Contemplating what it means to be a usurer in the modern age..

Hi ATS,

I've been doing some reading, and some thinking, and I've come up with a question concerning how we arrange our finances in the Western capitalist societies. It is clear that interest on short-term debt is a major cause of financial ruination, and even the 'acceptable' debt, the mortgage on your home, for example - seems to be morally repugnant in its essence, in the sense that - let's face it - debt is slavery, a curse putting you under the aegis of an unsympathetic & craven profit-driven usurer.

I'm not an economist, but I have a question for those of you who are, or the politically wise among us - is there a better way to do capitalism? I certainly don't agree with any sort of communist manifesto, I believe people should strive to better their circumstances wherever possible, and that they are entitled to the fruits of their labour. But I see so much hardship caused by usury, I wonder if a societal model could exist which would be compatible with our typical Western sensibilities, yet eliminating the charging of interest on loans or other forms of credit of low to mid-value? Could the lenders rearrange their business model to include a 'once for all time' administrative fee instead of interest which keeps being added in a living synthesis with the original debt? I presume they could, but they just don't want to, because chasing someone every day of every week to steal from them until they pay off the massively inflated original debt is more profitable than helping them out once & receiving a reward for doing so.

Is there a non-communist way to view the lending of money such that the little guy doesn't run the risk of getting into a massively escalating debt mountain? I had similar thoughts about whether it was possible to have an economic system where billionaires would reach a ceiling beyond which their income could not be increased, because it would seem that simply by existing with that level of wealth within the banking system, they are in a predatory relationship with the rest of the citizens in an economy*, if they are not actively setting up projects which benefit the community

*(because of their inextricable links with the upper echelons of a bank's operations, which is clearly predatory - because that's what it's set up to be).


In the Bible (bear with me), it is clearly indicated that charging usury is stealing from the community (Book of Nehemiah chapter 5, quoted below):

About this time some of the men and their wives raised a cry of protest against their fellow Jews. 2 They were saying, “We have such large families. We need more food to survive.”

3 Others said, “We have mortgaged our fields, vineyards, and homes to get food during the famine.”

4 And others said, “We have had to borrow money on our fields and vineyards to pay our taxes. 5 We belong to the same family as those who are wealthy, and our children are just like theirs. Yet we must sell our children into slavery just to get enough money to live. We have already sold some of our daughters, and we are helpless to do anything about it, for our fields and vineyards are already mortgaged to others.”

6 When I heard their complaints, I was very angry. 7 After thinking it over, I spoke out against these nobles and officials. I told them, “You are hurting your own relatives by charging interest when they borrow money!” Then I called a public meeting to deal with the problem.

8 At the meeting I said to them, “We are doing all we can to redeem our Jewish relatives who have had to sell themselves to pagan foreigners, but you are selling them back into slavery again. How often must we redeem them?” And they had nothing to say in their defense.

9 Then I pressed further, “What you are doing is not right! Should you not walk in the fear of our God in order to avoid being mocked by enemy nations? 10 I myself, as well as my brothers and my workers, have been lending the people money and grain, but now let us stop this business of charging interest. 11 You must restore their fields, vineyards, olive groves, and homes to them this very day. And repay the interest you charged when you lent them money, grain, new wine, and olive oil.”

12 They replied, “We will give back everything and demand nothing more from the people. We will do as you say.” Then I called the priests and made the nobles and officials swear to do what they had promised.

13 I shook out the folds of my robe and said, “If you fail to keep your promise, may God shake you like this from your homes and from your property!”

The whole assembly responded, “Amen,” and they praised the Lord. And the people did as they had promised.

The above scene's context is that the people had all come together to work as one on the rebuilding of the walls of Jerusalem. So they were very much in a joint enterprise, and the national good was quoted as being the whole point & pivot of why it was wrong to charge usury - it is bad for the national good. These days our finances are globally enmeshed in a system which is unsound, on basic principles, and I base this purely on the moral case which is outlined above in the Book of Nehemiah. You may not credit the scriptures with moral authority, but I believe they are sound in the general applicability (the scripture puts complex matters into the simplest terms which all can understand, basically), being the bedrock of our own modern legal systems.

