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

©2026 Poal.co

284

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)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (25).
[–] • 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.