So what exactly is wrong with usury? No one sane would give away their money just like that...

So what exactly is wrong with usury? No one sane would give away their money just like that, without wanting to make some profit in return. It's capitalism 101.

If you have nothing to pay with, then don't take out the loan.

because back then the people who practiced usury were essentially just loan sharks who preyed on people at their most desperate hours

Nothing. Institutions of credit are a vital part of a modern economy, and usury is necessary to make such a process appealing.

Define "usury". Usury doesn't necessarily mean credit

yeah thats right goyim

there is no possible person who would fall for that so let us do it

>So what exactly is wrong with usury?

1. IT IS DISHONOURABLE, PETTY, AND ABUSIVE.

2. IT CREATES IMAGINARY MONEY.

>No one sane would give away their money just like that, without wanting to make some profit in return.

1. THE LENDER IS NOT "GIVING MONEY AWAY"; THE LENDER IS LENDING MONEY.

2. IF THERE IS NOT AT LEAST A MINIMUM OF MUTUAL TRUST BETWEEN LENDER, AND BORROWER, NO TRANSACTION SHOULD OCCUR IN THE FIRST PLACE.

3. WHY WOULD THE LENDER WANT TO PROFIT FROM HELPING OTHERS? PROFIT SHOULD COME EXCLUSIVELY FROM WORK.

THOSE WHO SEEK TO PROFIT FROM LENDING ARE MALICIOUS.

>It's capitalism 101.

WHICH IS WHY CAPITALISM IS AN EXPLOITATIVE, CORRUPT, AND SUBOPTIMAL, ECONOMIC SYSTEM.

>If you have nothing to pay with, then don't take out the loan.

IF YOU HAD SUFFICIENT MONEY, WHY WOULD YOU TAKE A LOAN IN THE FIRST PLACE?

THINK BEFORE TYPING, AND BEFORE POSTING.

STOP YELLING

STOP BEING A RETARDED MEXICAN THIS IS WHY YOUR COUNTRY IS SUCH A SHITHOLE AND EVERYONE WANTS TO LEAVE.

>So what exactly is wrong with usury?
Lets see, usury is something defined as an exorbitant interest rate. So this next stipulation
>No one sane would give away their money just like that, without wanting to make some profit in return
Is not correct, because it deals with profit, not interest. Be careful of the terms you use when you make threads, user. No economist ever though profit was the same thing as interest. Profit always imputes a sort of additional amount of return over interest based on capital invested and risk. The interest is the basic, risk free rate. On top of this we could be talking long or short term interest but with usury it is always short term.

Usury in financial circles is something like a subprime mortgage, a collateralized loan that needs to have a much higher rate because of the market circumstances or systemic risk. To be honest with you, the extension of the pecuniary industry really determines this, nothing more, nothing less. The extent that the pecuniary industry exists, the extent to how large it is, in part determines how much of an extension of financial services have worked their way into everyone's lives. These professions are base, but they are accepted by humanity because they have little faith in themselves. They have little faith in themselves with regards to intelligence and the system of education. Making education more like a free market might be the cure, or socializing it even more, but leaving it in it's state is making the pecuniary industry inflated and is causing far too much capital to be absorbed in making individuals exchange it, a process that is recursive and inherently non-productive. If we had more people, even without degrees, to just sit around and think of beneficial concepts or ideas to be remunerated for, that would assist the daily lives and organizations of individuals, instead of groups of individuals sitting around a conference room thinking of how to sell, sell their souls, we would have less usury. It's not a coincidence they are tied. Tied together, one step in that direction produces more usury. When people hear of economics, they think profit, and that is exactly the problem. Economics is really just trying to figure out how we are organizing our resources and professions and trying to make everything fit a little better for everyone. Politics is trying to hold onto wealth and power. In a lot of ways, the procession of politics into everyday life has ruined the economic condition and situation of individuals.

There are multiple 'insertion point's to be examined in the price of a good. Under Carl Menger's system of economics, there are literally infinite of these 'insertion point's. One big one is land. The amount of the price of a good which realizes itself into the remuneration for land is far too large. The same with 'entrepreneurial activity', which is essentially the entrepreneur's salary. In fact, there are some economists like Henry George who stipulated that their salary was an inflated insertion point in the 'profit' which according to him explained the anomaly of why sometimes when wages went up, the supposedly correlated profit did not.

There are many problems with economics, but one of the spiritual foundations of mankind is to treat each other with respect and respect God. Clearly, the current and incipient leisure class do not do that with any of their thoughts or behavior. And this is the problem which leads to usury. It is a sociological phenomenon, and one of the problems with analyzing economics as a bunch of statistics and graphs is that you can miss this fundamental aspect of it.

Why wouldn't two people be allowed to enter into a contract in which one provides a service in return for monetary gain?

>wouldn't
*shouldn't

Nothing is inherently wrong with credit. Usury implies unreasonable or absurd amount of interest. The basis of its criticism (or at least from Aquinas perspective) is that it's making money from money and certainty isn't a charitable action.

t. Moses Kikenstein

>Running a business is bad because it's not charity.

BECAUSE IT CONSTITUTES USURY.

>predator loaning is ok
>debt slavery is kosher

t. Rabbi Rosenberg

Circular argument buddy.
People aren't forced to take loans.

Most people who needed loans were desperate. People weren't buying cars or luxury items with credit.
>all businesses need to charge high amounts of interest

>profit should come exclusively from work

What about trade and commerce though? For example, a bookworm decides to sell some of the books they own and have already read. Some of these books were gifts. Should the bookworm sell these gifted books (which would necessarily mean a profit) or should they be given away since they were gifts?

> So what exactly is wrong with usury?
Nothing inherently, the problem arises when some entity has a monopoly on credit business resulting in unreasonably high interest rates. It should be noted that the credit market was different in ancient/medieval societies, the majority of loans were used to survive a bad harvest or harsh taxes, not to buy an iPhone.