7 ms·

Religious nutbags from olden times weren't all that nuts to ban usury!!!

by Lamad1234 3y ago

dylan604 3y ago
there's lending, and then there's predatory lending. let's not paint everything with the same brush.
- lostlogin 3y ago
  While true, that’s also not that helpful. Where is the line?
  - LastTrain 3y ago
    Somewhere in the middle.
    - HPsquared 3y ago
      What about risky borrowers?
  - dylan604 3y ago
    I like to think the parable of jesus overturning the money changers' tables was because they were the equivalent to payday loans. here's money to pay for new goats/lambs with the promise that you pay me back in full plus some meat for my family vs here's some money for 3 goats and 3 lambs in the promise that you pay me back in full plus 4 goats and 4 lambs or it'll be a real shame if my nephew has to come and pay a visit.
    - lukifer 3y ago
      The problem isn't that there isn't a common-sense distinction between the extremes; it's attempting to define the crossover point (presumably for the purposes of a "bright line" rule in law/policy/norms). Defining how much interest should qualify as usury is a classic "paradox of the heap" [0]; which may be a reason by some faith traditions simply forbade lending at interest altogether. An interesting alternative to consider, is money that intentionally depreciates value at a fixed rate ("demurrage" [1]). In theory, this would incentivize lending at zero interest (assuming relative price stability for real goods, which is easier said than done). [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demurrage_(currency) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demurrage_(currency)
      - chewz 3y ago
        > An interesting alternative to consider, is money that intentionally depreciates value at a fixed rate ("demurrage" [1]). This is exactly property of coins (gold, silver or copper). Even without debasement (like clippage) they were loosing value as they were worn out as a result normal usage. Money changers were exchanging worn out/damaged/clipped coins at current market value minus some comission.
    - chewz 3y ago
      > jesus overturning the money changers' tables was because they were the equivalent to payday loans Jesus apparently didn't appreciated that a Jew coming from say Alexandia or Gallile had been bringing a bunch of coins of different origin, issuance, often clipped or destroyed by use... Charging 4-8 percent (kolbon) for exchanging used and foreign coins into new shekels required by Temple wasn't excesive. It is on par on charges for foreign purchases by today's banks. Temple services (purification, healing) were on the other hand prohibitively expensive while Jesus provided them for free...
      - bluGill 3y ago
        Many read that passage as Jesus against doing those activities in the temple, if they had been in the market outside he would have been okay.
        dylan604 3y ago
        The funny thing to me was that Jesus was only like 17 or so when he did this, if memory serves. It always seemed to me like a tantrum thrown by a teenager getting praised for being an asshat. Prior to that, he was a dick to his stepdad by essentially telling him "you're not my real dad". And these were the events canonized, so what other kinds of things were left out that these were the ones that were selected as the high notes?
        bluGill 3y ago
        He would have been in his 30s by any reading of the bible. (Luke 3 clearly says about 30, and also is clearly the start of his ministry) Historically there were many Jewish people not happy about this happening in the temple. I doubt Jesus was the only one driving them away from time to time, they just kept coming back to the temple. The rest of your post is just made up based on trying your best to interrupt things in the worst possible light it is not more reasonable than believing anything else.
        dylan604 3y ago
  - rijoja 3y ago
    How much interest you charge, and if you are doing it say to help people trough university, so that they can benefit society and or humanity, versus if you want people to promote people getting lavish people houses, wanting them to fail so that you can get other peoples houses.
throw0101b 3y ago
The definition of "usury" isn't as straight forward as 'charging interest'. Even in the time of Jesus of Nazareth charging interest was not unheard of (Matthew 25:27; Luke 19:23), and opportunity cost was recognized in the Middle Ages (see Paris, 1200 by Baldwin). * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_cost https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_cost We tend to focus on lending money for commercial purposes, but in the ancient world most folks were probably peasant farmers, and they generally needed to borrow / be lent to because the crops failed: charging them interest in their hour of need would be against the virtue of charity.
- na54 3y ago
  That's still pretty much how agriculture works today. You borrow from the landlord, the rich or the bank, to pay for seeds, fertilizer, machinery, energy, labor etc and pray you don't get hit by weather, pests, disease, market price fluctuations. If all goes well you pay it back. If it doesn't govt steps in, to the keep you(ie the banks and rich people) afloat. See the size Farming Subsidies and Protections world wide. When they don't step in farms shutdown.
  - Lamad1234 3y ago
    [dead]
andsoitis 3y ago
Thomas Aquinas described usury as the unlawful attempt to charge someone for the use of time itself. Aristotle called it the "unnatural birth of money from money". Religions who ban usury (now or in the past) only did so for "one's own kind", sometimes leaving theological ambiguity as to whether you are allowed to charge those of a different faith. We might call it hypocrisy. To Artistotle, we would say today that his notion of the "barrenness" of money is illogical - other assets that don't bear "offspring", such as houses and land, could generate rent, so too could money.
- throw0101b 3y ago
  > Thomas Aquinas described usury as the unlawful attempt to charge someone for the use of time itself. Aquinas also does not seem to mention being rewarded for risk in a commercial/investment venture (AFAICT): * https://www.newadvent.org/summa/3078.htm https://www.newadvent.org/summa/3078.htm
- syntaxfree 3y ago
  Ezra Pound says “a charge for the use of purchasing power, levied without regard to production; often without regard to the possibilities of production.” Of course, Ezra Pound was a proper and proud fascist.
  - mordechai9000 3y ago
    I don't think he was quite as proud after the second world war, when he avoided prosecution for treason by claiming insanity.
- gryn 3y ago
  > Religions who ban usury (now or in the past) only did so for "one's own kind" Not the case for islam, it's banned for all, regardless of being an 'in-group' or 'out-group'. And the closest financial instrument similar to charging interest that's allowed is basically the lender buying it and selling shares of the thing to you at a markup with installments, meaning that they are sharing the risk with you.

