Cykros on Nostr: Only if you look at the Abrahamic religions. There's some good reason for it, though ...
Only if you look at the Abrahamic religions.
There's some good reason for it, though it's perhaps important to remember that it is born out of an eschewing of material possessions in the first place. It'd also be sinful to lend out money in such a way that puts your dependents without their needs being met. Presumably, the prohibition on interest is also a way to significantly decrease the extension of credit in the first place, as it becomes completely disincentivized. Financing becomes equity based, rather than based around the collection of interest. The financier takes on the same risks the one they're financing faces in business, rather than standing on the sidelines demanding interest, whether or not the endeavor being financed succeeds.
For a good look at how this functions among communities that actually adhere to it seriously, which isn't even most Muslims especially in the modern fiat world, it's worth checking out how Sharia banking works.
saifedean (nprofile…lh5m) has discussed the goals of the ban on interest in terms of being a method to encourage a lower time preference. Pegging the time value of money at zero can be seen as a refusal to require that more money than was initially started with be brought into the system. If we zoom out from the microeconomic realities of interest bearing loans, it does make sense that one can't have the widespread charging of interest without necessarily creating a situation in which there will be defaults, either outright, or in the form of inflation. Furthermore, if you're lending money understanding the risk of this default risk, it may brush up against prohibitions on gambling, also found in said religions.
It's hard to argue that money doesn't have a time value though. If I have the money and can spend it today, I can buy seed, to plant crops, which I can then sell, and have more than I started with. Whereas if I lend that money out for a year, I necessarily give up that potential profit stream. However, if nobody is expanding broad money with credit, the money in a year should buy more than it does today, thanks to deflation and the collective increase in real goods and services through productive economic endeavors. Thus, on a sound money standard, that time value is something that can be recognized without the charging of interest. And you might even see the extension of credit without interest as doing your part to drive down the costs of goods and services, and thus, drive up the value of money, so in a way, your time value is being adequately compensated.
With widespread use of interest and fiat money, it's sort of hard to get there. I won't proscribe a course of action as it's far from my place to do so, but this is how I see the matter of interest, and why prohibitions on it do exist in various traditions. One needn't simply go with the "because the book says so" rationale.
There's some good reason for it, though it's perhaps important to remember that it is born out of an eschewing of material possessions in the first place. It'd also be sinful to lend out money in such a way that puts your dependents without their needs being met. Presumably, the prohibition on interest is also a way to significantly decrease the extension of credit in the first place, as it becomes completely disincentivized. Financing becomes equity based, rather than based around the collection of interest. The financier takes on the same risks the one they're financing faces in business, rather than standing on the sidelines demanding interest, whether or not the endeavor being financed succeeds.
For a good look at how this functions among communities that actually adhere to it seriously, which isn't even most Muslims especially in the modern fiat world, it's worth checking out how Sharia banking works.
saifedean (nprofile…lh5m) has discussed the goals of the ban on interest in terms of being a method to encourage a lower time preference. Pegging the time value of money at zero can be seen as a refusal to require that more money than was initially started with be brought into the system. If we zoom out from the microeconomic realities of interest bearing loans, it does make sense that one can't have the widespread charging of interest without necessarily creating a situation in which there will be defaults, either outright, or in the form of inflation. Furthermore, if you're lending money understanding the risk of this default risk, it may brush up against prohibitions on gambling, also found in said religions.
It's hard to argue that money doesn't have a time value though. If I have the money and can spend it today, I can buy seed, to plant crops, which I can then sell, and have more than I started with. Whereas if I lend that money out for a year, I necessarily give up that potential profit stream. However, if nobody is expanding broad money with credit, the money in a year should buy more than it does today, thanks to deflation and the collective increase in real goods and services through productive economic endeavors. Thus, on a sound money standard, that time value is something that can be recognized without the charging of interest. And you might even see the extension of credit without interest as doing your part to drive down the costs of goods and services, and thus, drive up the value of money, so in a way, your time value is being adequately compensated.
With widespread use of interest and fiat money, it's sort of hard to get there. I won't proscribe a course of action as it's far from my place to do so, but this is how I see the matter of interest, and why prohibitions on it do exist in various traditions. One needn't simply go with the "because the book says so" rationale.