RE: Usury Is Charging ANY Interest
I agree in part but you are oversimplifying. Inflation definitely plays a part. If a value of a stock goes up 10% and inflation is 3% then real gains are 7%.
Also, the 10% growth is an average. Coke stock is worth about 0.75% less than it was a year ago. But some companies have grown, on average, much greater than 10%/year. Tesla, Microsoft, Apple are a few companies that come to mind.
Also, there's more ways to increase value than pure growth. You can be producing the same amount yet become more efficient for example. I work for a company that develops software for a major food company. Every change they come to us with (which are many every year) is all about increasing efficiency.
Also, as the demand for a fixed quantity asset goes up, its value relative to other things goes up so you end up subdividing it further. The smallest unit of Bitcoin is the Satoshi. Perhaps one day it will be worth $1, in part because the value of the dollar goes down, and in part because the value of Bitcoin goes up.
As for the definition of Usury, it's definition is a little murky. In Christianity, the admonition mostly seems to be against charging interest on a loan to somebody in need. But if you are "rich", does that apply? If I have an apartment but want to buy a house and am changed interest does that fall into that category? I wouldn't think so. But if I'm starving and need money to buy food, then loaning money to me and charging interest would definitely fall into that category.
The reason you might not loan your Bitcoin is risk. You have no guarantee that who you loan the Bitcoin to will be willing or able to pay you back. If you are in the position to give someone a house, fine, do that. There's no need for a loan. If you can't afford to give away a house then you can't afford to loan the money for one without mitigating your risk and that would take having enough to make multiple loans.
Yep, i used to think that way.
And it never worked out mathematically.
I can build a nice house, by myself, in about a year.
So, why does it cost 30 years of someone's life?
Because of usury.
So, is the Fed way better, or is the Amish way better?
Borrow money they print out of thin air (causing inflation) and paying interest (more usury) and buy a house from some builder
or
Get your friends together and build a house, all paid for the moment it is done?
And i don't think i made it clear how much the Fed way actually costs.
If you get a mortgage to buy a house, it may seem good to you on paper, but no one looks at the real costs.
You have just made your children pay more for their house. Inflation + interest really adds up.
AND if you pay your house off, you are insuring that at least one person goes into bankruptcy.
These two are a direct result of your getting a mortgage and usury.
Was it worth it?
I don't have the skills to build my own house. Could I gain those skills? Sure...but I would rather work at something I enjoy more and use the proceeds from that to pay for one. I bought a newly built house with a 30 year mortgage. I paid it off in about 13. It was worth it to me. While I don't like the amount of control the government and the Fed have on money and interest rates, an inflationary money supply isn't necessarily bad within reason (even gold is inflationary...there is always more being dug up and put into circulation), you just have to understand how to use it. And yes, the Fed certainly goes beyond reason. Savings is taxed and debt gets cheaper over time. If you want to "save" then you have to "invest". A fixed pile of fiat currency won't go up in value but property, whether that's ownership in a company or gold or whatever, will inflate with everything else so you won't lose value (to inflation anyway). If you stick your money in a savings account paying 0.01% interest, then you are screwing yourself.
Inflation affect salaries too. Sure, my children may pay more for a house in the future but they will also be making more money. I make a lot more money than my parents who made a lot more money than their parents. Houses today are more expensive relative to salary than they used to be but I believe that's more because they are, on average, much larger and have many more features (some of which are because of increased regulations) than they used to. Government regulation plays a big part in the cost of a house. Just look at California for an extreme example.
Nobody is making anybody get a 30 year mortgage on a house. My grandparents lived in an 850 sq. foot house. Even today, such a house can probably be had pretty cheaply. Buy a mobile home. Rent a cheap apartment. A house that is expensive enough for a 30 year mortgage is a trade-off. Everybody has to judge for themselves if it one worth making. If you want to get together with your friends to build your own houses, nobody is stopping you, right? I mean a mortgage is a choice not a prison sentence. Nobody is making you pay interest...you have to choose to take out a loan. But expecting "free" loans on a large scale is not realistic.
Personally, I hate being in debt. Mostly by this I mean unsecured debt like credit card debt. That's the interest that kills you. That's usury. 6% on a house can be a lot but given the equity you typically build, it isn't so bad. I don't feel so bad about a car payment or a house payment. As long as you make reasonable choices, you can always get out of that by selling your house or your car if you really need to.
So no, I don't particularly like the Fed way but the lack of the Fed and going back to a gold standard wouldn't make mortgages and interest go away.
The children of today are making much less that people in 1971, adjusted for inflation.
If you adjust for real inflation (shadowstats.com) then they make much less. And the house, adjusted for inflation, is much more.
At minimum, salaries lag behind inflation. And this is compounded.