Latest green proposal? It's a column from some journalist talking about the possibility. He thought it out so well he ends the piece with, "But how?". Nevertheless, it's a good topic for debate that shouldn't rely on a fantasy-land headline to sell it.

Sounds like someone slept through the first week of Econ 101 when the term "net present value" was presented. Or maybe that was 7th grade history, I forget.

Outtaphase: Sounds like someone slept through the first week of Econ 101 when the term "net present value" was presented. Or maybe that was 7th grade history, I forget.

Actually, I think this proposal was first made by Catholics to save us from the evil, money-lending Jews.

and that has a chance of passing... how?

You aren't seriously suggesting that this is worthy of a response, are you? This isn't even wrong.

colmnist for a Murdock paper = green proposal ??

uh, no. 5/10

FTFA "Until relatively recently, the charging of interest was called usury - it was a sin. (If that word makes you feel uncomfortable, remember that it only means something that most people considered deeply wrong.)"

'Wrong'? What's wrong is the writer and in several ways, too.

For starters define 'relatively recently'; does he mean in the past hundred years? The past thousand? The past FIVE thousand?

'Scare' journalism at its' 'best'.

Is there another way? There certainly is

yeah--don't take out a loan or take one and pay back it back early

Isn't it about time we started requiring journalists to take some basic math and science classes before they graduate? There are too many functional retards who can write a nice-looking article but can't understand basic concepts.

Author of TFA is a moran.

Yeah, I went ad hominem. I don't give a fark, the author is a moran.

If you don't like interest, don't borrow money. Getting a loan to do things more quickly is a choice, no matter the cause or needs it will address. You are asking others to take a risk on whether the endeavor you want to do with their money will succeed and you'll pay it back, or fail and you'll lose their money. Interest is how you pay for the service of someone taking on the risks of your endeavor/project. Without it, no one could afford the risk of lending anyone money (and people should not be forced to take on/socialize that risk; farking Congress, we're looking at you), because stuff fails all the time and there would be no way to remain solvent since finances are finite. The longer you take to pay it back, the more risk of loss they are exposed to, hence the need for compound interest on debt. The only thing that would nullify the need for compound interest would be ABSOLUTELY NO RISK; ALL loans being paid back, ALL the time, without exception. But even that fairy tale doesn't answer the question of why someone should lend you money for nothing in return. It defies logic and reasoning (hence, the author is a moran). It's a fact of human life that there is not enough true altruism in the world to loan an adequate supply of money freely to every person and country in need.

The same about interest is true for compound interest on investments and savings. Companies use this money to grow more quickly. They are 'asking' that the public voluntarily socialize the risk of loss, success or failure. Compound interest, dividends, capital gains, whatever you want to call it - that's paying the investors for the service of taking on risk and to tax those gains into oblivion is the epitome of economic stupidity.

If you receive a valuable service, you should compensate someone for it. If you provide a valuable service, you should get paid for it. It's not a perfect system, it is not always just, for example, and participants can choose to behave without integrity, but so far it's the best we've found that benefits those who participate.

Problems develop when you can't pay in full for the service you received. Poor people/countries have the most trouble paying for services. In old days it was much more visibly obvious that "the borrower is slave to the lender." Today it is more subtle. The borrower took on this role when they borrowed money. They signed up for it. It is not, and should not, be a crime (debtors prison) not to pay because both parties entered into the agreement and accepted the risks voluntarily. Unless the lender voluntarily forgives a portion of the interest or debt, or all of it, the borrower is ethically obligated to pay no matter how long it takes and how much of burden it causes. This is why we should be extremely careful when borrowing money, even trivial amounts on credit cards. A lender that makes a living at lending is going to try to lend to as many as possible, to make as much money as possible. Their job is to assess their risk and adjust their service offering accordingly; greed will make them err to the side of making money on interest and spreading out the risk via increasingly higher interest rates. It's YOUR responsibility, not theirs, to decide whether YOU can enter into a loan agreement and fulfill it. So read closely, the fine print that says stuff like UNIVERSAL DEFAULT.

