pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @Rothbardian_fanatic OP 6 Jun \ parent \ on: Why Lending Money (at Interest) Is Not Usury in the Modern World econ
Why is it not right to ask for more than you lend out in return for lending it out for the amount of time someone needs the money? Perhaps not lending money is the best situation, right? No matter how badly someone needs money immediately, you immediately need it more, right? Collateral is only realized if the borrower defaults, so where’s the payment for the time?
Exactly. That’s why in Bitcoin, the ideal is to collateralize an asset rather than rely on usury itself. Because usury, regardless of time preference, places all the risk solely on the borrower — from repayment to the collateralized asset — and that, in this case, is what makes it usury.
We’re here working through ideas; this isn’t a final definition or an academic debate. But it’s uncomfortable and unproductive when all your replies are just questions. I think I’ll step away from contributing to this thread.
reply
OK, I can understand that.
What you are implying is that the lender should take all the risk without any chance of gain. I do not see this as a situation where both parties gain from the deal. Therefore, the deal will not happen. As long as both parties cannot agree on terms, it won’t happen, ever. Both parties to a deal, trade or loan or whatever is going on, need to think, at the time of the deal, that they are getting more value than they are giving up.
reply