/lit/ - Literature

>>14000621
I disagree with both and say You shouldn't loan money at interest.

>>14001866

oy vey

>>14001866
Morally, as the OP, I would agree with you.

That interest in general is bad is plain to see. We could learn something from Islamic finance. But I'm also talking about a pragmatic solution. Should we be putting a cap on the amount institutions charge for interest? Should they have any sort of discretion about who they lend to at all, or should credit not factor into the decision-making process when it comes to whether or not to give out the loan (which is what a modern-day Bentham would want). Obviously if it affects the interest rate that's fine.

>>14000621
Not familiar with Bentham, why should it not be limited? It is the same situation as with labour laws and anti-cartel laws, yes? Not necessary in the truly rational market, but people aren't rational

>>14001887
>We could learn something from Islamic finance.
You mean like how to evade usury laws by engaging in multiple transactions for the sale of platinum?

>>14000621
Islam unironically has the correct view on interest

>>14001887
I was thinking more of egyptian jubilees: every ten to fifteen years the pharaoh throws a party and declares all debts null and void. That will teach that certain middle eastern ethnicity of merchants and moneylenders.

There shouldn’t be any interest rate. Money is fiction enough without tacking imaginary oweskies for a fucking loan

>>14001904
Not only that but it's also unnatural.
You cannot take something that is infertile (money) and make it reproduce.
You put two rabbits in a drawer, you get 4 rabbits after few days.
You put two coins in a drawer, it's gonna be two coins after 20 years.
There's a reason why fags and usurers share the same circle of hell: former take something fecund and turn it into something barren, the latter take the barren and turn it into something fecund.

>>14001940
>You cannot take something that is infertile (money) and make it reproduce
btfo by reality

>>14000621
One should dispense of the psychological boundary between economy and government. All it does is privilege certain patterns of social organization over others. So, in short, there should certainly remain interest caps.

>>14001892

Well Bentham brought about utilitarianism, and probably weighed up usury as the motivation for the person giving out the loan, and the fact that people accepted loan terms with such high rates of interest meant that they obviously wanted the money more than they didn't want to pay the interest.

I haven't read this work, but I imagine that's the kind of line it takes. There is motivation and pleasure from both ends for the transaction and to end usury would decentivise the activity.

>>14001940
but contract those coins to a person and you might get several more in return

>>14001965
Usury absolutely destroys families and nations as a whole. Just look at the housing market.
Can you imagine the screeching if usury was abolished, though?
If you want the money, someone needs to invest into you and face the risks that come with it. Usury absolutely eliminates the risk that the lender faces thus allowing himself to prosper at the expense of the failure. This is absolutely intolerable philosophically, naturally, morally, economically.

>>14001985
Correct.

>>14001988

I don't disagree with you, but Bentham and his disciple John Stuart Mill looked at most things through the individualistic utilitarian lense.

>>14001904
Based

>>14000621
I agree with interest to an extent but only in certain situations. Interest tends to "compound" and grow drastically out of proportion, however, a society WITHOUT interest rates for loans is of course the preferred amount however "interest" has always been performed in other methods. The problem is modern society is grounded mostly on loose attributions of "community" (I am speaking directly about Western societies) without any form of identity being allowed (everyone is meant to be a good consumer citizen, nothing more or less) so I think in this regard that an interest free society will be impossible. On the other hand, artificial community like that imposed by Communist societies isn't really a solution either.

The greatest solution, therefore, is the goal of removing interest rates by rallying a form of community that carries with it true measures of trust with a different "currency" beyond pure monetary ones (although I fully support the notion that most of mankind is driven by ambition).

>>14001904
Okay "money is unnatural" and yet humanity developed these "unnatural economies" as a means of exchange so I'm not going to pretend what is natural or unnatural. Rather, I think we would be better of re-examining our societal and community situations first before addressing any situations regarding economics. I do not believe economic reformation is even possible without a small, cohesive community similar in as many facets as possible while still allowing individual growth. In other words: I believe the critical period for existing in the most "natural" form of economic situation is usually the beginning of a community (I think of early, early Rome when it was mostly a gang where all were united in a ethno-culture, religion, and motivation and had a "tribal" mentality. Contrast this to the later Rome which was a bloated machine that ate itself alive).

