it is almost as if a community that wants the best for itself could and should put together money to prop up people and ideas that seem promising for said community
i know you are a retarded faggot (two exception words i understand i can use) so you think this literally means everyone should get money all the time from everyone, but it does not mean that
Realistically, it would be much harder to get loans if there was no gain for the lender.
Low interest loans entered into by mutual consent are reasonable. Lending to someone incurs a risk and the opportunity cost of not having that money while it's being borrowed.
It's wonderful when people band together to do selfless things, but quid pro quo isn't inherently immoral. Mutual interest makes the world go round, same as it ever has.
For one thing, you can run something like a credit union and have interest without it being usury. Ultimately, no one is profiting off the lending. The money that borrowers pay in is paid out to savers. For instance, the guy who is working and paying off a house is funding the expenses of a retiree. This is no sin.
You can say the difference is sophistry, but there are a couple of key points here. One: No fractional reserve. No inherent inflation just because you do lending. No funny money. Two: no government. The government no longer dictates how much a bank can lend. No Fed depositing checks in banks drawn on nothing. To me, the real sin is the divorcing of currency from value and from labor. This leads inexorably to massive inequality.
Yes, banks do accept loans from people they don't personally know. That's my point.
Grounding the ability to acquire funding in the individual's ability to maintain/grow personal relationships sounds like an incredibly flawed and dare I say it - feminine way to do things.
Why would people loan money with no gain from doing so?
Before you say "they can borrow from family" - what about people who don't have living family?
it is almost as if a community that wants the best for itself could and should put together money to prop up people and ideas that seem promising for said community
i know you are a retarded faggot (two exception words i understand i can use) so you think this literally means everyone should get money all the time from everyone, but it does not mean that
I'd prefer not to turn the whole world into a giant popularity contest just to "own the Jews".
see? you assume a premise of dishonesty to begin with - the people and ideas will always be fake, always be liars, always be manipulative
only a thief fears thieves
I mean, you know how I feel about a significant quantity of the population.
Look what judging things based on popularity has got most people in politics, and you want that for finance? You're insane.
This says so much about your moral framework.
Realistically, it would be much harder to get loans if there was no gain for the lender.
Low interest loans entered into by mutual consent are reasonable. Lending to someone incurs a risk and the opportunity cost of not having that money while it's being borrowed.
It's wonderful when people band together to do selfless things, but quid pro quo isn't inherently immoral. Mutual interest makes the world go round, same as it ever has.
For one thing, you can run something like a credit union and have interest without it being usury. Ultimately, no one is profiting off the lending. The money that borrowers pay in is paid out to savers. For instance, the guy who is working and paying off a house is funding the expenses of a retiree. This is no sin.
You can say the difference is sophistry, but there are a couple of key points here. One: No fractional reserve. No inherent inflation just because you do lending. No funny money. Two: no government. The government no longer dictates how much a bank can lend. No Fed depositing checks in banks drawn on nothing. To me, the real sin is the divorcing of currency from value and from labor. This leads inexorably to massive inequality.
Okay, give me $60, you don't know me but I'll promise to pay it back.
You see how ridiculous that is? That's why banks exist.
Yes, banks do accept loans from people they don't personally know. That's my point.
Grounding the ability to acquire funding in the individual's ability to maintain/grow personal relationships sounds like an incredibly flawed and dare I say it - feminine way to do things.
I loaned out $700 to my friend the other week and I don't expect to ever get it back.
Doing what's right isn't the same thing as doing what is self serving.
The fact that you can't even imagine that scenario or that decision making process marks you as morally deficient.
Trying to say this without being a dick. Isn't that more of a gift?