>loan X amount of money >repay X amount +/- whatever the difference is in the value of the currency at repayment vs at lending Explain why this is not the only legitimate, non-usurious form of interest.
Capitalistkikes need not reply. >b-but I should be able to create profit by giving poorer people money and extorting them for a larger sum at a later date Make money through whatever project or endeavor you actually helped through your loan. That's how investment works. This way only viable, promising people and startups will have access to loans, and there won't be a lower class of millions of dumbasses, degenerates and niggers sucking wealth out of our economy and transferring it upwards to kikes.
Why would anyone be in the business of loans if there's no money to be made in it? A business has to be profitable. Profit is evil to you socialists but it is the reason to be in a business. >Make money through whatever project or endeavor you actually helped through your loan. That's how investment works. Yeah, and it isn't what loans are. >helped through your loan What you're thinking of is "charity".
Julian Butler
why have to be a business, kike?
Nathan Adams
How would the business fund their workers to give you the loans in the first place? Where would they get the money to loan your customers in the first place when any investors would gain no return on their investment? Why would someone get into that field at all if it's a 1:1 sum value? It's basically gaining nothing.
Isaac Wood
Wrong, Moshe, charity is giving money to others to keep. Loans are given with the full expectation of being repaid. Why do you think there's supposed to be business from giving poorer people money and then taking it back from them?
Aaron Powell
How are you supposed to provide the money if it's not a business while also having employees and needing some way to get the money in the first place since investors are now out? Everything would need to be government-backed because no one in their right mind would ever put their money toward your idea and it would need to be tax-funded.
Owen Brown
That's fine. That's what most banks engage with as a lending instrument. That's NOT what the Federal Reserve does though.
I suggest looking up what fiat currency is and how lending it with interest is a problem before sperging out on Jow Forums about how capitalists are retarded.
Again, we're back at the question of "Why would anyone provide this service". They get nothing out of it, they actually lose money having to provide it, and you're still at risk of people just defaulting on it and you losing even more money.
Aiden Nguyen
>Loans are given with the full expectation of being repaid And no one will give loans if there is no profit in it. You lose money on interest free loans. Interest free loans are charity, you are giving away all that money could have been put towards doing. I think what you're trying to do is redefine what loans are.
