Why was usury allowed?
>>791541
because it works
Because it carries a profit margin.
Saying you have a problem with usury, is like saying you have a problem with selling a boat for more than it cost producing it.
>>791541
It was the most expedient method for jews to make money for themselves.
>was
It wasn't, technically. It was criminal until the Reformation institutionalized it.
>>791595
Except you know, for all the groups who were allowed to practice it, or who did it under another name
>>791606
Hence why I said technically. Such groups were tantamount to organized crime.
Because of the fucking Devil. I'm completely serious.
Usury, whether you consider it 'interest, period' or just 'excessive interest' is, regardless, harmful. It ruins people. It destroys lives. It is evil. It is Satanic, I mean that completely literally. How else can you explain the literal instance of profiting off of someone else's misery.
Usury, and financial institutions which practice it, are demonic. They are servants of Satan. The Jews can whine all they want, I'll level this charge at them and dare them to refute it. Usury is near and dear to the Devil's heart, because it is one of the crimes that God himself took issue with. Anyone who practices it is in danger of going to Hell.
>>791614
The templar were organized criminals?
>>791622
>I'll level this charge at them and dare them to refute it
Pretty sure they don't believe in the Devil in the first place.
>>791622
Failure to repay debts can destroy lives, sure. So can fire. We don't base our finance laws on ancient superstitions
>>791622
If usury didn't exist, why would anyone ever lend money?
>>791645
For the betterment of society as a whole. Why do you think (actual, non-tax avoidance and non-money laundering) charities exist.
>>791656
I'm not aware charities lent money. The usual understanding is that they give stuff away.
Not to mention that charities don't and almost certainly cannot cover the amount of liquidity a modern economy requires.
>>791645
Individuals wouldn't, a common fund would.
>>791656
Most private institutions are not going to loan you money simply to better society, especially if there was a significant risk you would not pay them back.
Most financial activity is not undertaken to improve society, its undertaken to improve your own conditions. If that does not jive with your Christian morals than too bad
>>791645
Ask islamic banks how they work.
>>791684
Not well
>>791685
maybe not well, but they share their risk between bank and account holder.
>>791622
I think Thomas of Aquinas said that "time can't create money" as usury/interest do. I never understand why christians can run banks, because they do, the majority of bankers in the world are christians not jewish
>>791731
The Reformation. The guy who banked for the Vatican wasn't technically a Christian, since he was a member of Propaganda Due.
>>791541
In a broad business sense, it is logical that if I were to let you borrow $100K to start a business or make a product that I would get the money back and then some. The money is on loan and I don't have as much as I earned when I gave it to you. So when I get it back, I want a little more in return to keep you honest on your end of the deal.
production increases over time my investment is @ future value of $
>>791685
Because they are competing with modern banks. They used to work
>>791806
no its not
>i gave you moan for a period of time
>somehow my OWN decision makes YOU pay more
complete bullshit
>>791830
The Orthodox Financial System wouldn't deal with that so much, since the system would mean a new set of national laws, it's proposed as a national project. It would mean banks couldn't lend at interests or for building casinos or strip clubs, etc. It's meant to be an entire alternative to the IMF.
>>791541
When you get past 14 and start looking at the prices of houses and cars you will realize that 'usuary' is the life blood of the economy.
Imagine if you had to pay for houses upfront in cash. In some areas a house costs $1 million at a low end. Imagine if everyone had to pay $50,000 upfront for their car.
>>791541
>EVEN JESUS CAN TAKE SO MUCH
Actually, Jesus would be the most likely to be enraged by such flagrant iniquity. The notion of Jesus being a tolerant pacifist eunuch is a perversion.
Also, OP, you do know that all currencies in the world, excepting those of Cuba, North Korea, and Syria, are based on usury, right?
>>791806
The problem is usury creates a capitalist class that earns increasing amounts of capital by the mere virtue that they own capital. This is why Jews were hated, and this was the reason for communism.
That being said, usury is effective in redistributing capital to people who can make good use of capital, but it does so in a way that the capitalist is always the winner.