But then again, hey, why be responsible when congress is just going to bail us out, right? Hey, they spend more than we earn and buy stuff we can't afford to make payments on, why can't we, right? Our country is dirt poor, violent, and has no investment attraction, so we should just borrow 5 billion we can't pay back, right? It's only paper, and since we are poor it will be forgiven someday when they see we have no way of ever paying it back and it's now 13 times times the original amount we borrowed. So what if new borrowers will have to pay twice the interest rate because of the loss on our loan? Not our problem.

I never took Econ 101 and this is only my personal "uninformed" opinion of loans and interest. It is also only my opinion that the author of TFA is a moran.

/doesn't borrow money

FTFA "Until relatively recently, the charging of interest was called usury - it was a sin. (If that word makes you feel uncomfortable, remember that it only means something that most people considered deeply wrong.)"

'Wrong'? What's wrong is the writer and in several ways, too.

For starters define 'relatively recently'; does he mean in the past hundred years? The past thousand? The past FIVE thousand?

'Scare' journalism at its' 'best'.

Well, its true. And Christians were generally forbidden from charging interest on money lent during the dark ages. Jews were ostresized and forbidden from many occupations, and turned to ursury. More on the topic is available @ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usury

On a related note--debt forgiveness is much easier to implement than banning compound interest. The amount of effort it would take to keep track of all deposits in order to avoid paying extra interest would be virtually impossible.

Plus it would destroy the economy and restrict all money lending.

Surprise revelation:

Time has value.

TFA Author apparently thinks otherwise.

/TFA Author is a moran.

Subby is apparently too goddamn stupid to understand that "compound interest" is precisely what PREVENTS most people from owning a house or car.

Time value of money. Live it. Learn it.

Even back when "usury" was illegal, interest bearing loans still happened. They just had loopholes. It was called the triple contract. Muslim banks do the same thing; they just call it something else.

As long as we have a time preference (I'd rather have a dollar today than a dollar a year from now), interest will always exist. It's just the price for borrowing money. Without it, people wouldn't lend - and no businesses get build or houses get purchased.

Paedophile_Deluxe: Isn't it about time we started requiring journalists to take some basic math and science classes before they graduate? There are too many functional retards who can write a nice-looking article but can't understand basic concepts.

While it's unsurprising that someone as completely stupid as you would write something so... well, completely stupid, I'd like to point out most social systems throughout the history of the world have considered abject greed to be a poor foundation for an economic system. I'd also point out that we're in the middle of a gigantic meltdown of our Banking and Mortgage systems, which can be directly linked to dumbasses like you who think that any attempt to bring Ethics to Finance is somehow "retarded".

But hey, here's your chance, asshole: please show how the article in question is wrong. That is, beyond your usual pinheaded insistence that it's "wrong" because "you say it's wrong".

Cinletharwi:
If you don't like interest, don't borrow money.


Such a reasonable, mature, logical suggestion in a country where an average house can cost half a million dollars. I'm sure all the people making 50k a year will get right on that. After all, they'd only have to save EVERY SINGLE POST-TAX DOLLAR THEY MAKE for over TEN YEARS to buy a house.

See, the problem with being a complete asshole is that you end up making stupid statements, like "If you don't like interest, don't borrow money". Anyone that's not being a complete prick understands that there's no way the average person can avoid loans in today's world. Apparently, your suggestion is that people ought to live in homeless shelters until such a time as they can plunk down cash. Or then again, maybe your (even stupider) point is that we can't complain about a system that we're Forced to take part in.

Every time I start to feel bad about the economic hardships that so many of my fellow Americans face, I just come here to Fark and read the ignorant, self-absorbed, greed-obsessed idiocy that you guys spew, and I walk away feeling like Americans deserve every bad thing that happens to them. I mean holy shiat, you guys are actually being greedy douchebags on behalf of the banking industry. You're not even getting any personal benefit out of it, and are in fact having to pay for their institutionalized greed in the form of corporate bailouts. And yet you still insist on pursuing a course of blind, unreasoning support for the very institutions that have us poised on the edge of a second Great Depression. I can't even remotely begin to understand what motivates people like you.

FTA: You might ask: What has this to do with the environment? A great deal - because in order to repay debts businesses and whole economies must grow, and that usually involves consuming ever greater quantities of non-renewable resources.

He isn't just opposed to the concept of interest - he's opposed to economic growth itself. And that means developing countries are pretty much doomed to perpetual poverty. Not to mention that all of human progress more or less grinds to a halt.

