Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2026 Poal.co

109

Perhaps its my lack of perspective having lived only the in the US, but I'm trying to get my head around how an economic system without usury/lending would function. Perhaps someone can provide an example?

And, yes, perhaps its not fair to equate lending with usury as the common definition of the latter is essentially that its lending with unreasonably high interest rates. But that definition is squishy. What is "unreasonable"? Surely some interest is warranted as the lender is taking risk?

Looking forward to the comments on this one. :D

Perhaps its my lack of perspective having lived only the in the US, but I'm trying to get my head around how an economic system without usury/lending would function. Perhaps someone can provide an example? And, yes, perhaps its not fair to equate lending with usury as the common definition of the latter is essentially that its lending with unreasonably high interest rates. But that definition is squishy. What is "unreasonable"? Surely some interest is warranted as the lender is taking risk? Looking forward to the comments on this one. :D

(post is archived)

[–] • 3 pts

Look at Nazi Germany at their height and where they were at the low. I believe Nazis brought themselves up from being hit the hardest during the great depression. I understand they accomplished incredible feats and unfortunately we weren't able to watch Germany and Europe flourish to their fullest potential because the Nazis lost. From what I understand our Capitalism and Cultural Marxism ie Communism are 2 sides to the same jewish coin. Makes me sick especially after we helped red russia beat Germany we treated the German people terribly. Unfortunately I believe the best system is National Socialism but we're already Le 56'd the fuck up. No hate on Russia I know they been through a ton and I respect Russia as well as places such as Poland and Hungary and would love to Visit or even live in them Countries.

[–] • 2 pts

Germany's great recovery was simple. They stopped allowing Jews to rob them under the banner of WWI restitution. The rest was simple capitalism.

[–] • 3 pts (edited )

Imoho, the difference between usury and lending is simply interest rates. Cover your costs and risks. Means that it should be around 3%-5%. This are no predatory loans and ensures the lendee can repay. Risky loans should never be accepted.

If it's a risky loan it should never be made. Today predatory lending is innately codified into the system. Which is why it's usury. It's designed to create victims and prey upon their woes why pushing the risk onto us. Which is rather evil if you think about it.

In a system like this, saving would become priority. As was once the case. Home buying would become an act of 30-40 year olds. They would be better for it. Plus house by inheritance would become more common.

After WWII everyone could afford a house on a single income because the starter homes were smaller and more simple. Two or four bedrooms with one or one and a half baths were common. The kitchen was an isle. Square footage was maybe 800-1200. Today people act like that's slumming and then complain houses are unaffordable; combined with a predatory loan interest rates. Fact is, in a moral society, most home buyers wouldn't qualify. So they would save. Which would also protect them with additional liquidity available to them.

The rule of thumb today is you will pay an equal amount in interest as you will for the home. For a $250,000 house today, you will pay a half million. A half million to Jews which use their own predatory lending to justify rates to offset risks they willingly accept. Which isn't really risky because they passed their risk onto you and me.

[–] • 1 pt

Imoho, the difference between usury and lending is simply interest rates

And whether you're making money out of thin air, etc. Proper interest is a net benefit. You do some work but don't consume immediately, instead letting a business owner do the consumption. They create more value than you could, and pay you back plus some extra. Then you consume. This is a valuable process that interest supports.

[–] [deleted] • 1 pt

Without the ability to get a loan on a house don't you think most folks would be forced into renting? In a lot of markets rent is higher than a mortgage so you aren't even really treading water by renting if your goal is to "own" a home.

Yes, its possible that without lending rents would not be so high. That system would be so different its hard for me to try to predict if that is likely or less likely. That's one of the reasons I asked if anyone had examples.

[–] • 0 pt

Historically renting is affordable. Post 60s that started to change. I always assumed it was driven by lending practices. But exploitation has always been there. So your certainty not wrong. See It's a Wonderful Life.

[+] [deleted] • 2 pts
[–] • 2 pts

No lending and no interest means no usury.

You save. You purchase with savings. Pretty simple.

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

So here's the thing...that would mean that only families with extreme wealth, who could afford to take a hit, could take any risk on anything innovative that might not pay out in a short amount of time. That seems like it would really stifle innovation and new ideas. For all the downsides of lending, it does sometimes get funds into the hands of people who are creative and ambitious but without capital.

[–] • 0 pt

I own a business. I have no debt. I started at a flea market and slept in a car for 2 years.

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

I worked three jobs concurrently to save money for college. We are outliers. Pareto.

[–] • 2 pts

Up until 1515, when the pope allowed collecting interest on loans, Europe ran without usury. I'm not saying that there wasn't some usury here and there, but it was the Medici pope, Leo X, who opened the floodgates to it. There was also very strong and outspoken opposition to usury in the American colonies. All the Church fathers opposed usury. Jesus opposed usury. Basically, usury is money breeding money. This was abhorent to earlier religious leaders.

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

So I did some researching on that one and most sources say there was lending before 1515 and the money lenders had notoriously high rates. The papal bull allowed "charitable" pawns to do lending at a reasonable rate so as to undercut the high-interest lenders.

But maybe the Pope had other intentions and the above is a revisionist or overly-trusting assessment of the motive?

[–] • 1 pt

...talley sticks?

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

That's the currency not the larger econmic system. That's like saying a car works because of tires.

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

Well, if your going down hill cars do work because of tires.

[–] • 1 pt

Anywhere money is a true scarce commodity. 1) It's too valuable to lend. 2) Deflationary pressure means your enterprise may have trouble paying back the principle in the future. 3) Money is so valuable that penalties for non-payment are harsh.

So in a system where money is more valuable than a place to live and quite often more valuable than the food you eat up to starvation, you have alternatives to money. You have more barter and indentured servitude. You have slavery and starvation.

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

It sound like you are making the case for lending if not actual usury, yes? "Cheap"er money prevents slavery and starvation essentially.

[–] • 0 pt

Yes but usary and money are connected. Extremely soft money like the USD requires usary both practically and from a moral standpoint as well. It's not the usary that's immoral. It's the money. This is a situational ethics argument, like killing in war I suppose. Notice we don't actually see usary in collateral, which are the hard assets backing the loan. The bank doesn't come along mid agreement and say "now you owe me two new cars". When money is a hard asset, especially a deflating one, usary would resemble such a contract.

[–] • 0 pt

I've been thinking about this a lot. It's not usury that's the problem, it's the reserve requirements.

Example: 3 entities; home buyer, home builder, bank. The home builder builds a house, the home buyer buys a house from bank lender, the builder deposits the money in bank. With a central bank there is only one bank. So the buyer gets a check from the bank, gives it to the builder, then the builder deposits that same check back with the same bank. Something from nothing. This multiplies money. The system acknowledges this happens, and set reserve requirements so that banks can't inflate us out of existence. Given the opportunity they would inflate indefinitely, they would.

So the reserve requirements are 10%. That means that banks can loan 10 times more than they have. If we simply said you can't loan more than you have in deposits, 100% reserve requirements, then this nightmare would end overnight. This is the root of our problems.

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

I've often heard of inflation referred to as "silent theft". This aligns with your scenario.

I've heard that the US banks have a zero reserve requirement as of a few years ago. Seems like that's be a real winner. /s

[–] • 0 pt

How do you get money to start a business without borrowing? Corporations, LLCs and Limited partnerships exist to solve this problem.

You can create a contract in such a way that you have the right to buy back the shares with profit or not. For example if my cousin wanted to become an owner-operator truck driver, I could buy $100k worth of shares in his company he then buys the shares back from me whenever he has the money at a price we agree upon. If the business fails I can still auction off his truck and get some of my money back.