. What lending institution will give me a loan if they aren't going to make a profit on it? They make an investment and want a return on it. Without usury lending and entrepreneurship is nearly non-existent.
It is possible. Take a government as an example. Since I believe in a system of government authority, they can help setting up corporations with their money and expect payback without increased amounts of money.

Also, what laissezfaire said about investors. As well, this would outlaw making money on your savings, which is essentially giving a loan to a bank.
Void money. You should save your money without letting anyone get profit of it, or yourself get profit of it.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2010 12:37:57 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/21/2010 12:35:06 PM, Mirza wrote:
And yes, even those who can afford to pay back a loan with an increased amount percentage should not do it. It is just void money for the lenders and unneeded payback.

It's a necessary compensation for risk and the time spent by the loaner to organize the loan in the first place.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2010 12:39:17 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/21/2010 12:37:04 PM, mongeese wrote:
Mirza, the essential problem is that without usury, there would be no incentive to make a loan in the first place. Why loan a man $10 when he will either pay back $10, thus breaking even, or will run off with it, thus losing $10?
Businesses should not make profits off of money they gain through literally nothing. You can start a lending business (sort of a bank) by borrowing money and paying off with interest, and then make money by lending to people and getting much more in return. There is nothing morally good here. Helping the needy should be done by the government. If not, corporations started by funds of the government.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2010 12:40:16 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/21/2010 12:37:57 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 8/21/2010 12:35:06 PM, Mirza wrote:
And yes, even those who can afford to pay back a loan with an increased amount percentage should not do it. It is just void money for the lenders and unneeded payback.

It's a necessary compensation for risk and the time spent by the loaner to organize the loan in the first place.

Not to mention the fact that the loaner is losing money due to inflation as well. $10 in 2000 is not the same as $10 in 2010.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2010 12:40:22 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/21/2010 12:37:05 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 8/21/2010 12:34:28 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
I want to start up a business. I will, in most cases, need an initial loan. What lending institution will give me a loan if they aren't going to make a profit on it? They make an investment and want a return on it. Without usury lending and entrepreneurship is nearly non-existent.
It is possible. Take a government as an example. Since I believe in a system of government authority, they can help setting up corporations with their money and expect payback without increased amounts of money.
Then what happens when a single corporation fails? The government, and therefore the people, can lose billions of their hard-earned dollars. The government is about the last entity I'd trust to make wise investment decisions, and they'd probably all go towards those businesses started by friends of Congress, anyway.

Also, what laissezfaire said about investors. As well, this would outlaw making money on your savings, which is essentially giving a loan to a bank.
Void money. You should save your money without letting anyone get profit of it, or yourself get profit of it.
So we should hoard our money in pillowcases in the attic? That's not how an economy prospers. The economy relies on a circulation of cash throughout the economy.
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2010 12:40:53 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
It is possible. Take a government as an example. Since I believe in a system of government authority, they can help setting up corporations with their money and expect payback without increased amounts of money.

How is that fair? Without interest, the government would always lose money on these loans, because some businesses would fail and not be able to pay back the loan. To make up for this, the government would have to take the money from the taxpayers. Is subsidizing large corporations with money stolen from taxpayers your idea of a morally just system?
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2010 12:41:52 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/21/2010 12:37:05 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 8/21/2010 12:34:28 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
I want to start up a business. I will, in most cases, need an initial loan. What lending institution will give me a loan if they aren't going to make a profit on it? They make an investment and want a return on it. Without usury lending and entrepreneurship is nearly non-existent.
It is possible. Take a government as an example. Since I believe in a system of government authority, they can help setting up corporations with their money and expect payback without increased amounts of money.

That system is not sustainable. The government is going to heavily tax businesses to set up more business withotu getting a profit on it, and then taxing those business heavily. The government can't adequately provide what banks currently provide.


Also, what laissezfaire said about investors. As well, this would outlaw making money on your savings, which is essentially giving a loan to a bank.
Void money. You should save your money without letting anyone get profit of it, or yourself get profit of it.

What about inflation?
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2010 12:42:00 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
It's pretty simple economics. The interest paid on a loan is for the time preference. A "pure" interest rate -- that is, without the influence of inflation -- is based on the lenders time preference for current satisfaction over future satisfaction. This is the value that is traded. Both parties benefit. There is no sane economic or moral reason to outlaw a voluntary exchange of this kind.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2010 12:42:08 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/21/2010 12:37:57 PM, mongeese wrote:
It's a necessary compensation for risk and the time spent by the loaner to organize the loan in the first place.
This should not be too costly at all. A bank can get money from its members in many other ways.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2010 12:42:29 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/21/2010 12:39:17 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 8/21/2010 12:37:04 PM, mongeese wrote:
Mirza, the essential problem is that without usury, there would be no incentive to make a loan in the first place. Why loan a man $10 when he will either pay back $10, thus breaking even, or will run off with it, thus losing $10?
Businesses should not make profits off of money they gain through literally nothing.
Wait, so they didn't organize a loan? That's hardly "nothing."