What he's talking about boils down to continuous exponential growth, which is unsustainable in any model with limited resources.. It'll build and build, until it reaches a point where the resources are almost gone, and then it is no longer sustainable, and it all falls apart. That's what we have to look forward to under the current system. Your kids are all screwed.

Corpus Delecti:
Apparently, your suggestion is that people ought to live in homeless shelters until such a time as they can plunk down cash.

You know who ELSE disliked interest, and thought that workers should be housed by the state?



That's right, Communists thought that.

Moses To Sandy Koufax: Because the American government is full of some of the dumbest people in the history of the world.

maybe, but this would never get past the lobbyists.
Which, in this case at least, is a good thing.

Corpus Delecti: While it's unsurprising that someone as completely stupid as you would write something so... well, completely stupid, I'd like to point out most social systems throughout the history of the world have considered abject greed to be a poor foundation for an economic system. I'd also point out that we're in the middle of a gigantic meltdown of our Banking and Mortgage systems, which can be directly linked to dumbasses like you who think that any attempt to bring Ethics to Finance is somehow "retarded".

Yeah, point out where I said that...

But hey, here's your chance, asshole: please show how the article in question is wrong. That is, beyond your usual pinheaded insistence that it's "wrong" because "you say it's wrong".

Are you the kind, benevolent person who will start giving people no-interest loans? I really don't see that person stepping forward otherwise...

Corpus Delecti
please show how the article in question is wrong.

Sure, where should I start?

in order to repay debts businesses and whole economies must grow, and that usually involves consuming ever greater quantities of non-renewable resources.

Because any government, especially African governments, known for their stability, would never otherwise become industrialized and burn non-renewable resources, except for the fact that the big bad Western countries were forcing them to to pay off their debts.

If a moneylender at the time of Christ had lent an ounce of gold at 5% it would today require an amount of bullion weighing several planet Earths in repayment.

Only if the person who took the loan never bothered to pay back any of it over the past 2,000 years. Clearly this is a loan that should never have been lent in the first place, since the borrower is a defaulter of the worst kind. But clearly we should forgive the fact that he broke a contract, which was to repay the amount loaned in a timely manner.

And doing without money that was lent at interest didn't stop our predecessors trading, or building incredible monuments, from Westminster Abbey to the colleges of Oxford and Cambridge.

Ah yes, comparing (relatively) free-market economy to a system where the church-state collected taxes at an enormous rate and then did not give services back to the public, but rather used it to line their own pockets in buildings like Westminster Abbey. Not only is this comparison fair, but I'm sure that the workers who built the abbey had just compensation and rights like todays unions enjoy.

/Stupidest article I've read in a long time.

Corpus Delecti: Subby is apparently too goddamn stupid to understand that "compound interest" is precisely what PREVENTS most people from owning a house or car.

Apparently you don't realize that most people do have houses and cars, and they are paying for them via loans at interest they happily signed up for. They may grumble about the interest later on and feel snookered, but they signed up happily because they get to have a nice shiny car and posh house today instead of waiting 10 years living on less than they make in order to save and pay cash for them much more cheaply as there will be no interest paid because there is no debt.

Interest on debt is the surcharge you pay for your impatience and convenience. Stop whining, they are getting a valuable service. If they are not, they failed to adequately assess the unfavorable terms and walk out instead of signing. They are not a victim, unless the terms were changed and the original contract did not specifically allow for this change (Universal Default, credit cards). In that case the customer can terminate the contract/agreement without recourse, because the other party changing it without your agreement is illegal.

People should learn from their financial mistakes and not do them again. The way to punish businesses with unfair agreements in the most painful way is NEVER do business with them again. That hurts them more than any government fine or regulation ever will.

Of course, all of this comes from another dimension in space-time, where people take responsibility for the choices and agreements they make and to cry victim for everything unfair they participate in is a shameful shirking of responsibility. YMMV in this dimension.

Cinletharwi:
People should learn from their financial mistakes and not do them again. The way to punish businesses with unfair agreements in the most painful way is NEVER do business with them again. That hurts them more than any government fine or regulation ever will.

