@luke
A vague question but: In a stive to be more "natura", would forbidding usury realistically be part of that today? Is that something we'd want?

@torresjrjr @luke

Yes, please. Let people save money instead and buy reasonable things. Our economy would not grow as fast, but we would not have the ravages of that, either.
@amerika @torresjrjr @luke

The transition would be turbulent as fuck. "The home mortgage is illegal." Jesus, that's a quick turn.
@moth @luke @torresjrjr

Probably just stop new ones.

Gentlest way would be to enable anyone to exit a contract that involved usury.
@amerika @luke @torresjrjr

There is no gentle way to reshape every single corporate entity in your country, not at implementation in accounting, and not in the after-effects when remove the financial motivator for credit from your world. Unfold, incrementally, how this would apply to rotating loans, for example. Do you know any companies that use a complex financial instrument like a loan?
@torresjrjr @moth @luke

"In the late Middle Ages the problem of financing the royal exchequer and setting up capitalist institutions in the face of the Christian ban on usury was resolved by allowing Jews to act as bankers. They therefore came to be viewed as pariahs, just as cow hide tanners are pariahs in Hindu society. It was in this way that the Jewish community was able to accrue vast wealth and thereby to bring down on its head the loathing of the Christians. Hence Shylock. This enmity is still the underlying basis of modern anti-Semitism."

Good analysis.

Usury means that people are able to take out loans to rise above their station.

Its absence means that families must hoard money and taxes must be low or nonexistent.
Sign in to participate in the conversation
Qoto Mastodon

QOTO: Question Others to Teach Ourselves
An inclusive, Academic Freedom, instance
All cultures welcome.
Hate speech and harassment strictly forbidden.