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