Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Epic American Credit and Bond Bubble Laboratory -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: anachronist who wrote (58906)	4/20/2006 3:50:23 PM
From: shades	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 110194

Or maybe people aren't as dumb as you think and should be allowed to make their own decision, and held accountable for them when they turn out badly... A man admits he is putting people into bankruptcy - somoene with 100 dollars to thier name being given humongous loan - you want to keep defending that kind of behavior be my guest. It just goes to further show your stupidity. I don't see anyone else rallying behind you - not even loantech - he thinks it is silly too - you are losing this one. I want you to do a search on the payday loan industry in Ga - Several Generals went before congress saying evil payday lenders were causing us to lose the war in IRAQ because wifey was pawning soldiers trucks for new hairdo's. Now someone had to slap down dumb wifey before she cost her hubby to get blown up in IRAQ because he was so worried about losing his truck - you disagree? You think the generals were wrong? The state legislature didn't think the Generals were wrong - they shut down the payday loan free market. I wish you had been there to tell all those dumb lawmakers and generals and soldiers that wifey didn't need to slapped down - my payday loan buddies would still be in business - where were you when they needed you? Now poor wifey cant get nice hairdo - boohoo. There are no absolutes in this world Anarchist - what works today may not work tomorrow: Here is something for you to read - one by chrimson ghost - one by me: Message 21902352 Message 21642866

To: anachronist who wrote (58906)	4/20/2006 4:51:04 PM
From: shades	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 110194

alastairmcintosh.com First published in Accounting, Business & Financial History, 8:2, Routledge, London, July 1998, pp. 175-189. Abstract Usury - lending at interest or excessive interest - has, according to known records, been practiced in various parts of the world for at least four thousand years. During this time, there is substantial evidence of intense criticisism by various traditions, institutions and social reformers on moral, ethical, religious and legal grounds. The rationale employed by these wide-ranging critics have included arguments about work ethic, social justice, economic instability, ecological destruction and inter-generational equity. While the contemporary relevance of these largely historical debates are not analysed in detail, the authors contend that their significance is greater than ever before in the context of the modern interest-based global economy. en.wikipedia.org Some have defended the threat or use of force (legal or illegal) against non-payers (such as required by Shylock). This (minority) position is based on the idea that without force there will be a market failure - since very high interest loans will only be taken up by those intending to default. The need for violence in this case is due to the failure of governments to see this fact, or to adequately enforce the loan contracts (such as with overly lax bankruptcy laws), rather than any immorality inherent in moneylenders. See: "The market for lemons". Some low-interest charity loans (such as small business micro-loans) have made a defense on the fact that interest rates allow for the indefinite administration of the charity, the replacement of defaulted loans, and in some cases, the creation of additional loan pools in other regions. The final "ethical result" of the interest rates justifies charging them. None of these arguments, however, address the arguments raised by opponents of usury such as the Medieval Schoolmen, Islamic scholars and others. Neither do they address the economic arguments against save obliquely by making out a positive case without answering the negative case. Simply to invest the money and expect it to be returned regardless of the success of the venture being financed by the loans still appears to be a scheme for making money simply by having money and not by taking any risk or by doing any work, adding any value or by any effort or sacrifice at all. Moreover, as stated above, the growth in derivative financial "products" has certainly increased by the widespread and free allowance of interest charges but this has enabled the wealthy Western nations to create a massive debt imbalance in their favour at the expense of poor Third World countries. The provision of credit at rates that are at best unaffordable to the poor and at worst positively extortionate is usually seen as an ugly side of Capitalism. Moreover, if interest rates are higher than returns on productive investments, creating negative gearing, investment may be directed away from productive investment into loans, bonds and derivatives which enrich the rich at the expense of the poor. Moreover, productive investment time-frames can become unrealistically shortened and a business can be expected to produce returns in short order and, when it does not, the lenders simply foreclose and take over the business even though they themselves have taken no risks, added no value, done no work on the project nor made any sacrifices. This is a considerable disincentive to real, productive investment, save, perhaps, for those businesses which are so large that they have no need for external credit and can readily meet loans from other parts of their corporate empires. Thus usury tends to force economic activity into the hands of the few which is often seen as another negative aspect of modern Capitalism.