>>791830
>Because they are competing with modern banks. They used to work
So what you're saying is that a banking system that doesn't support usury loses out to one that does? Can't imagine why that would be.
>>791626
How is this a question?
>>791847
Basically,
The market is a casino
Nations are gamblers
The banks own the casino.
>>791541
it goes like this:
people, society, create things. they consume things but they create more. the rate of creation increases with amount and learning of people. multiple factors accelerate those factors. the value of a human increases constantly. therefore, the comparative value of goods decreases.
that's what inflation is. increasing control of the world we are in. and that is why money lent has an increased value later. it is expected to be used for creation of value, and some of that value is expected to be paid back.
loans are important for growth of a society simply because the people with money are not all the same people with means to create value with it. any man with more money than they know to use effectively would otherwise be forced to uselessly sit on it. and that's not even taking into account the people with truly exceptional skills or ideas but without capital.
the bible even explains it at some point i don't remember. three men are given gold by their boss: one invests it, one loses it and one saves it without doing anything; two of them are fags. something to that effect.
>>791837
Why should I be obligated to lend you money? After all, I could be investing that cash elsewhere. Shouldn't I be compensated for my lost opportunities?
>>791871
> the market is zero sum.
Get a load of this retard.
Well here is the deal... I point this out every 3 months or so.
If you are a Christian or a Muslim you do usury is against your religions. There are no ifs and butts...
If you claim to be a Christian, you are committing sin by participating in usury.
The Muslims are pretty good about this and ban it where they can.
Christians on the other hand seem to ignore the bible on this.
However, as an atheist, I have no problem with usury.
So lets put it like this, usury is ok, but don't claim that you are good Christian if you have a bank account or a 401K.
>>791541
Because it was sinful.
It undermines moral authority and creates slaves; debauched of their god given liberty and loyalty to good, mere men claim the lives and livelihood of others as their own.
That it why it was 'allowed' greed has called itself master over the hearts of men and women.
Just ask the Jews about Tzedakah, or the Muslims about Zakat, or the Christians about Noblesse oblige.
Maimonides lists his Eight Levels of Giving, as written in the Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot matanot aniyim ("Laws about Giving to Poor People"), Chapter 10:
1. Giving an interest-free loan to a person in need; forming a partnership with a person in need; giving a grant to a person in need; finding a job for a person in need; so long as that loan, grant, partnership, or job results in the person no longer living by relying upon others.
2. Giving tzedakah anonymously to an unknown recipient via a person (or public fund) which is trustworthy, wise, and can perform acts of tzedakah with your money in a most impeccable fashion.
3. Giving tzedakah anonymously to a known recipient.
4. Giving tzedakah publicly to an unknown recipient.
5. Giving tzedakah before being asked.
6. Giving adequately after being asked.
7. Giving willingly, but inadequately.
8. Giving "in sadness" (giving out of pity): It is thought that Maimonides was referring to giving because of the sad feelings one might have in seeing people in need (as opposed to giving because it is a religious obligation). Other translations say "Giving unwillingly."
>>791925
>Christians on the other hand seem to ignore the bible on this.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/interest-free-banking-russia-debates-unorthodox-orthodox-financial-alternative/5495331
>>792012
>http://www.globalresearch.ca/interest-free-banking-russia-debates-unorthodox-orthodox-financial-alternative/5495331
Well western Christians. Mostly protestants in the Republican party who claim to be good Christians by voting Republicans who support capitalism.
>>792035
it's better than voting for Democrats who support the rest of the sins
>>792060
Like giving to the poor?
>>792070
>Like robbing the rich?
ftfy
>>791626
They were not the first mercenary army and not the last but probably the most successful. Pope of Rome enabled usury after the 4th crusade, about 1200, to redistribute all the stolen wealth with strings attached. As was documented some Templar were rounded up and hanged, this was when some converted Jews - now Catholics, were allowed to convert back and play Papal court banker serfs. This was probably the first case of full on Machiavellian tactics and required because the horde was already getting quite enormous. Today there are many banking factions, they all employ usury, some are protestant, some are Catholic, some are Orthodox but its all contrary to scripture which really went out the window under the crusades anyway.