What do you think, ATS? Is there a system which could eliminate usury & substitute an administrative fee to be charged for the lending of capital? And can we put a cap on the highest heights of personal wealth accumulation? Bearing in mind I wouldn't dream of setting it lower than say £3,000,000,000 - so they can continue to pump funds into new projects & create opportunities at scale which will benefit the people.

I would value your considered responses, thanks.

FITO

Why use a term "usurer" which is a bit out-dated, or uncommonly used? Why not just say "lending money with interest"? Often "usury" is linked with exorbitant interest rates, rather than normal fair lending.

> Exploitative loans at high interest to vulnerable people are always bad. Or mostly always bad. Often, they are high interest because they are high risk.
> Lending money on credit, such as using a credit card, only ends up being high interest if the credit persists. If the person pays off their credit "on time" then interest is low. It's convenience.
> Normal loans, at low interest (depending on interest rates) are usually given to people who have demonstrated the ability to pay back. Often the lender won't lend to high-risk people. These are convenient as they give a person cash to do something with and can pay back over time.
> Mortgage lending, again at low interest because the loan is secured. It’s really the only way to buy property if you don’t have the cash up front. Most people don’t have the cash up front.

There is nothing wrong with lending money and nothing wrong with borrowing. If people put themselves in a situation whereby they are too indebted then that’s problematic for them, but should not negate the benefit of the wider principle.

Debt is not a curse if you manage it correctly. People’s greed is a curse. If you only borrow as much as you can comfortably repay then debt can work in your favour. It’s pretty simple really.
Bringing religious quotes into a conversation about capitalism probably won’t end well if you consider the mass of wealth religions tend to garnish without paying taxes, they are truly in the ‘predatory’ system which you’re questioning. They worked it out a long time ago. I wonder if the Catholic Church would regurgitate all their profits over and above the £3,000,000,000 thresh hold you mentioned? You know already know the answer, not a snow balls chance in hell... a reply to: FlyInTheOintment

Lenders are not the problem. It's the borrowers. They have a very limited understanding of basic finance by and large in the US. Take a basic home mortgage. The running theory is it's stupid to try and pay it off early by the financial gurus. They say no, put that money somewhere else and earn more interests.

For the average person this is not a good idea. The markets the last 20 years are very inconsistent. Better to put extra coin towards the mortgage and take the given. Paying that house off 10-20 years earlier equates to 80-100K plus in interests savings. Think not having a mortgage is no big deal. Go ask people out of work right now trying to pay one.

Even a credit card. If one is responsible they can make money off of it. Take the cashback and put it towards the home mortgage. It doesn't even have to be a lot. $20-50 extra a month starts adding up quick. When I show people this with a spreadsheet it blows their mind.

originally posted by: FlyInTheOintment
...and even the 'acceptable' debt, the mortgage on your home, for example - seems to be morally repugnant in its essence, in the sense that - let's face it - debt is slavery...

Someone forcing people to take out mortgages?

a reply to: FlyInTheOintment

To my mind it mean's exactly what it did two thousand years ago when Jesus cast them out of the temple and overturned there tables, they are not welcome in God's kingdom.

This is remember the same God in human form, the same Jesus he was then and is now and will always be that said "if you have two coat's and your brother has non give him the one you are not using" AND identified with the homeless and the poorest in society "The son of man has no place to lay his head" + "As you treat the least of these so too do you treat me" and when asked by a rich man - whom he cared about because rich or not this was a just and decent young man - what more he should do Jesus told him to go and sell his wealth, give it to the poor and come and follow him.

The fact is that if the house is not built with God within it the builder labors in vain.

Today you have press telling people to invest in private equity schemes which will then supposedly pay them a pension when they come to there retirement YET a hell of a lot of economists believe these are nothing but con job's - great in the short term but like all pyramid schemes when the money coming in no longer exceed's the money going out - with an aging population - then they are doomed to collapse while the few at the top getting rich from this quick money scheme will then go and swannie off to some cosy destination to live out THERE retirement - unless as God say's they are called after filling there barn's and who then will inherit there wealth.