These "loans" you rail against are simply natural in a society that has no groundings for trust, honor, or relation with one another. There is no easy solution either as the Communists painfully discovered when they tried to form a community based entirely on abstract philosophy which mostly resulted in devastation and artificial community based on executions and "forced identity". Therefore, I think that complaining about "loans" while simultaneously speaking of a "global community" in the positive is a self-defeating concept.

>>14001988
Checked (interesting digits in this case) and agreed but what else do you expect from a society built on consumerism or artificial identity? The 20th century destroyed the last vestiges of metaphysical community in the duel headed snake of capitalism vs. communism (two sides of the same coin) so until we eradicate these social and economic concepts to the point where they cease to exist at all then I fear there is no way out of the labyrinth and we're just chasing our own tail.

>>14001901
>>14001895
No, you see, in Islamic finance interest charged on a loan is illegal.

In Plato's Laws, the burden of getting the money back is on the lender, not the borrower. Meaning if the borrower doesn't want to give his money back he doesn't even have to.

Clearly I'm not even thinking along the lines you are, so there is literally no point in being upset or angry.

>>14001904
Again, morally, I would -agree- with you. But we're searching for a pragmatic solution here. :3

>>14002011
>>14001988
Right.

Jeremy Bentham would be absolutely -fine- if the interest rate were exorbitantly high.

It is actually somewhat amusing reading all of this. I read it with a light smirk. Adam Smith, being the humanitarian he is, would not support society going on unburdened by no restrictions on interest rates given out. What you know as the housing crisis in early 2000s would be far worse if we had followed the economic/philosophical policies of Jeremy Bentham.

>>14002061
I'm :3, of course.

>>14001897
>>14000621
Based muslims

>>14003310
Even the goat fuckers realise it.

>>14002055
>a pragmatic solution
We’ve had a pragmatic solution for ages now.
This is why we shift to a revolution to implement it.

>>14002055
>No, you see, in Islamic finance interest charged on a loan is illegal.
I've studied irl Islamic Finance transactions, I guarantee you haven't. Look up Murabaha, cost-plus arrangements are functionally the same as interest.

Being against interest is admitting that you're anti-capitalism for the most cringe reasons(stupid, lazy, uneducated). You won't prosper under any system, so please kill yourself.

>>14003888
No, we’d rather kill the liberals like yourself, thanks.

>>14003895
Based

>>14001904
>>14003385
>>14003895
Only based opinion itt

>>14003895
>>14004259
>>14004307
making empty threats is pathetic, anon

>>14004752
It’s a threat to you that we don’t want to kill ourselves and would rather kill to make things better?
I’d rather not resort to violence, but that is what your side resorts to by the hour

>>14004872
it's called an "empty" threat because you're not gonna do shit

your revolution won't come in this lifetime, and if it does, the system will remain largely capitalist

there is no escape for your kind, stop putting up a front

>>14005003
Heh. You don’t understand

>>14005003
>>14005039
Hmm, so who is who? I don't know which one of you I'm rooting for.

>>14005039
:^)

>>14000621
Is this really a relevant question when globally we're moving towards negative rates?

>>14001988
>Just look at the housing market.
>Can you imagine the screeching if usury was abolished, though?

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2019/aug/13/danish-bank-launches-worlds-first-negative-interest-rate-mortgage

>>14003385
Hm. Somehow I don't think the Adam Smith advocate (me) is going to be interested in socialism, no matter how much Marx was influenced by/invokes Smith.

>>14003635
The way that you word this post makes it seem like I am fundamentally misunderstanding something. But yet in the same post you admit that there are 'arrangements' that have to be made in order to transact business under Islamic law. So obviously I was reasoning correctly.