In fact some theorize the Vatican invented Islam to infiltrate the sand peoples lands.
It is interesting to note the British Empire expanded credit without usury originally through the Bank of England and this was a key to their great expansionist success! During that time the Papacy was less inclined to expand credit as its pilfering operations via Spain in South America - the communist reductions - were doing very well.
>>791800
P2 is a Masonic intelligence faction under the control of the Jesuit General. Jesuits of course are not Christian, it is a military and banking order bound by extreme oaths of obedience to a General.
Usury is about to rip a new anus into the entire financial system of the world which is probably why they have installed a PR Jesuit and are preparing a huge iron hand and technocratic Inquisition. The principles are dwarfed by the interest and service charges, the entire western monetary system is built on a debt so large now it is impossible for people to even comprehend, it will end in war and much finger pointing (da Jooos! of course), but a reset will be required one way or another.
>Catholic Church of the Reformation era bans Usury
>Catholic dominant Southern Europe slogs through 5 centuries of economic stagnation and debt, while Protestant north grows rich off trade and increased literacy
Now I understand why Italy and Spain are so shit.
>>792147
>They were not the first mercenary army
They were not a mercenary army, they were a sanctioned monastic order. They practiced usury, albeat under a different name to avoid the laws.
They were rounded up because the king of France didnt want to pay his debts to them, so he forced the pope, now under french control, to go along with declaring them heretics. The Vatican eventually resended the judgement centuries later.
>In fact some theorize the Vatican invented Islam to infiltrate the sand peoples lands.
a few crazy protestants theorize this, but no one in the academic world takes it seriously
>>792147
>the entire western monetary system is built on a debt so large now it is impossible for people to even comprehend, it will end in war and much finger pointing (da Jooos! of course), but a reset will be required one way or another.
Not really, there's no reason to assume that the system can't keep going as long lenders are still willing to lend to government, and the amount of debt has no bearing on this. As long as a nation can pay it's interest payment there really isn't an issue.
>>792172
What about France, Bavaria, and Austria that were all wealthy?
>>791840
So you want special laws to protect your inefficient system which you subscribe to because of religious scruples?
Sounds great, ideas like that always turn out well
>>791871
In praxis, the sovereign must also be the nations lender. If not, then it is the lender that is the nations sovereign.
A large portion of a typical nations tax income today goes into servicing interest on its debts. If instead it was the sovereign who collected seinorage, he would hardly need to tax at all, his income (and leverage) is already secure.
The biggest reason for the downfall of the ancien regime was not merely ideological mutations, but that they ignored the power of financial alchemy.
>>791886
Like that isn't going to collapse their economy
Banks are already operating at near 0% interest rates in much of the developed world. Japan and Sweden have negative interest rates right now, which is fucking insane.
The problem with such low interest rates is that it discourages saving, which makes economies vulnerable in economic downturns. It also promotes the creation of speculative bubbles due to cheap ass loans causing everyone to borrow to fund stupid risky investments. And then there's inflation. Mo loans, mo money, mo inflation.
Brush up on your basic economics niggas. Interest isn't a bad thing.
>>792147
>It's not the Jews, it's the Jesuits!
I don't think so, Anon, if that is indeed your real name. People were complaining about Jewish subversion in Ancient Greece and Rome. Many people theorize that Ignatius Loyola—the founder of the Jesuits—was a crypto Jew.
>>792220
>Japan and Sweden have negative interest rates right now, which is fucking insane.
Why would you ever give out a loan at NEGATIVE interest rate?
Why can't I just go to Japan and ask for a trillion yen loan, sit on the money, pay it back, and keep the negative interest as a profit?
>>792202
They were "Catholic-wealthy"
Still couldn't compete with the trading powers of England, the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, and the relevant parts of the German states.
>>792240
Well the Jesuits control the Vatacin now.