Built up your treasure in heaven were the moth can not devour and the thief can not steal it.

a reply to: FlyInTheOintment

I live debt free. Took out a loan for my home and paid it off in 3 years. Other than that, if I cant save up for something I want then I dont need it.

Did Jesus think it was fair he could magically fill fish nets. Some of us normal folks have to do it the hard way and even that sometimes isn't enough. Maybe taking out a loan to buy a better boat or fishing equipment is the answer. I know one thing, if I was having a bad day fishing and saw Jesus walking across the water I would give him the middle finger.

a reply to: paraphi

I was wondering the same thing about the term then got to the Bible quote and realized the impetus to use “usury”.

On a related note, I caught Tim Dillon on JRE last week and he relayed a few anecdotes while he was a mortgage lender back in the early-to-mid aughts. People “put themselves in a situation whereby they are [were] too indebted” with complete information and full knowledge of what they were doing. For as much talk about ‘predatory’ lenders armed with subprime mortgages, the reality was a lot closer to people making high risk bets for high reward payoffs.

Word of the day: usury. Everyone who correctly uses “Usury” in a sentence today gets free checking account at Wells Fargo — and all that other sh$t you never signed up for.

originally posted by: Cravens
a reply to: paraphi

I was wondering the same thing about the term then got to the Bible quote and realized the impetus to use “usury”.

On a related note, I caught Tim Dillon on JRE last week and he relayed a few anecdotes while he was a mortgage lender back in the early-to-mid aughts. People “put themselves in a situation whereby they are [were] too indebted” with complete information and full knowledge of what they were doing. For as much talk about ‘predatory’ lenders armed with subprime mortgages, the reality was a lot closer to people making high risk bets for high reward payoffs.

Word of the day: usury. Everyone who correctly uses “Usury” in a sentence today gets free checking account at Wells Fargo — and all that other sh$t you never signed up for.

Not only high risk but also flat out lying about their income to get what they wanted. Media and Hollywood attack "predatory" lenders but the real criminals were the borrowers who forged documents and lied about their income. Nobody wants to discuss these losers.

a reply to: cognizant420

Sure you did. Unless you came into a windfall there is ZERO incentive to pay off a mortgage in 36 months. Not to mention anyone with a lick of financial acumen would have taken the monies from mortgage deductions and those monies used to pre-pay the mortgage, investing them into a more liquid investment vehicle.

Diversify:

I like the majority on here defending usury, how it's the peoples fault for over lending.
give it a couple of posts and the same people start shouting about the IMF and the FED. Usurers in chief.

originally posted by: Stupidsecrets
Did Jesus think it was fair he could magically fill fish nets. Some of us normal folks have to do it the hard way and even that sometimes isn't enough. Maybe taking out a loan to buy a better boat or fishing equipment is the answer. I know one thing, if I was having a bad day fishing and saw Jesus walking across the water I would give him the middle finger.

You know what get's me is when people make stupid statement's like this they are usually quite well off in the real world.

There is no way around the fact that poor people are the ones' that are tempted into taking out loan's and mortgages and that rich folk's are the ones that then get there money back PLUS interest, sometimes a hell of a lot of interest.

Now in a society there has to be some room for that it is only fair BUT interest is taken at level's that to be quite frank are daylight robbery, then if these poor folk's can no longer afford and can not pay any more it is called defaulting and there property is taken off them, all the years and hard work they put into paying toward that property count for nothing in those cases and the bank or whomever still then get's to sell off that property and still makes more than they loaned out to there victim.

Still you have made clear your opinion of Yeshua so let's just say he will make clear his opinion of you when you finally come face to face with him - if you ever do, that said he is forgiving.

Just remember you live in a world made by greedy scum bag's, it is not the world he gifted to his children and there is still more than enough for everyone it is just that it is in the hand's a few very scummy people that think that they need to keep other's down to make themselves powerful - and that is all it is really about power using money as a slave system replacement rather than a socially beneficial lubricant and mean's of ethical barter as it should be used as.