It's yet another work around. Color me surprised. Pretty much everyone is corrupt these days. The Koran says interest is forbidden. :3

>>14005151
I'm sure he's referencing subprime mortgages there, champ.

That and what Bentham would call bottomry (various forms of extremely high interest short-term lending that is legal like payday loans) are killing the poorer classes today. :3

>>14005151
>>14005176
Accumulative currency is as much a problem as debt inducing interest charges.
Vouchers is the way to go

>>14005184
Your issue is more institutional. You got to ask why are people borrowing? If they're borrowing to finance basic needs there's a bigger problem there since they don't probably have a steady waged job. Capping rates and depending on private lending isn't going to help the poor much.

>>14005241
>Accumulative currency is as much a problem as debt inducing interest charges.
lol no

>>14005241
NON ACCUMULATIVE CURRENCY NON ACCUMULATIVE CURRENCY NON ACCUMULATIVE CURRENCY NON ACCUMULATIVE CURRENCY NON ACCUMULATIVE CURRENCY NON ACCUMULATIVE CURRENCY NON ACCUMULATIVE CURRENCY NON ACCUMULATIVE CURRENCY NON ACCUMULATIVE CURRENCY NON ACCUMULATIVE CURRENCY NON ACCUMULATIVE CURRENCY NON ACCUMULATIVE CURRENCY NON ACCUMULATIVE CURRENCY NON ACCUMULATIVE CURRENCY NON ACCUMULATIVE CURRENCY NON ACCUMULATIVE CURRENCY NON ACCUMULATIVE CURRENCY NON ACCUMULATIVE CURRENCY NON ACCUMULATIVE CURRENCY NON ACCUMULATIVE CURRENCY NON ACCUMULATIVE CURRENCY NON ACCUMULATIVE CURRENCY NON ACCUMULATIVE CURRENCY NON ACCUMULATIVE CURRENCY NON ACCUMULATIVE CURRENCY NON ACCUMULATIVE CURRENCY

Thanks.
>>14005336
If you limit lending people won't just go around taking out loans 24/7. That's the real issue here. You're helping generate worse morals by having the option out there. Honestly, many of the methods by which people loan money is ridiculous and many times it is plain to see that these loans are simply for short-term, vain 'gains' that don't really help society any in the long run (like consumption of non-productive labor). :3

>>14005361
>If you limit lending people won't just go around taking out loans 24/7. That's the real issue here. You're helping generate worse morals by having the option out there. Honestly, many of the methods by which people loan money is ridiculous and many times it is plain to see that these loans are simply for short-term, vain 'gains' that don't really help society any in the long run (like consumption of non-productive labor). :3

Loans should just be seen as gambling and all the risk should be with the creditors. If someone wants to give someone a loan at any rate and thinks they'll pay back whatever but it doesn't need to be enforced but such arrangements should be fully public information since it makes everything transparent for who's fucking who. Such arrangements are risky and most people shouldn't be doing that or need to in the first place but I don't think you can totally stop people from doing that than say doing drugs.
Like I said most of the issues go back to other institutional failures, people go into debt because they don't have a job or can't afford healthcare, etc, etc. Most of those issues could be solved with public money which has no cost. Most private debt today just represents lost real opportunities.

>>14005361
Non accumulative currency would solve a big headache. Simply limiting lending isn’t going to do anything to the systemic problems with capitalism. You need something that replaces the garbage root and branch

>>14005442
>Non accumulative currency would solve a big headache

What? How are fucking pizza hut coupons going to work better than either a deflationary or inflationary currency?

>>14005423
That's interesting and an idea that is only compatible with a fully globalized society. Obviously that means it has some merit in this era.