That's another victory for the Jews.
>>792242
I have no idea how it works. I don't get it. All I know is the interest rates are negative. This has never happened before. You have to fucking pay the bank to give them your money. It's bananas.
>>792242
Deflation, presumably, coupled with extremely low demand for loans.
>>792275
Oh, I thought you meant loan-interest ratings. You are talking savings-interest rates?
Why would you do this than? Why not pay for everything with cash?
>>792147
The Jesuits can barely run a high-school, let alone a world-wide conspiracy.
>>792251
Yeah, Nostra aetate in full effect.
:(
>>791685
They actually work... All the other banks are just pretending to work.
That's the thing - usury creates money with no production - money from money represents no resources and is ultimately, an illusion. The western world's entire economy is based on stacking illusion on top of illusion until you create the house of cards that forms the falsified reality that there are vastly more resources available than there actually are.
So, of course no actual economy can ever hope to compete with one made up of elaborate fantasy.
But Oz is only all powerful and almighty, until someone pulls back the curtain. At which point, not even your silver slippers will save you.
>>792242
That's not how negative interest rates work.
>>792301
Actually suprisingly enough in my community college Economics 102, they basically explained that banking creates money without Fed Reserve involvement.
See. You put $100 in the bank. Then the bank loans out the $100. Technically the person who deposited the money still has the $100 on the books while the person who got it loaned to them also has $100. So in theory there is $200 in the economy now.
>>792301
No, lending money allows someone else to put the money to productive use. They repay you the money, along with a fee for allowing them to use it instead.
Somehow this has worked for four hundred years and materially the world has only improved since then
>>792287
>tfw Propaganda Due's two major nations of operation are Italy and Argentina
Cheer up, m8. I'm Orthodox and even we had two Ecumenical Patriarchs who were confirmed Freemasons after their deaths, including the one who lifted the anathemas. But Christ will prevail, if there were no strong antagonism from Satan, then it would mean you just couldn't see it. It is better to be acutely aware of Satan's efforts than to be blind to them.
>>792301
>But Oz is only all powerful and almighty, until someone pulls back the curtain. At which point, not even your silver slippers will save you.
But there is no curtain, you're not making some dramatic revelation, everyone already knows how the system works. You sound like the sort of person who thinks the gold standard works.
>>792345
And in theory Nazi slave labor enabled the 3rd Reich to achieve optimal economic output.
I think the key issue is that usury is not moral at all. Its against the 3 abrahamic religions and it says not to do it in the texts.
Sure you can have an economic powerhouse economy with it, but if you believe yourself to be a Christian you cannot reconcile that it is not evil.
That said, I am not a Christian or Muslim so I have no problem with it.
>>792382
Over 2/3s of Americans do not understand rudimentary finance. And they certainly do not comprehend how much they are being screwed over. As well as the implications of the world's cumulative debt.
>>792384
Oh well, if some desert dwellers two thousand years ago said that it's wrong I guess that settles it.
>>792396
I don't agree with the desert dwellers, but if you claim to follow them in order to get people to vote for you, at least follow their damn rules instead of claiming you are for capitalism.
Seriously, if you were a true Christian you would speak out against usury.
>>792407
I'm not
>>792336
You are talking about fractional reserve lending. The banks only keep a certain percentage on deposit and loan out the rest. It creates more money in the system, but the downside is if there is a bank run, people lose their money. Your money isn't really there, that's the truth. It's a scam. Obviously, if I was guarding your $10 and lent out 9 of it, I would be risking someone else's property, which would destroy the logic behind "guarding" it.
>>792345
>No, lending money allows someone else to put the money to productive use.
This is called capital, and it would exist under any system. The banks are using money that isn't theirs to act as the investors/capitalists. The essence of the problem is that all money created has interest, or debt, attached to it. The government doesn't create money, either, but borrows it via loans in a similar manner to you or I. The banks are the true capitalists of this country, and the capital they are lending is actually the people's. Through fractional reserve lending and usury the community's money is invested which brings more money in from foreclosures and interest payments, which is again invested in a never ending cycle which requires no real value production on their part. When you buy a house, it is the community's money that pays for it, but the bank that benefits from it.