You can start a lending business (sort of a bank) by borrowing money and paying off with interest, and then make money by lending to people and getting much more in return. There is nothing morally good here.
Ask the people who got businesses started because of a loan from the bank whether or not there was any moral good.

Helping the needy should be done by the government. If not, corporations started by funds of the government.
Government involvement in the economy... this can't end well.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2010 12:43:00 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/21/2010 12:42:08 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 8/21/2010 12:37:57 PM, mongeese wrote:
It's a necessary compensation for risk and the time spent by the loaner to organize the loan in the first place.
This should not be too costly at all. A bank can get money from its members in many other ways.

Why would the members participate in a bank that will necessarily lose money?
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2010 12:44:11 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/21/2010 12:42:08 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 8/21/2010 12:37:57 PM, mongeese wrote:
It's a necessary compensation for risk and the time spent by the loaner to organize the loan in the first place.
This should not be too costly at all. A bank can get money from its members in many other ways.

Who would want to invest in a bank which is going to be ultimately unprofitable and lose money?
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2010 12:44:32 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/21/2010 12:39:17 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 8/21/2010 12:37:04 PM, mongeese wrote:
Mirza, the essential problem is that without usury, there would be no incentive to make a loan in the first place. Why loan a man $10 when he will either pay back $10, thus breaking even, or will run off with it, thus losing $10?
Businesses should not make profits off of money they gain through literally nothing. You can start a lending business (sort of a bank) by borrowing money and paying off with interest, and then make money by lending to people and getting much more in return. There is nothing morally good here. Helping the needy should be done by the government. If not, corporations started by funds of the government.

But they don't make profits through 'literally nothing.' They are being compensated for risk and time. There's always the risk that a borrower won't pay back a loan; why shouldn't the lender be compensated for taking that risk? And there's time. Everyone would rather have a $100 now than $100 a year from now. Why would lenders give up their ability to spend their money now to get the exact same amount of money a year from now?
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2010 12:45:30 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/21/2010 12:40:22 PM, mongeese wrote:
Then what happens when a single corporation fails? The government, and therefore the people, can lose billions of their hard-earned dollars. The government is about the last entity I'd trust to make wise investment decisions, and they'd probably all go towards those businesses started by friends of Congress, anyway.
I can ask you the entirely same question in principle. What would happen if the borrower fails to return money due to a great increase in payback?

So we should hoard our money in pillowcases in the attic? That's not how an economy prospers. The economy relies on a circulation of cash throughout the economy.
What would be wrong with paying a specific amount of money to the bank for money-space?
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2010 12:45:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/21/2010 12:42:08 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 8/21/2010 12:37:57 PM, mongeese wrote:
It's a necessary compensation for risk and the time spent by the loaner to organize the loan in the first place.
This should not be too costly at all. A bank can get money from its members in many other ways.
Chances are, the other niches are filled by other businesses. The bank is its own niche.

Oh, and we can't forget competition. With numerous banks running around, they compete with their interest rates, and the one with the lowest interest rate gets the most loans. Under perfect competition, this interest rate will settle at the point where banks get zero economic profit.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2010 12:47:49 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/21/2010 12:45:30 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 8/21/2010 12:40:22 PM, mongeese wrote:
Then what happens when a single corporation fails? The government, and therefore the people, can lose billions of their hard-earned dollars. The government is about the last entity I'd trust to make wise investment decisions, and they'd probably all go towards those businesses started by friends of Congress, anyway.
I can ask you the entirely same question in principle. What would happen if the borrower fails to return money due to a great increase in payback?
Then the risk somewhat failed. As the bank would anticipate would happen to some people.

So we should hoard our money in pillowcases in the attic? That's not how an economy prospers. The economy relies on a circulation of cash throughout the economy.
What would be wrong with paying a specific amount of money to the bank for money-space?
So banks are just security firms, then? We've still got the economic problems of all this money stashed in banks with no real usage.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2010 12:49:32 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/21/2010 12:42:29 PM, mongeese wrote:
Wait, so they didn't organize a loan? That's hardly "nothing."
They have money to begin with, and give them away to get payed back with more. How is this moral?

Ask the people who got businesses started because of a loan from the bank whether or not there was any moral good.
Morally better if they paid back without additional fees.

Government involvement in the economy... this can't end well.
Not much government intervention, except help for the needy.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2010 12:50:57 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/21/2010 12:44:11 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Who would want to invest in a bank which is going to be ultimately unprofitable and lose money?
The problem is that you limit the functions of a bank. It is not only through loans that it an exist and make profits. I would have to explain this in-depth. Do you know something about Islamic economics?