>>14005442
NON ACCUMULATIVE CURRENCY NON ACCUMULATIVE CURRENCY NON ACCUMULATIVE CURRENCY NON ACCUMULATIVE CURRENCY NON ACCUMULATIVE CURRENCY NON ACCUMULATIVE CURRENCY NON ACCUMULATIVE CURRENCY NON ACCUMULATIVE CURRENCY NON ACCUMULATIVE CURRENCY NON ACCUMULATIVE CURRENCY NON ACCUMULATIVE CURRENCY NON ACCUMULATIVE CURRENCY NON ACCUMULATIVE CURRENCY NON ACCUMULATIVE CURRENCY NON ACCUMULATIVE CURRENCY NON ACCUMULATIVE CURRENCY NON ACCUMULATIVE CURRENCY NON ACCUMULATIVE CURRENCY NON ACCUMULATIVE CURRENCY NON ACCUMULATIVE CURRENCY NON ACCUMULATIVE CURRENCY NON ACCUMULATIVE CURRENCY NON ACCUMULATIVE CURRENCY NON ACCUMULATIVE CURRENCY NON ACCUMULATIVE CURRENCY NON ACCUMULATIVE CURRENCY NON ACCUMULATIVE CURRENCY NON ACCUMULATIVE CURRENCY NON ACCUMULATIVE CURRENCY NON ACCUMULATIVE CURRENCY NON ACCUMULATIVE CURRENCY NON ACCUMULATIVE CURRENCY NON ACCUMULATIVE CURRENCY NON ACCUMULATIVE CURRENCY NON ACCUMULATIVE CURRENCY NON ACCUMULATIVE CURRENCY NON ACCUMULATIVE CURRENCY NON ACCUMULATIVE CURRENCY NON ACCUMULATIVE CURRENCY NON ACCUMULATIVE CURRENCY NON ACCUMULATIVE CURRENCY NON ACCUMULATIVE CURRENCY NON ACCUMULATIVE CURRENCY NON ACCUMULATIVE CURRENCY NON ACCUMULATIVE CURRENCY NON ACCUMULATIVE CURRENCY NON ACCUMULATIVE CURRENCY NON ACCUMULATIVE CURRENCY NON ACCUMULATIVE CURRENCY NON ACCUMULATIVE CURRENCY NON ACCUMULATIVE CURRENCY NON ACCUMULATIVE CURRENCY

Th-thanks

>>14005455
By their not being money, in the traditional sense of the word.

>>14005455
SHUT YOUREF FUCKCING MOUTHMJ.

>>14005423
That's interesting and an idea that is only compatible with a fully globalized society. Obviously that means it has some merit in this era.

>>14005442
NON ACCUMULATIVE CURRENCY NON ACCUMULATIVE CURRENCY NON ACCUMULATIVE CURRENCY NON ACCUMULATIVE CURRENCY NON ACCUMULATIVE CURRENCY NON ACCUMULATIVE CURRENCY NON ACCUMULATIVE CURRENCY NON ACCUMULATIVE CURRENCY NON ACCUMULATIVE CURRENCY NON ACCUMULATIVE CURRENCY NON ACCUMULATIVE CURRENCY NON ACCUMULATIVE CURRENCY NON ACCUMULATIVE CURRENCY NON ACCUMULATIVE CURRENCY NON ACCUMULATIVE CURRENCY NON ACCUMULATIVE CURRENCY NON ACCUMULATIVE CURRENCY NON ACCUMULATIVE CURRENCY NON ACCUMULATIVE CURRENCY NON ACCUMULATIVE CURRENCY NON ACCUMULATIVE CURRENCY NON ACCUMULATIVE CURRENCY NON ACCUMULATIVE CURRENCY NON ACCUMULATIVE CURRENCY NON ACCUMULATIVE CURRENCY NON ACCUMULATIVE CURRENCY NON ACCUMULATIVE CURRENCY NON AWEJGIWROEIGMEIOWUGNARUIJG$UIMGIU$RGIUMUIAJWRI NONONONONONONONONONONO 101010100100101010101010100100101010101010100100101010101010100100101010101010100100101010101010100100101010101010100100101010101010100100101010101010100100101010101010100100101010 the teleology compounds and unleashes a starved megalomaniacal principle: non accumulative currency

