Let's Debate Inequality

[muhammad_isa]

What is "usury"?

Don't you have a search engine on your browser?

Usury is the practice of making loans that are seen as unfairly enriching the lender. The term may be used in a moral sense—condemning taking advantage of others' misfortunes—or in a legal sense, where an interest rate is charged in excess of the maximum rate that is allowed by law.
- Wikipedia -

 

[Kfox]

Don't you have a search engine on your browser?

Usury is the practice of making loans that are seen as unfairly enriching the lender. The term may be used in a moral sense—condemning taking advantage of others' misfortunes—or in a legal sense, where an interest rate is charged in excess of the maximum rate that is allowed by law.
- Wikipedia -

Okay so it’s illegal lending practices. But earlier you said a non-usurious financial system would not result in such a skewed distribution of wealth in the first place. But aren’t all the countries you claim have a skewed distribution of wealth non-usurious?

 

[Heyo]

Okay so it’s illegal lending practices. But earlier you said a non-usurious financial system would not result in such a skewed distribution of wealth in the first place. But aren’t all the countries you claim have a skewed distribution of wealth non-usurious?

You really need to work on your reading comprehension. It is either illegal or immoral lending. And for a Muslim, all lending for interest is immoral. (Which it was for Christians also, for the longest time.)

 

[Kfox]

You really need to work on your reading comprehension.

You need to do a better job of making your points.

It is either illegal or immoral lending.

Lending as legally done in the US is neither illegal nor is it immoral

And for a Muslim, all lending for interest is immoral. (Which it was for Christians also, for the longest time.)

If you were talking about in the context of your religions of choice, how was I supposed to know? Are you expecting me to read your mind? That's why I asked you in the first place instead of looking it up, you guys seem to expect others to read your mind when it comes to context, then get an attitude when we don't read your minds correctly.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Lending as legally done in the US is neither illegal nor is it immoral..

In your opinion..
You are quite happy supporting usurious financial institutions, because it suits you.
You are alright Jack.

"Credit card interest rates range between 0% and 50%, but the average credit card charges about 18% or 19%."

Poor people are forced to take loans on high APR (4% monthly, is 60% APR), as their credit ratings
are usually next to zero.
They often have difficulty in repayments, and find themselves in permanent debt.

This happens to govts. of third-world countries also.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not immoral? Depends on what side of the fence you are on, I would say.

 

[Kfox]

In your opinion..
You are quite happy supporting usurious financial institutions, because it suits you.
You are alright Jack.

"Credit card interest rates range between 0% and 50%, but the average credit card charges about 18% or 19%."

Poor people are forced to take loans on high APR (4% monthly, is 60% APR), as their credit ratings
are usually next to zero.
They often have difficulty in repayments, and find themselves in permanent debt.

This happens to govts. of third-world countries also.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not immoral? Depends on what side of the fence you are on, I would say.

When I was poor, I never used credit cards because I didn’t like paying the interest rates. I managed to do without little luxuries until I could afford them. Perhaps the poor people you speak of shouldn’t use them either.

So let me see if I’ve got this straight, in your religion it is immoral to charge interest on money you lend someone? What about if I borrowed a huge sum of money, then gave that money to a broker, or financial institution, and used the dividend and growth created by that money to pay him back while I keep the principle that he loaned me? Is that moral? That would be like me borrowing my friends car, then returning the car a few days later with no gas in the tank and calling that moral. IMO moral would be for me to return the car with as much gas (if not more) in the tank as when I borrowed the car. When you borrow something you have a moral obligation to return it the way you found it.
Interest on a loan is like putting gas in the tank of the car you borrowed, money loses value on a daily basis; IOW if I borrowed say…. $100,000 from you, then pay you back that same $100,000 5 years later, that $100,000 that I returned to you has lost a lot of value and is not worth what it was when I borrowed it from you. If you loan me money of a certain value, I should repay that loan to the same value; this requires me to pay interest on that loan.
I'm sure you will disagree, however; in the mean time I'm gonna go make me some Muslim friends; eventually perhaps they would be willing to loan me some money!