Religious nutbags from olden times weren't all that nuts to ban usury!!!

dylan604 3y ago

there's lending, and then there's predatory lending. let's not paint everything with the same brush.

lostlogin 3y ago
While true, that’s also not that helpful. Where is the line?
- LastTrain 3y ago
  Somewhere in the middle.
  - HPsquared 3y ago
    What about risky borrowers?
- dylan604 3y ago
  I like to think the parable of jesus overturning the money changers' tables was because they were the equivalent to payday loans. here's money to pay for new goats/lambs with the promise that you pay me back in full plus some meat for my family vs here's some money for 3 goats and 3 lambs in the promise that you pay me back in full plus 4 goats and 4 lambs or it'll be a real shame if my nephew has to come and pay a visit.
  - lukifer 3y ago
    The problem isn't that there isn't a common-sense distinction between the extremes; it's attempting to define the crossover point (presumably for the purposes of a "bright line" rule in law/policy/norms). Defining how much interest should qualify as usury is a classic "paradox of the heap" [0]; which may be a reason by some faith traditions simply forbade lending at interest altogether. An interesting alternative to consider, is money that intentionally depreciates value at a fixed rate ("demurrage" [1]). In theory, this would incentivize lending at zero interest (assuming relative price stability for real goods, which is easier said than done). [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demurrage_(currency) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demurrage_(currency)
    - chewz 3y ago
      > An interesting alternative to consider, is money that intentionally depreciates value at a fixed rate ("demurrage" [1]). This is exactly property of coins (gold, silver or copper). Even without debasement (like clippage) they were loosing value as they were worn out as a result normal usage. Money changers were exchanging worn out/damaged/clipped coins at current market value minus some comission.
  - chewz 3y ago
    > jesus overturning the money changers' tables was because they were the equivalent to payday loans Jesus apparently didn't appreciated that a Jew coming from say Alexandia or Gallile had been bringing a bunch of coins of different origin, issuance, often clipped or destroyed by use... Charging 4-8 percent (kolbon) for exchanging used and foreign coins into new shekels required by Temple wasn't excesive. It is on par on charges for foreign purchases by today's banks. Temple services (purification, healing) were on the other hand prohibitively expensive while Jesus provided them for free...
    - bluGill 3y ago
      Many read that passage as Jesus against doing those activities in the temple, if they had been in the market outside he would have been okay.
      - dylan604 3y ago
        The funny thing to me was that Jesus was only like 17 or so when he did this, if memory serves. It always seemed to me like a tantrum thrown by a teenager getting praised for being an asshat. Prior to that, he was a dick to his stepdad by essentially telling him "you're not my real dad". And these were the events canonized, so what other kinds of things were left out that these were the ones that were selected as the high notes?
        bluGill 3y ago
        He would have been in his 30s by any reading of the bible. (Luke 3 clearly says about 30, and also is clearly the start of his ministry) Historically there were many Jewish people not happy about this happening in the temple. I doubt Jesus was the only one driving them away from time to time, they just kept coming back to the temple. The rest of your post is just made up based on trying your best to interrupt things in the worst possible light it is not more reasonable than believing anything else.
        dylan604 3y ago
- rijoja 3y ago
  How much interest you charge, and if you are doing it say to help people trough university, so that they can benefit society and or humanity, versus if you want people to promote people getting lavish people houses, wanting them to fail so that you can get other peoples houses.