>>14005483
I SEE A SURPRISING LACK OF THE THING THAT YOU MENTION NONSTOP IN EVERY SINGLE THREAD YOU POST IN NO MATTER WHAT SINCE 2016: THE PRINCIPLE THAT WILL HELP US ALL GET IN BED WITH MR. DICKSHOTT:

NON
ACCUMULATIVE
CURRENCY

WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOAHHHHH

>>14005484
You need to shut up and read the damn book

https://m.youtube.com/channel/UCVBfIU1_zO-P_R9keEGdDHQ

Have some Arvid Peterson while you’re at it
https://cosmistponderer.wordpress.com/2009/05/01/the_technocratic_economy/

>>14005176
Just know that your idealized anti-usury law doesn't correspond to any commonplace religious teaching on the practice, ever. Most civic and religious legal traditions have capped interest rates or forbidden interest entirely on personal loans, and that's it. Business loans, the kind that actually matter, are an entirely different beast. Riba is a much more nuanced concept than you make it out to be.

>>14005478
>That's interesting and an idea that is only compatible with a fully globalized society. Obviously that means it has some merit in this era.

Why only a "globalized society"? I'm referring to chartalist ideas for public finance. When it comes to the private sphere the options are many. The babylonians already could of made financial transactions publicly transparent... obviously they just had clay tablets [and corruptible administrators] so the quantity and speed issue there would of been an issue. I don't really know enough but blockchain stuff obviously has some role potiently and is less bad than having people gambling on stuff like land or commodities like food do a lot of real damage.


>>14005532
WRONG. With Islam even business loans were haram, I guess the ideal was more like venture capital

>>14005532
So they've outstepped the bounds of what the Koran says.

You know, at one point Christians did not conduct financial transactions either because no one liked finance. I honestly think, perhaps because of public moral awareness (what's going on here and elsewhere) that the general tendency these days is to look down on financiers again (but it was pretty bad in the 90s and 00s).

It's why the Jews held the pecuniary institutions within Europe for a long time. Usury is hardly productive. It can ruin a society.

>>14005522
Does it mention anything about... NON ….ACCUMULATIVE... CURRENCY?!

>>14005564
Good question. One that can get us somewhere.

Think about the general morals of today vs. then. Obviously the overall tendency of people today is be more morally decrepit in regards to greed than they have been in centuries past, I do not think many would doubt this.

I mentioned Plato's Laws, they are an example of what you are talking about in regards to transparent financial transactions.

Lets move on. Going forward, you will NEED something to ENFORCE this transparency. In this way, 'big brother' actually benefits the entirety of humanity. An enforced transparency as regards the ability of people to pay their debts (much like the credit system) would be nice. As a trade, anyone can not pay anyone else back if they don't want to. This would make it so that people would only loan to their friends and family. And if someone did not pay, then we don't have to go through the costly legal proceedings of bankruptcy.

And while we're at it, in this utopia, please bring back talion and au gratis law. Thank you :3

>>14005567
>You know, at one point Christians did not conduct financial transactions either because no one liked finance.
I don't know if you really want to use that as an example of success.

>Usury is hardly productive. It can ruin a society.
Same with drugs but every attempt to forbid it fails. Usury is an epiphenomena of other issues.

>>14005567
Paul explains it.
Arvid is from Technocracy, Inc. they came up with a whole other set of great ideas. Energy certificates and the like.

>>14005599
WAIT WHADDABOUDDA NON ACCUMULATIVE CURRENCY? IZ DAT ARVID?!?!?!?!!?

Please teach me more oh wise one.

>>14005592
As an example of success of what? You are letting feelings get in the way I can tell.

I am not insinuating anyone has succeeded or failed. I'm saying that finance has a tendency to promote usury, a corrupt practice.

>Usury is an epiphenomena of other issues.
Falling further from God. Much like many other problems in society, like vanity and consumerism.