 

[muhammad_isa]

When I was poor, I never used credit cards because I didn’t like paying the interest rates. I managed to do without little luxuries until I could afford them. Perhaps the poor people you speak of shouldn’t use them either.

Mmm .. but not everybody in the world has access to govt. money, or family help.

..and even in the UK these days, with the advent of 'universal credit', people often have to wait several
months before they get paid !

So let me see if I’ve got this straight, in your religion it is immoral to charge interest on money you lend someone?

Correct.

What about if I borrowed a huge sum of money, then gave that money to a broker, or financial institution, and used the dividend and growth created by that money to pay him back while I keep the principle that he loaned me? Is that moral?

Yes .. but you are not 'guaranteed' (and not underwritten by the system) to be successful.
You might end up with a massive debt.

That would be like me borrowing my friends car, then returning the car a few days later with no gas in the tank and calling that moral.

Absolutely not.

IMO moral would be for me to return the car with as much gas (if not more) in the tank as when I borrowed the car.

Naturally .. and if you damage it, make it right.
..but the lender is not thinking of gaining anything when he lends you it .. it's a favor.

Interest on a loan is like putting gas in the tank of the car you borrowed, money loses value on a daily basis..

For everyone .. not just you.
You insist that you want to keep the value of your money, whilst ignoring the rest of us.

IOW if I borrowed say…. $100,000 from you, then pay you back that same $100,000 5 years later, that $100,000 that I returned to you has lost a lot of value and is not worth what it was when I borrowed it from you.

Mmm .. I know.. Look below..

This is for £ sterling, of course, but a similar picture for the dollar.
Since OPEC held the West to ransom over oil prices, the West (G7) decided to abandon
the gold-standard, and manipulate their currencies through monetary policy.

This shows up in the graph .. inflation has become a persistent problem.
..but the wealthy don't care .. they manipulate interest rates to keep it at a certain level,
thereby keeping their wealth at the expense of everybody else..
..and that's not immoral??

If you loan me money of a certain value, I should repay that loan to the same value; this requires me to pay interest on that loan.

Nope .. if you want to convert the money into gold or silver, maybe .. but the price of those
go down as well as up .. so the lender might get back less than they loaned.
Fiat money, as we can see from the graph, is a cause of inflation.

..when they see that we are heading for a recession, they say 'print money', and when we
are heading for a boom (and associated inflation), 'raise interest rates'.
It's despicable .. and it is the cause of so much terrorism and war.

Capitalism does NOT mean that there is always a 'trickle down to the poor' .. it means that when the G7
raise interest rates, those poorer countries erupt into civil war.

Is that a reasonable way of the richer nations to conduct their "business"?
I think not.

 

[Kfox]

Mmm .. but not everybody in the world has access to govt. money, or family help.

..and even in the UK these days, with the advent of 'universal credit', people often have to wait several
months before they get paid !

I can’t speak for what goes on in other countries, only the USA.

Correct.


Yes .. but you are not 'guaranteed' (and not underwritten by the system) to be successful.
You might end up with a massive debt.

Though nothing is guaranteed, unless the US falls into a massive recession, any broker can do this with your money.

Absolutely not.


Naturally .. and if you damage it, make it right.
..but the lender is not thinking of gaining anything when he lends you it .. it's a favor.

But when someone lends you a large sum of money, for you to return that exact amount years later is returning less value than you borrowed. 8 years ago you could buy a nice house in my neighborhood for $300,000, today that amount of money buys nothing because that amount of money does not have the same value it had back then. If your neighbor lends you money out of kindness, don’t cha think you should repay him the same value that you borrowed?

This is for £ sterling, of course, but a similar picture for the dollar.
Since OPEC held the West to ransom over oil prices, the West (G7) decided to abandon
the gold-standard, and manipulate their currencies through monetary policy.

No; OPEC was not the reason the USA abandoned the gold standard.

Nope .. if you want to convert the money into gold or silver, maybe .. but the price of those
go down as well as up .. so the lender might get back less than they loaned.

