Usury

[DC Al Fine]

There was a discussion about this going on in the objective morality thread.

I haven't read the literature to know what is meant by "objective morality" but I know rape, murder, usury, etc are anti-social behaviors which should be guarded against.

lol

You believe that banning people from lending their property to others would be more "pro-social?" Violently preventing people from engaging in consensual interactions with one another strikes me as far more anti-social.

Charging interest is a fundamentally sociopathic behavior.

And whoever said anything about violence? Religion in Europe and the Near East successfully prevented members of that religion from charging each other interest for centuries without undue violence.

The meaning of the word "consensual" in the context ought to be explored, but I don't get the feeling this is going to be a particularly meaningful interaction.

What are your thoughts. Do you believe that usury is a moral wrong? If so, how would you define it?

[Deus Naturae]

As stated in the objective morality thread, I see nothing morally wrong with it. Economically, banning usury would be disastrous since it would destroy all access to credit, thus preventing all but large, established firms from investing in production.

[politicus]

Charging interests does not equal usury. Usury is exploiting someone else's desperation/ignorance or weak position in general to charge excessive interests. There will always be a subjective element in the definition of usury.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Charging interests does not equal usury. Usury is exploiting someone else's desperation/ignorance or weak position in general to charge excessive interests. There will always be a subjective element in the definition of usury.

That's how it's defined now, but I suspect that it's defined that way partly as a rationalization for what a modern economy requires. In the time periods and places in which usury was something people were really up in arms about on religious grounds, what constituted it was a much lower bar.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Charging interests does not equal usury. Usury is exploiting someone else's desperation/ignorance or weak position in general to charge excessive interests. There will always be a subjective element in the definition of usury.

That's how it's defined now, but I suspect that it's defined that way partly as a rationalization for what a modern economy requires. In the time periods and places in which usury was something people were really up in arms about on religious grounds, what constituted it was a much lower bar.

Islam also has a ban on usury, which has led to some novel banking practices to provide the effect of modern banking while retaining the ban.  For example, in an Islamic "mortgage"  what happens is that rather than a loan, the "bank" retains ownership of a declining portion of the property, so instead of paying principal and interest each month, the purchaser increases his ownership stake (principal equivalent) and pays rent on the portion he doesn't yet own (interest equivalent).

[politicus]

Charging interests does not equal usury. Usury is exploiting someone else's desperation/ignorance or weak position in general to charge excessive interests. There will always be a subjective element in the definition of usury.

That's how it's defined now, but I suspect that it's defined that way partly as a rationalization for what a modern economy requires. In the time periods and places in which usury was something people were really up in arms about on religious grounds, what constituted it was a much lower bar.

The medieval interpretation was certainly quite different and the modern Islamist is as well, but I do not think that is particularly relevant in a modern debate.

[DemPGH]

Usury and interest are two very different things, IMO. Usury is thoroughly objectionable and predatory, and at times crosses over into racketeering, especially when applied to people who can't get traditional loans for whatever reasons. Interest is altogether different. Firms will compete - 4.5% vs. 4.3% and so on. Nothing wrong with that. It's how most get their first house, first car, etc.

[Ashbringer]

Personnaly, i think that usury is an amunt of interest that abuse the debtor. I think that modern usury take's place in financial markets, where countries have so much interests to pay, that it's clearly abusing them and their population.