>>14005590
>Lets move on. Going forward, you will NEED something to ENFORCE this transparency. In this way, 'big brother' actually benefits the entirety of humanity. An enforced transparency as regards the ability of people to pay their debts (much like the credit system) would be nice. As a trade, anyone can not pay anyone else back if they don't want to. This would make it so that people would only loan to their friends and family. And if someone did not pay, then we don't have to go through the costly legal proceedings of bankruptcy.

No, transparency is just something which one would assume to be desirable to one of the parties in most cases. Where secrecy is desirable by both that's where big brother gets intrigued. People don't only gamble with their family and in fact they general don't want to they want to help them. This is sliding into sociology and psychology not economics.

>>14005612
I am taking social welfare as a criterion not anything transcendental. I'm talking about usury as a rational technical matter not sin.

>>14005612
Energy certificates etc.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=I9ps5vJrIxM&list=PLDC7AA188E6932618&index=2&t=0s

>>14005639
>No, transparency is just something which one would assume to be desirable to one of the parties in most cases.
I agree with you here, which renders the rest of your post nonsense.

>I am taking social welfare as a criterion not anything transcendental.
Nothing transcendental about believing in God buddy. I don't know if you noticed, many of us are Christians and Muslims on here for a reason: God is real.

If you want to talk about it technically, usury is an indication of a parasitic relationship of the pecuniary institutions on the rest of society trying to do business. Just saying :3

>>14005651
I've already watched that one :3

>>14005668
There’s eight parts. Linked in a bundle there.

>>14005657
>I agree with you here, which renders the rest of your post nonsense.
I'm not saying transparency is necessary. People can do things in secret but they can get fucked really bad when things go wrong and probably generally don't want to. Obviously society wants to try to snope into things to stop what public morality finds wrong but that's not really necessary at this level.

>Nothing transcendental about believing in God
>God is real
That's a metaphysical statement.

>usury is an indication of a parasitic relationship of the pecuniary institutions on the rest of society trying to do business
That's to simplistic. Yes obviously there exists big vested interests who benefit from usury but there's way more small actors who want a high return on their savings in any society based around private savings. Society bought into those institutions.

>>14001940
>the latter take the barren and turn it into something fecund
in what way is that a bad thing? so a farmer who turns marginal land into a bountiful harvest also gets to go to hell? your brainlet-tier analogy falls flat.

>>14005684
I know. I already watched them all.

>>14005725
>I'm not saying transparency is necessary.
Yeah, I know. I agreed with you, remember?

>That's a metaphysical statement.
It's a religious statement. A metaphysical statement would be to state that the generation of a species is linked to a widening of genera, or that accidentals within the genera could now be attributed to a species.

>That's to simplistic
TOO simplistic. Which renders the rest of your post nonsense. :3

>>14005797
>Yeah, I know. I agreed with you, remember?
No you didn't you said the rest was as a result nonsensical which doesn't follow.

>It's a religious statement. A metaphysical statement would be to state that the generation of a species is linked to a widening of genera, or that accidentals within the genera could now be attributed to a species.
Sorry but "God is real" has no physical meaning.

>TOO simplistic. Which renders the rest of your post nonsense. :3
You don't seem to understand what "nonsense" means or are gaslighting.

>>14005812
>No you didn't you said the rest was as a result nonsensical which doesn't follow.
Because you misunderstood my contention. You did not grasp that I didn't agree with your original point. You were arguing on a fallacy.
>Sorry but "God is real" has no physical meaning.
I disagree.
>You don't seem to understand what "nonsense" means or are gaslighting.
It means that you've decided to insert three greentexted sentences within your post for no reason so now I'm doing the same thing.

What now? Can we just call this a draw, I mean this is some real mysterious bullshit you've gotten yourself into by not understanding any position I've ever had at all. Ever. You don't read what I've written. One thing is for sure, I don't like talking with people who only want to argue. :3

>>14000621
I agree that you should KEEP YOUR FILTHY HANDS OFF MY PLUMS

>>14005851
Damn guy you really suck, leave the guy alone

>>14005564
Islamic VC is called mudarabah and you're blowing smoke out your ass. You have no idea what you're talking about.