>Somehow this has worked for four hundred years and materially the world has only improved since then
The world hasn't improved due to usury, that's preposterous. The world has improved due to technology, which was created by people who almost exclusively had no ties to banking. The capital to finance technology and projects would still exist without a banking system, just in a different manner.
Wall Street is the de facto oligarchy that runs America.
People have this strange idea that banks should produce something even though they're are a service and not a production based business and that they shouldn't be able to profit off their service.
>>792430
>The banks only keep a certain percentage on deposit and loan out the rest. It creates more money in the system, but the downside is if there is a bank run, people lose their money. Your money isn't really there, that's the truth. It's a scam. Obviously, if I was guarding your $10 and lent out 9 of it, I would be risking someone else's property, which would destroy the logic behind "guarding" it.
The scam is even worse than that. It's not that they can lend 9/10 of the money they have in bank, but they can loan nine time this amount. Which means if the bank has $10, it can loan up to $90. This is the big problem, banks create currency by giving loans. In your exemple, this is actual ethical banking as the bank only loan what it has in its chest, even keeping 1/10 safety.
Fractional reserve banking is a fucking scam.
>>792448
>but they can lend nine time this amount.
Fixed.
We're talking about Payday Advance, right?
>>792432
As I just said here >>792430 , it's not their service, it's the community's. They have claimed capital as their prerogative, but is mostly through political maneuvering that they have done so. Nobody wants a class of parasites who produce nothing and essentially gamble with everyone else's money.
Obviously people need loans, but it should be the community's prerogative on how that is settled. A true banking service could be set up via the government, which only charged enough interest to break even with defaulting borrowers. It would be a nonprofit system for the greater good of the community.
>>792448
The way that works, is the money that they lend out is put back in the bank, so they lend that out again.
Say you have a 10% reserve ratio. I put $100 in the bank. They would lend out $90, and if that money was put in the bank, it would be lent out again with a 10% reserve ratio. This can continue ad infinitum until there is nothing more to lend. I forget the actual numbers of how much $1 can create through fractional reserve lending, but I believe it is close to 10 times the amount.
>>792472
So everything else is ok for private enterprise other than lending services?
Also how does a bank grow if it can't use usury or lend on a fraction?
>>792514
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_banking_and_finance
>>791969
>Noblesse oblige
Wasn't ever a thing.
>>792531
Seems like they just call interest whatever they want.
>>792531
>However, in practice, this is not the case, and no examples of 100 per cent reserve banking are known to exist
https://web.archive.org/web/20070716151628/http://www.islamibankbd.com/page/ih_12.htm
>>792514
>Also how does a bank grow if it can't use usury or lend on a fraction
Who says they need to grow? Banks are criminal enterprises, and are a greater impediment to our freedom than any standing army, as Thomas Jefferson would say (purportedly, anyhow).
Go search the history of fractional reserve lending. It started out as a clandestine money making scheme. It was legitimized by England because the people who ran the banks had managed to subvert the government. Prior to being legitimized, you would be thrown in prison if your clients goods weren't all there. You have to realize that a 10% reserve ratio, means that if everyone wanted there money back, they would only get 10%.
>>792275
If deflation were proceeding at a rate higher than the negative interest the dude still makes money.
>>792555
A fee to break even is okay, as far as I'm concerned. If it is a true service and nonprofit, I'm okay with it.
>>792567
Historically there were two kinds of banks: investment and storage (I forget what they were actually called, so forgive me). Most people are under the misconception that there bank is holding their money for them. It isn't. The two types of banking that were historically clearly marked have become conflated to the public. If the bank is going to gamble with your money, they should clearly state that, and give you an option that doesn't include investing.
>>792601
>Historically there were two kinds of banks: investment and storage
This was actually also true in the US during the lifetime of the Glass-Steagall Act, 1933-1999.