The problem with this is that virtually EVERY financial institution operates in the same way. All lenders have been busted doing shady things and exploiting customers. It's like cell phones - the only way to avoid bad business is to simply opt out of the whole game. Alas with mortgages and loans that is not really an option for most.

But yeah, I don't see compound interest going away any time soon. And especially not for international debt as mentioned in the article. It's too profitable to milk poor borrowers for decades over an initially small loan.

filth: Outtaphase: Sounds like someone slept through the first week of Econ 101 when the term "net present value" was presented. Or maybe that was 7th grade history, I forget.

Actually, I think this proposal was first made by Catholics to save us from the evil, money-lending Jews.

Actually, I think the Catholic Church was always against it. Jews only got associated with moneylending because they were allowed to charge interest and Christians weren't.

That being said, I found the author's argument less than compelling. Great cultural nstitutions like Oxford have nothing to do with the economy, and have benefitted from bequests from very dubious wealth gathering much worse than compound interest.

Muslims follow the same principle as early Christians - they don't charge interest, but they use interest-based Christian financing all the time. A Muslim mortgage is also very conservative, charging a similar rate in prearranged fees and management costs as a regular interest mortgage.

Compound interest isn't the problem. People sucking down credit like water without thinking about the consequences is the problem. People thinking "I know this credit card is 18% interest, but I have to have those shoes/golf clubs/spinning hub caps" is the problem.

Corpus Delecti:

It's Sunday, it is nice out and I've got a party to go to...besides I think a detailed response would be wasted on you.

So in short: You're dumb. Very dumb.

If you're trolling, congrats!

A gem from the comments

""You might ask: What has this to do with the environment? A great deal - because in order to repay debts businesses and whole economies must grow, and that usually involves consuming ever greater quantities of non-renewable resources."
...
You might as well advocate genocide as a solution to climate change. Fewer people means fewer non-renewable resources being used, no? It would even be more effective than your stupid suggestion."

Just a side note, but as someone who actually studied a bit about moneylending practices in the 13th century, this really boggled the mind:

And doing without money that was lent at interest didn't stop our predecessors trading, or building incredible monuments, from Westminster Abbey to the colleges of Oxford and Cambridge.

Not sure about Oxford or Cambridge, but much of the construction of Westminster Abbey was funded in large part by huge taxes on the money made by Jewish moneylenders whose compound interest rates averaged around 45%.

Just a minor nit in the overall tapestry of stupidity, but it just goes to show that you really ought to do a little homework before opening your mouth.

Corpus Delecti: Such a reasonable, mature, logical suggestion in a country where an average house can cost half a million dollars. I'm sure all the people making 50k a year will get right on that

If you want to be taken serious and discuss something, you should leave the hyperbole and exaggeration at the door before you come in.

Corpus Delecti: See, the problem with being a complete asshole is that you end up making stupid statements, like "If you don't like interest, don't borrow money". Anyone that's not being a complete prick understands that there's no way the average person can avoid loans in today's world. Apparently, your suggestion is that people ought to live in homeless shelters until such a time as they can plunk down cash. Or then again, maybe your (even stupider) point is that we can't complain about a system that we're Forced to take part in.

You obviously have a political ax to grind and want to fight with someone, but I'm going to deny you that and refuse to take it personally.

I am an average person. I make about $30K a year (below the national household average). I don't borrow money. I rent where I live because I refuse to borrow money and can't afford to pay cash for a house right now. I live on less than I earn. I don't use credit cards. I save money. I will be cash-flowing $60K in flight school costs and it will take three times as long or longer to go through school, because I refuse to borrow money. I'm just an average person in America, if I can live like this and live well in a decent place and save money for what I want, why can't others? They can, but they CHOOSE not to because of impatience and convenience and they want it right now, today (I am not saying that is bad, just admitting what it is). The banks and credit card companies have got Americans convinced via marketing that it is impossible to live without interest-bearing debt and it looks like you are buying it too. How does that feel (like a sucker?), to be conned by the very institutions you deem evil incarnate: banks? You said it yourself, here i'll repeat it: "there's no way the average person can avoid loans in today's world."

Well i do, and I'm not a pauper living in a homeless shelter, nor anywhere in the same galaxy as wealthy. Just an average person in American. That pretty much blows the credibility of your argument out the water.