>>14005567
Interest Bad >:^[ is a stance that people only take until they have a need to transact real business and discover things like the time value of money, risk allocation, &c. actually matter a lot. Anti-interest absolutism was always a minority position among Scholastics and never fully incorporated by Vix pervenit. Praxis in the crusader era and the proclamations of the Fifth Lateran Council clearly show this to be the case.

Nobody moral is in favor of disastrous title loans, or charging interest on a personal loan made to a widow to hold her over until her social security check clears. Investors, on the other hand, need compensation for the risk they bear/their opportunity cost, whether it's framed in terms of interest, or profit for a service.

>>14006906
>Interest Bad >:^[ is a stance that people only take until they have a need to transact real business and discover things like the time value of money, risk allocation, &c. actually matter a lot. Anti-interest absolutism was always a minority position among Scholastics and never fully incorporated by Vix pervenit.
Usury being a sin was definitely the majority position unless you're reading amateur revisionist history by someone like Murray Rothbard.
Capital is scarce, somewhat artificially and somewhat naturally, and that's why it has its price but money essiently has no real cost since scarcity need not be the issue. The real fundamental intertemporal issue is unquantifiable uncertainty not pricing quantifiable risk and even if that were so it isn't really a justification for interest when you think more clearly.

>Nobody moral is in favor of disastrous title loans, or charging interest on a personal loan made to a widow to hold her over until her social security check clears. Investors, on the other hand, need compensation for the risk they bear/their opportunity cost, whether it's framed in terms of interest, or profit for a service.
Well most economic liberals would say those first types are actually moral. People generally need to be paid in exchange for their services or goods since charity can't be expected to organize society but how investment is carried out can be done in different manners under different institutional arrangements. There's an obvious opportunity cost of making the rate of investment be totally dependent on the whims of private gamblers since the cost of unemployment and other social costs won't be in their calculations. Also a claim on profit is quite different than any form of interest bearing loan.

It depends on what the loan is for

>>14008027
>Usury being a sin was definitely the majority position
show me the encyclical, show me the bull? Aquinas was 'against' it but he was hardly the Church's only philosopher and again even he makes allowances of the type I described:
>A lender may without sin enter an agreement with the borrower for compensation for the loss he incurs of something he ought to have, for this is not to sell the use of money but to avoid a loss. It may also happen that the borrower avoids a greater loss than the lender incurs, wherefore the borrower may repay the lender with what he has gained. But the lender cannot enter an agreement for compensation, through the fact that he makes no profit out of his money: because he must not sell that which he has not yet and may be prevented in many ways from having.
Orthodox religious scholars were against guaranteed profit, aka debt with interest payments and recourse to a human person.

>Well most economic liberals would say those first types are actually moral.
They run on a utility theory of morality; I don't.

>>14001892

We are only partly rational

>>14008595
wrong. every decision is rational because rationality = making the utility maximizing choice based on the information YOU possess. its tautological sure but neoclassical 'rationality' is baked in.

>>14008607

WTF am I reading?

I disagree with your worldview. Socrates implored us to know ourselves, which is the hardest fucking thing. "Making the utility maximizing choice" assumes everyone knows themselves perfectly, which is patently absurd.

>>14008639
you're a stupid nigger. shut up and don't reply to me anymore because you obviously can't read. you probably don't even know that 'know thyself' is a delphic maxim and not some original saying of Socrates.

neoclassical rationality = making the utility maximizing choice based on the information you possess. of course its better if you have more information, why do you think the whole fucking financial services sector is hellbent on obtaining as much of it as possible? that still doesn't imply that a run-of-the-mill daytrader is being 'irrational' in the neoclassical sense.

>>14008516
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vix_pervenit
https://distributistreview.com/corporation-christendom/

>>14008773
I already wrote about this. Follow the thread of conversation you numbskull.