Untitled attachment

@dubbub @BattleDwarfGimli @TrevorGoodchild @Hertz @PraxisOfEvil @sickburnbro I could get a mortgage and have a house now, which I pay the cost of over many years, or no house now but no interest. You may think the latter is more moral somehow, but it means renting which is paying for not having a house. You might contend families could loan, or a good state could give loans, or...but that is not going to be the case.

Loans are a mechanism for moving money through time (see infographic I made). The problems of usury are in people making poor decisions, not in the ability to pay a premium for future funds. If the interest does not compound, the fixed cost must higher and the duration of the loan lower to net to zero.

If I give a man a loan, I expect payment in excess of my principal - otherwise I would simply rent that the money was sought for. Anyone who thinks money works otherwise probably doesn't have much money or is consumed in debt.

Public

Notices where this attachment appears