That said there have been many good men that have worked for bank's and used there influence to help people, society and the world in general, they are forgotten hero's whose names neither you nor I know but at the same time most bank's have been and remain under the control of very evil people whose sole intent is control, power and dynasty, on this site and many other's they are likened to a New World Order but in fact they have a much longer history perhaps dating back to even before the likes of the Hansiatic league and other such network's of traders.


Ethical rule's that are often ignored, a person should never be allowed to borrow more than they can afford, interest rates should NEVER be imposed on a repayment that exceed one tenth of the entire borrowed amount (Factoring in inflation and deflation value over that time period - unless otherwise stipulated) over the course of the repayment AND if the person then can not repay there loan through illness there loan should be covered by a free insurance that will repay it in full should they end up on that situation.

Of course Ethics are not as profitable.

Jesus law's are absolute they are not flexible however, if you don't like them then you are obviously not part of his kingdom think on it like that, you have chosen to step outside his rules and he has made it clear that there is no middle of the road with him, you are either hot or you are cold and if you are lukewarm he will spit you out of his mouth.

It's by the narrow gate and the hard road or you are not getting in sorry, you can not buy your way into heaven - sorry for all those that the Borgia's etc once lied to but God's rules over rule corrupt priests - the only way is TRUE - not halfhearted or fake repentance and to live according to his rules - as best YOU can within your ability's he does understand and is the source of our ethic's, humanitarianism and decency in our culture OR we would still be sacrificing virgin's to Odin every time some boozed up alcoholic chieftain died of cirrhosis or something like that.

But NO! you want to hero worship the bankers and put the middle finger up to Christ, well so be it and good by you have started down a very bad road but you are not alone on that track as most people are also walking it, many misled but other's knowing full well that they deserve where they are going to spend eternity.

All I can do for you mate is Ask Jesus in a quick prayer to spare you and your family from the damnation you are bringing upon yourself, but I guess that comes with having no belief and so nothing to center your being around.

a reply to: Cravens

Lol, yes I did pay it off in 3 years. I put 35% down and lived off 10% of my pay for 3 years. Was pretty easy to do.

Even now I live off just 15% of my pay and the rest goes between savings account and 401k.

I plan on being retired in about 5 years at most.

As far as 0 incentive, I had 100% incentive to pay it off. Debt is the only thing I get stressed over and am proud to carry 0 debt.

a reply to: cognizant420

Ok, Warren Buffet.

Quick rundown: 1) $200k home; 2) 35% down [$70k]; 3) payments based on a 36 month amortization [4.5%] — that’s WAY lower than you would pay if you got a real mortgage [only 3 amortization schedules: 1) 15-year; 2) 20-year; 30-year; I’m giving you all the unrealistic scenarios as such to lower your payment — remember prepaying principal under a real mortgage would be higher — of $3,687 a month. On a starter $200k home.

So at the very lowest range, you are willing to pay $44k yearly in mortgage payments after dropping $70k on a $200k home? So, at the very least, in your first 12 months you paid $114k on a $200k home. Yeah, and I’ve got a bridge for sale, too.

Now, I could go into the math of the savings from mortgage interest deductions and the opportunity cost you incur not using that money to invest in TIPS (points for you if you know even the slightest of)...or any number of inflation-protected equities/securities, but you live debt-free and fabricate your reality. I cost-effectively optimize my finances. House included.

And just so you know, those payment numbers are extremely conservative (just giving you a fighting chance) and are far more likely 20% higher (likely more) using any conventional mortgage, which you had to.
ven.

And lastly (I’m good at this math thing): at best — by your numbers [of course I assumed a $200k price and lord help your delusion if you’re telling us it was more] — you had ~$500 monthly TOTAL [thats not discretionary income] to pay, you know the stuff that has to be paid every month like power, heat, gas, food, health insurance, any court-ordered garnishments, etc.


Please take me to school, otherwise. I’ll what for that fuzzy math of yours — partial credit will not be given.