>>791842
This
>>791622
How did you (or your parents) buy your car and or house?
>>791842
>Imagine if you had to pay for houses upfront in cash. In some areas a house costs $1 million at a low end. Imagine if everyone had to pay $50,000 upfront for their car.
Imagine how much lower house prices would be...
...This is like claiming how health care is only affordable due to insurance, when in actuality, the prices are only so astronomical, thanks to insurance - especially when you look at how much cheaper any procedure that isn't usually covered by insurance tends to be, even if it actually involves more cost to do. (Glasses vs. contacts, for instance.)
>>792247
>France couldn't compete with the North Sea memes
>Bavaria wasn't the wealthiest place in Germany
>Austria wasn't wealthier than every princely state other than Prussia
Nice Protoshit memes friendo
>>792873
Why do you think prices would be lower if there were not interest rates?
Land in a good part of town has intrinsic value, it's very expensive. If middle and lower income families cannot afford the 1+ million dollars for the land than families that already have money would buy up the land and turn it into an apartment building.
But hey it's worst. They can't take a loan to pay for the construction of the apartment, they need to pay the multi-million dollar fees upfront. The same is going to be true for literally any sort of bussiness.
Small bussiness would be completly destroyed since they wouldn't be able to afford the huge upfront cash payments.
It would be an economy where it would be IMPOSSIBLE to move up the social ladder. The banks are now forbidden from giving a $100,000 loan to a guy who wants to buy industrial kitchen equipment to open a tiny pizza shop and $50,000 for the company pizza car.
A complete ban on interest rates would mean the only way to achieve anything is to be born into a rich family. You could be the most brilliant entrepreneur ever but if you don't have capital you are stuck cleaning toilets.
I want the Orthodox shitposters to leave /his/
was usury ever problematic in the non-abrahamic realm?
>>793092
Why are you not enjoying hearing how a theory of economics which was dismissed as obsolete four hundred years ago was right all along and we've all been doing it wrong?
>>791541
Fun fact: the whole flipping the table in the temple thing actually didn't have to do with usury - there were no loans involved.
Back in those days, the Jews collected a tax at their temple. But they didn't allow the tax to be paid in Roman coinage, because it had the image of the Emperor on it, making it idolatrous and unfit for God. (also, people liked counterfeiting Roman coins)
Instead, they required the tax to be paid in special coinage only available at the temple. The exchange rates for these coins was highway robbery, and they got away with it because there was no other way to pay the tax. Jesus was pissed that they were swindling people and practicing what basically amounted to deception in the house of God. So he flipped out.
Opinion: Banks should make money by charging customers for bank accounts, operations etc. and investing rather than selling loans.
>>796091
Why would I start a bank account if they charged me for it?
>>796147
interest
>>796183
If the charges were not greater than my interest payments, how would the bank stay open?
>>796310
Interest is generated when banks invest your money. They don't pay it out of their own pocket. What's more, they keep part of the profit.
Depends on your definition of Usury, ancient Christian interpretation or modern law?
>>796318
Banks don't invest your money. They loan it. Which they can't do if they can't lend with interest.
>>796318
You realize they generate that money through lending and investing, right?
>>796489
Or the fact that the world's collective debt is several times that of its collective assets.
It's all well and good to say you are creating more money to create more jobs and thus in turn create more money, only to do it all over again - but each time you do that you create a wider and wider divide between money and the resources it's supposed to represent. Eventually, something's gotta give, and each time that process repeats itself, the result of that inevitable collapse gets exponentially worse.
There's a reason near every major religion, at one point or another, had a prohibition against usury. You can talk about its "success" for the past four centuries or some similar nonsense, but there's no success you can tie directly to the practice - it's failures, however, are much more objective and spectacular.
>>791842
But that's the whole point. The price of that home is inflated due to usary. Make-beleive money is what the whole 2008 crises was about.
>>792147
>the Vatican invented Islam to infiltrate the sand peoples lands
Yeah, obviously they'd be very keen to get access to the rich resources that medieval Arabia had to offer...