I disagree; the only time you pay the lender back in Gold or Silver is if he loans you gold or silver. If you borrow cash money, you pay him back in cash money.

 

[muhammad_isa]

No; OPEC was not the reason the USA abandoned the gold standard.

I never categorically said it was, and I'm sorry if you think I implied it.
It's certainly connected.

France voiced concerns over the artificially low price of gold in 1968 and called for returns to the former gold standard. Meanwhile, excess dollars flowed into international markets as the United States expanded its money supply to accommodate the costs of its military campaign in the Vietnam War. Its gold reserves were assaulted by speculative investors following its first current account deficit since the 19th century. In August 1971, President Richard Nixon suspended the exchange of U.S. dollars for gold as part of the Nixon Shock. The closure of the gold window effectively shifted the adjustment burdens of a devalued dollar to other nations. Speculative traders chased other currencies and began selling dollars in anticipation of these currencies being revalued against the dollar. These influxes of capital presented difficulties to foreign central banks, which then faced choosing among inflationary money supplies, largely ineffective capital controls, or floating exchange rates.
Following these woes surrounding the U.S. dollar, the dollar price of gold was raised to US$38 per ounce and the Bretton Woods system was modified to allow fluctuations within an augmented band of 2.25% as part of the Smithsonian Agreement signed by the G-10 members in December 1971. The agreement delayed the system's demise for a further two years.  The system's erosion was expedited not only by the dollar devaluations that occurred, but also by the oil crises of the 1970s which emphasized the importance of international financial markets in petrodollar recycling and balance of payments financing.
Global_financial_system - Wikipedia

In 1973, Nixon and secretary of state Henry Kissinger made a secret deal with Saudi Arabia to trade oil only in US dollars, thus pegging the US dollar to oil and birthing the petrodollar.
Bretton_Woods_system - Wikipedia

I disagree; the only time you pay the lender back in Gold or Silver is if he loans you gold or silver. If you borrow cash money, you pay him back in cash money.

Fine .. and I suppose if you borrow gold from somebody, you think you should give more gold back,
a year later?
If so, why?

 

[Kfox]

Fine .. and I suppose if you borrow gold from somebody, you think you should give more gold back,
a year later?

If you borrow an ounce of gold, at minimum you should pay that ounce of gold back, unless other agreements are made

If so, why?

Because at minimum you should pay back what you borrowed.

 

[muhammad_isa]

If you borrow an ounce of gold, at minimum you should pay that ounce of gold back, unless other agreements are made

Because at minimum you should pay back what you borrowed.

That's no answer .. you say "I disagree; the only time you pay the lender back in Gold or Silver is if he loans you gold or silver. If you borrow cash money, you pay him back in cash money."

You also say "If you loan me money of a certain value, I should repay that loan to the same value; this requires me to pay interest on that loan."

..so it appears, for gold, you think it's OK to pay back the same amount, but for $'s, you think you
should pay back more, because it's losing its value.

That is a circular argument, because if the person lending the money does not lend it to you
(expecting a greater return), his money devalues due to the currency being fiat-money.

It's all an illusion .. an illusion that enriches the wealthy.
If the currency is not representative of other than govt. manipulation, it is a kind of fraud.
Central banks formed to prevent fraud, and stabilise nations and currency.

On UK sterling notes, we still have the historical:
"I (Bank of England) promise to pay the bearer the sum of £20 pounds" on paper money.

They won't give you anything .. central banks now have a monopoly on fraud, whilst collaborating
with each other, to agree to reward the wealthy.

 

[Kfox]

That's no answer .. you say "I disagree; the only time you pay the lender back in Gold or Silver is if he loans you gold or silver. If you borrow cash money, you pay him back in cash money."

Yes.

You also say "If you loan me money of a certain value, I should repay that loan to the same value; this requires me to pay interest on that loan."

..so it appears, for gold, you think it's OK to pay back the same amount, but for $'s, you think you
should pay back more, because it's losing its value.

Yes.

That is a circular argument, because if the person lending the money does not lend it to you
(expecting a greater return), his money devalues due to the currency being fiat-money.