throw0101b 3y ago

The definition of "usury" isn't as straight forward as 'charging interest'. Even in the time of Jesus of Nazareth charging interest was not unheard of (Matthew 25:27; Luke 19:23), and opportunity cost was recognized in the Middle Ages (see Paris, 1200 by Baldwin). * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_cost https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_cost We tend to focus on lending money for commercial purposes, but in the ancient world most folks were probably peasant farmers, and they generally needed to borrow / be lent to because the crops failed: charging them interest in their hour of need would be against the virtue of charity.

na54 3y ago
That's still pretty much how agriculture works today. You borrow from the landlord, the rich or the bank, to pay for seeds, fertilizer, machinery, energy, labor etc and pray you don't get hit by weather, pests, disease, market price fluctuations. If all goes well you pay it back. If it doesn't govt steps in, to the keep you(ie the banks and rich people) afloat. See the size Farming Subsidies and Protections world wide. When they don't step in farms shutdown.
- Lamad1234 3y ago
  [dead]

andsoitis 3y ago

Thomas Aquinas described usury as the unlawful attempt to charge someone for the use of time itself. Aristotle called it the "unnatural birth of money from money". Religions who ban usury (now or in the past) only did so for "one's own kind", sometimes leaving theological ambiguity as to whether you are allowed to charge those of a different faith. We might call it hypocrisy. To Artistotle, we would say today that his notion of the "barrenness" of money is illogical - other assets that don't bear "offspring", such as houses and land, could generate rent, so too could money.

throw0101b 3y ago
> Thomas Aquinas described usury as the unlawful attempt to charge someone for the use of time itself. Aquinas also does not seem to mention being rewarded for risk in a commercial/investment venture (AFAICT): * https://www.newadvent.org/summa/3078.htm https://www.newadvent.org/summa/3078.htm
syntaxfree 3y ago
Ezra Pound says “a charge for the use of purchasing power, levied without regard to production; often without regard to the possibilities of production.” Of course, Ezra Pound was a proper and proud fascist.
- mordechai9000 3y ago
  I don't think he was quite as proud after the second world war, when he avoided prosecution for treason by claiming insanity.
gryn 3y ago
> Religions who ban usury (now or in the past) only did so for "one's own kind" Not the case for islam, it's banned for all, regardless of being an 'in-group' or 'out-group'. And the closest financial instrument similar to charging interest that's allowed is basically the lender buying it and selling shares of the thing to you at a markup with installments, meaning that they are sharing the risk with you.