Can't usury just be thought of as a service, and interest being the cost of it...

Can't usury just be thought of as a service, and interest being the cost of it? If someone saves a year's worth of wages to loan to someone else, aren't they essentially offering the service of waiting and saving so the other person doesn't have to?

Its all fiat money pulled out of thin air, but collected real interest from. Oy vey muh savings, bad goyim steal my free usury money.

I'm not referring to actual banking, just the idea of usury.

>Can't me refusing to work just be thought of as a service, and collecting welfare checks being the cost of it? If someone saves himself for a year's worth of working time, aren't they essentially offering the service of a year of increased job opportunities?
Only if you are white, OP.

Absolutely. It's just porky is the customer while the workers are the payers.

...

Can't me not shooting you just be thought of as a service, and your boipussy's virginity being the cost of it? Am I not essentially offering the service of not shooting you?

You're having a laugh, but this is legit thought process of Mafias.

Oh, I get it now, kill all porkys before they kill you for not sacrificing for their benefit

...

No, really, what if it is fake money? The guy lending you that tells this story about saving up, but he fabricated that fake money. You take the fake money to start a productive business, it gets huge and the economy is much more prosperous as a result. If fake money is inflationary, and lending the fake money here really does result in a much more prosperous economy, this growth completely dwarfing the increase in the money supply by adding his fake money, can we then really say that what he gave you was fake money?

This literally doesn't happen, ever.

There are a lot of services that have social taboos about them and prejudice. This is a form of structural anti-semitism. Example: You pay money for advice by a diet expert, but if I break into your house and grab stuff from your fridge for free you call me a criminal. Can't explain that.

Since you can't possibly have stats to back up that statement, do you have a logical reason for saying that?

Waiting and not spending money doesnt produce value and as such there is no cost to incur. No labour was performed and thus the value of giving a loan is zero.

At most you could argue that you can ask for a certain percentage so that in the end, with all the loans that can't be paid back, you end up breaking even.

You're basically stating the time preference theory of interest. (which, like most neoclassical economics, is pretty useless.)
I mean, Usury could be thought of as a service (indeed, what is a payday lender but a usurer in less antiquated clothing?), but so could political assassination in exchange for bags of unmarked bills left in an unspecified location.
The reason Usury is/was considered immoral is that the lender extracts a premium from someone else taking a risk without taking on that risk themselves - they get repaid either way. (barring some fiddling with bankruptcy, and even then they can take your shit, but even the fact they can try to make such an extraction is immoral.)

Adam Smith basically got this right. Usury will also lead to increased speculation instead of productive investment.

1. Suppose I lend you a physical thing I own, like a work animal. Suppose I want to get it back alive, so you have to take care of it, and neither you nor me expects that you will fail at giving it back alive at the set date, nor that I would have any use for the animal during that time. Suppose further that I don't put any value whatsoever in having good relations with you. Do I need to get back something more than just the living animal in order to benefit from lending it to you?

The answer is no. I already benefit if I don't get back more than the living animal, because I don't have to take care of the animal during the time you take care of it and feed it.

2. Suppose I lend you money, and neither you nor me expects any difficulties for you paying it back, but I want the money back plus a little bit extra, for the inconvenience of me not having the money available for a time, as I think it's very likely I don't need it during that time, but I am not exactly 100 % sure. Makes sense, right?

3. Suppose the situation is like the second one, except I actually am sure that I don't need the money during the time I lend it to you. But I charge you interest anyway because I get away with it. Unlike with most physical things, I don't have any maintenance cost just by owning money. So, you guaranteeing me that you take care and maintain whatever I lend to you just has no appeal to me when the thing you borrow is money, as it doesn't mean anything. And I can afford to sit on the money that I have above what is necessary to maintain myself and I can wait for you to crack at some point and give in to the deal.

People get lost when I add risk to the picture because of course I need something to compensate for risk of defaulting, but interest on money debt covers more than compensation for risk. It's not that money makes me an asshole, I have been an asshole since forever, it's just that money as a system enables me to affect you in assholish ways on a whole nother level. And that's what people don't like about debt in money form. It is different from owing a favor.

Real world economics do not work like your sterile abstractions.

that's literally how people think of it

The question is: Do you?

And if your answer is no, how do you explain that?

It doesn't produce anything, it is making money off nothing. No, moving monry does not count as doing anything. Bankers are literally devoid of value, kill them all.

of course i do. thats what it is

it doesnt make it less shitty

Usury is more exploitative (in the regular, non marxist sense of the word).
It's not merely lending money, it's when you gouge someone. Like what happens to the debt slaves in India.


Yes.


It literally happens all the time

interest being the cost of it?

Nigga this is not rocket science. I loan you money because you need it and I have it. In exchange I ask you give me more than the initial sum. That's the price of the service you asked, yes. It's a transaction. I'm selling money to you. That's what banks do.

No they don't. That sounds more like Islamic finance, where there is a fixed cost for a fixed service.

Read Graeber: Debt The First 5000 Years

Don't you at least have a digital copy to share? Here.

Also it was never waiting and saving. Banks in the UK at least can lend out 8 times what they have in stock. They are almost always lending out pretend money. They give you the interest they claim from somebody else who was already in their slavery.

Can't read PDFs cos of my eye autism need paper

yes they do, them varying the interest rate overtime is meaningless.

Do banks always only loan money to others they already have?
Normally, what people mean by the price of a thing or service is what they pay the moment they obtain it, with the buyer knowing what the price is. Does this apply to lending money?

Also, note that OP's question didn't say interest being the price, but interested being the cost. Do you believe that an increase in the interest rate reflects a higher amount of bureaucratic paperwork stuff for the creditors or higher disutility for them or what?

>Also, note that OP's question didn't say interest being the price, but interested being the cost.

Yep, and before the GFC it was a LOT higher than 8