World Without Usury

>guess the loans would have to be 100% government based. If the loanee failed to pay it back on time we would use taxes and down-payments.

So if you went delinquent on your mortgage the government would seize and auction your house?

Wouldn't inflation be non-existent without interest loans and with precious metal-backed ? This should mean that it should cost a lot less to buy things like houses and cars, meaning people could actually save up and pay cash instead of having to take out loans.

>with precious metal-backed ?

Jesus....too much wine. Should have said: ....with precious metal-backed CURRENCY

I believe inflation would be equivalent to how overall people spend. Over time people will accumulate everything they want and hoard the metal currency, then it's value would rise.

Usury does not need to be banned completely, just the fractional reserve part of it. Banks must not be allowed to create money out of thin air.

>Over time people will accumulate everything they want and hoard the metal currency, then it's value would rise.

Even though precious metals continue to be mined, and for a profit I might add?

>Usury does not need to be banned completely, just the fractional reserve part of it. Banks must not be allowed to create money out of thin air.

Banks shouldn't be creating money at all. The power to issue money/currency should reside solely with governments.

Good point I stand corrected

Bump.

>whether there would be money lending at all if it was illegal to charge at interest
that would be a govt service if the govt issued its own money. and a one-time, noncompounding interest would allow to cover costs in a not for profit fashion.

no but make you work maybe

amazon.com/Jews-Their-Lies-Martin-Luther/dp/1593640242

Bump

>a one-time, noncompounding interest would allow to cover costs in a not for profit fashion.

Who would the government be charging this interest to?

access to capital is a good thing, and interest isn't usury; in short op's a faggot

based and rabbipilled

I was wondering when a kike/kike-lover was going to respond.

The one problem I see with precious metal-backed currency is that I'm not sure how it would handle the population explosion enabled by the industrial revolution. I'm not sure what the fix for this would be, other than to back your currency by an increasing number of different precious metals and maybe rare elements.

>oh no terms are fully disclosed and i'm being charged a fair rate
quit being faggots, access to capital is the only thing that will ever get poor people out of poverty, despots monarchs and tyrants alike all tightly control the supply of capital; interest is simply not usury, it's quite the opposite you fucking hmongs

>>oh no terms are fully disclosed and i'm being charged a fair rate
>quit being faggots, access to capital is the only thing that will ever get poor people out of poverty, despots monarchs and tyrants alike all tightly control the supply of capital; interest is simply not usury, it's quite the opposite you fucking hmongs

You keep saying "access to capital". You understand money can be lent without interest, right? Also, do you also understand that it is the creation of money (or in your terms, "capital") at interest by the Federal Reserve that makes our financial system unsustainable?

I'll break it down simply for you: Assume, for the sake of this example, that there is absolutely zero currency in circulation. The Fed "creates" $1 from thin air and then "lends" it to the U.S. government at a rate of, oh let's say 5% (I'm sure you will agree that this is not an exorbitant rate). This means that the U.S. government now owes the Fed $1.05. Even if it gives back the $1 originally lent (which is the only dollar actually in existence), it still owes the Fed $0.05. Where does this come from? How does this interest get repaid? Either the government takes things that actually have intrinsic value (gold, real estate, other goods) away from its citizens, or it borrows more money. At interest.

Do you see the problem here, user?

Attached: pol retard (you).jpg (570x587, 43K)

you're talking about fractional reserve, a system created by jews for other jews; interest is what compels people with money to loan it to people without it, there's nothing immoral or unethical about charging interest for the use of your capital, assuming the rates are fair and the terms are disclosed. Why do 90%+ of all loanees return to the same lending institution for another loan? Because the rate was competitive and the terms were fair. You weren't forced to go to that jew and take out a loan for your trailer bubba, just cause you can't make the payment don't blame the system

>You weren't forced to go to that jew and take out a loan for your trailer bubba, just cause you can't make the payment don't blame the system

Removing the ability to go out and buy shit that you can't afford on credit would destroy the decadent, materialistic, civilization-destroying system of consumerism that currently exists. As my parents used to say about credit, "If you can't afford to pay cash for it, don't buy it." And people would still lend money to close friends and family members. The difference would be that these loans would be based on close personal relationships and mutual trust and respect, instead of being based on the cold and detached greed that drives our current system. I bought my father's pickup once. I made payments on it. We had a handwritten contract. I ended up paying it off early, without ever paying interest. Such a system CAN work.

>"If you can't afford to pay cash for it, don't buy it."

I realize that there have to be some exceptions, homes being the biggest one, but sometimes cars also. They were referring more to people buying consumer goods like TVs, furniture, vacations, etc. on credit.

Yes it's a step in the right direction.

Bartering is inefficient, the "free market" and currency even more so.

Money was invented to deal with low-trust situations and peoples. It actually complicates trade and has always been considered a poor mechanism since the ancient Greeks.

But that's socialism, user, and socialism is bad.

Bingo.

Bingo.

Incorrect.

It gets paid by the creation of even more money by the Fed. It's the beast that drinks its own blood.

>Bartering is inefficient, the "free market" and currency even more so.

>It actually complicates trade and has always been considered a poor mechanism since the ancient Greeks.

Seems like the proverbial rock and hard place? Bartering and currency are the only things humans have ever had. What you are implying is that we need to create an entirely new system.....something never seen before in recorded history. I don't have any ideas here, user.

>It gets paid by the creation of even more money by the Fed. It's the beast that drinks its own blood.

I know. That's why it's unsustainable.

When considering this problem myself I think of the "speed" of the money's movement
The money doesn't annihilate (as it should in this scenario) when payed back, it stays in circulation
To pay back that extra it needs to speed up.
Its still bad because there are other relativistic, and breaking effects which lead to crashes

Please don't gas me bro

>Please don't gas me bro

Don't be a money-grubbing Jew.

good etymology stuff here

I like the נשא vs נָשָׁא difference in meaning part

>In all seriousness, how would a national economy function if lending money at interest was illegal?

It used to be in Europe for Christians.

Please I don't want to get genocided

are you people all retarded? ban usury in the US, and you'll create another Rothschild outside the borders. How do you think the first one got started? This is exactly as stupid as women yelling, "teach boys not to rape" so they can get drunk and lie in the street. Did any of you ever learn about Prohibition? Same problem. The only way to combat antisocial behavior is deterrence. Otherwise there will always be someone willing to take advantage of weak spots in a system.