How is that argument circular?

 

[muhammad_isa]

How is that argument circular?

I would have thought it obvious.

You are in effect suggesting, that due to the inflation of fiat-money, it's only fair
that a person who borrows money should pay back more than they borrowed.
However, if the person who is holding the money doesn't lend it to you, their money depreciates
anyway.

This is not identical to investment in stocks and shares, as a person who invests their money can gain or lose.
..so demanding a dead-cert increase in the amount borrowed is merely self-serving, that is
a cause of inflation in itself, and unfair to the borrowers.

Interest rate rises are employed to control inflation .. but that is illusionary, as what it is really doing
is penalizing the masses, while rewarding the wealthy.
i.e. encouraging deposits (savings of the better off), and taking money out of the pockets of the poor

It's a vicious circle that is inflationary.
It's classic divide & rule through devious financial manipulation.

 

[Kfox]

I would have thought it obvious.

You are in effect suggesting, that due to the inflation of fiat-money, it's only fair
that a person who borrows money should pay back more than they borrowed.
However, if the person who is holding the money doesn't lend it to you, their money depreciates
anyway.

Nobody in their right mind is gonna hold on to $100,000 cash for 5 years, allowing it to get destroyed by inflation, people with that kind of money are going to have it invested. So if he loans that $100,000 to you, that will be $100,000 worth of investment over a 5 year period that he will be missing out on.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Nobody in their right mind is gonna hold on to $100,000 cash for 5 years, allowing it to get destroyed by inflation, people with that kind of money are going to have it invested. So if he loans that $100,000 to you, that will be $100,000 worth of investment over a 5 year period that he will be missing out on.

..but I have already said that investing the money carries a risk.
A depositer receiving an increase on the sum lent is not a risk.

The system is designed to protect usurious financial institutions .. they are underwritten, and
if they fail, the public has to pay .. usually through austerity.

eg. Currently, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp (FDIC) guarantees deposits of up to $250,000 per person, per bank.

 

[Kfox]

..but I have already said that investing the money carries a risk.
A depositer receiving an increase on the sum lent is not a risk.

True! Investing does involve a risk. But in the real world, people generally aren't gonna have that much cash lying around getting eaten up by inflation, however if they do, they might as well loan it out to someone interest free. But if they had intentions of doing something with that money, and they loan it to someone instead, I think it is perfectly reasonable to charge interest on that money.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..if they had intentions of doing something with that money, and they loan it to someone instead, I think it is perfectly reasonable to charge interest on that money..

It might seem so, but when the underlying global financial system is underpinned by usury, it
becomes a case of casino type economics, where it is impossible to "beat the bank" ..

..which in this case are the central banks of the G7, who have effectively "loaded the dice".
It makes no difference how much gold or oil a developing nation has, they are controlled by
this "state monopoly".

..and Trump wants to MAGA, ensuring his 'poker pot' is not eroded. He does not care, or is
oblivious to the consequences for others, and the consequent danger to his nation.
BANG, BANG, BANG!

..but it's endemic .. Republican or Democrat are no longer in control of financial institutions like
central banks .. power is in the hands of the wealthy corporations.
Nevertheless, different policies still have different consequences.

 

[Kfox]

It might seem so, but when the underlying global financial system is underpinned by usury, it
becomes a case of casino type economics, where it is impossible to "beat the bank" ..

I'm not really all that concerned of your claims of this underlying global financial system that you speak of, I'm more so interested in things that affect me personally, hence my justification of charging interest if someone borrows large sums of money from me.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I'm not really all that concerned of your claims of this underlying global financial system that you speak of, I'm more so interested in things that affect me personally..

Well, you are in the majority.
Most voters in US and UK cite the economy as a leading reason for their vote, in polls.
..and likely in most other nations in the world.

They consider whether they personally will be better off with this or that party.
We become complacent, and feel that the system won't or can't fail, thinking it's what happens to other nations, but not ours.

Spiritual paths tend to cause one to think deeper. We often have to make sacrifices for
the common good.