My suggestion is that people live within their means, if they do not feel the interest rate is fair for the service and/or product they receive and paying interest is unacceptable. It is their choice, no matter how much you want to stomp your feet and scream the big bad "system" is unfair.

Most people in America have the means to rent a home or apartment. The national average annual household income is around $40K. Government subsidies ensure most of those whom cannot afford to rent or own a place to live on their own due to low income, still get a place to live as soon as possible and as much as resources permit (government, like most other things it does, does not do this very well either). We cannot force homeless people to apply for subsidized housing or get jobs or better paying job so there will no longer be homeless or poor people, if you want to argue about that too.

Nobody is forcing you nor anyone else in this world to sign up for interest-bearing debt. People sign up for it of their own free will. They may not fully understand the consequences of those terms as it relates to their budget, but it is still their responsibility and CHOICE. Nobody is forced at gunpoint to participate in debt. You and anyone who chooses can go be an anarchist on the street squatting and eating out of dumpsters, if so inclined. Or, you could just live on a budget, rent a place to live, live on less than you make, save money, and pay cash for whatever you CHOOSE to buy.

Corpus Delecti: I can't even remotely begin to understand what motivates people like you.

Can't speak for others, but Personal Responsibility does it for me. I hold all people accountable for their choices and agreements, just as I hold myself accountable. There are things in this world we cannot control; death and taxes of course. Taxes is not a choice, it is collected by threat of force (prison, where I may be harmed by violent inmates). I have no choice where and how my taxes are spent. I have no illusions that voting for one politician over the other will cause it to be spent more wisely than the other. I'd rather keep all my money and give it directly to what causes and needs of others I see fit. I went out and earned it, it's mine and I would rather pay for some things (roads and infrastructure, food banks, workforce training, secure borders, etc.) and not for others (wars, corporate bailouts and boondoggles, $50K toilet seats). But that's not my choice, 'render unto Caesar' and all that. I will instead take responsibility for the choices I do have to make in this life. If I sign up for an unfair interest-bearing credit card or house I cannot afford due to changing circumstances, I do not want anyone to bail me out. It's my fault for playing with snakes and I'm an adult, I've got no right to expect and demand that dysfunctional mommy and daddy government steal from other taxpayers to pay for my getting bit.

If you've got some real points to make, make them, just stop with the Che-shirt-wearing crybaby routine, it makes you look like a troll.

Corpus Delecti: I mean holy shiat, you guys are actually being greedy douchebags on behalf of the banking industry. You're not even getting any personal benefit out of it


If you deposit money in a bank, YOU are part of the greedy douchebag banking industry. Where do you think they get the money to make loans from? After you deposit your money with them, they in turn loan that money out to other people. And guess what, the bank gives you about 3 percent yield on the money you loan them, you greedy money lending usury douche bag.

depmode98: Where do you think they get the money to make loans from?

Haven't you been paying attention lately? they've been making it up.

I should know better than to ask this question, but I'm genuinely curious as to the answer.

Corpus Delicti, or any other interest-is-evil person, let's say you want a $100k home. And let's say I have a spare $100k.

Why should I give you this money to get a home? What's in it for me, especially as there is a risk you won't repay. And even if you do repay, I get the money later, after inflation has made my 100k worth less than before.

/inflation won't go away.

Damba: I should know better than to ask this question, but I'm genuinely curious as to the answer.

Corpus Delicti, or any other interest-is-evil person, let's say you want a $100k home. And let's say I have a spare $100k.

Why should I give you this money to get a home? What's in it for me, especially as there is a risk you won't repay. And even if you do repay, I get the money later, after inflation has made my 100k worth less than before.

/inflation won't go away.

i'm not an interest-is-evil person, but if i were to put on that hat for a moment, i'd say my answer goes as such...

you would have no incentive to lend that money. and as such, i would not have the opportunity to buy a house that i can't afford. in the short-term, i would find some place to live that i could afford, and probably enjoy a bit more fiscal freedom. in the long-term, the housing market would shift and prices would fall, as the fair market value of a good can't be maintained above what the consumers can afford.

of course, there would be other, negative impacts.

Part of me deep down agrees that the world would, in a way, be a better place without compound interest. It would also be a better world if it rained mint chocolate chip ice cream.