zlacker

>>jimbob+(OP)
This, along with innumerable other things like lifting the ban on usurious interest rates, is ultimately a consequence of the same phenomenon Nietzsche describes as “the death of God.”

We have forgotten the deeper reasons that certain things were prohibited or discouraged, assuming that these rules were only there because of a belief in a religion society doesn’t follow anymore. That was a naive view and it turns out that many “old” rules are actually pragmatic social codes disguised as beliefs. This isn’t limited to a particular tradition, either: pretty much every major religion has frowned upon things like gambling.

And so in the absence of any real coherent philosophy that aims to deal with complex problems like gambling, addiction, or excessive interest rates, you’re only going to get an expansion of what is already dominant: markets.

Don’t expect this to change until knowledge of ethics and philosophy becomes widespread enough to establish a new mental model for thinking about these issues.

>>keifer+yW1
What are usurious interest rates? Is some amount of interest ok?

>>hgomer+0X1
As others said, it depends who you ask. The Augustinian view was that usury isn't defined by the rate but when, and I'm explaining this rather poorly, interest is charged for the use of money. Hence "usury." So a typical American mortgage would be usurious in the Augustinian definition, even if the interest rate were, say, 1%.

The alternative non-usurious loan would require you to post some other kind of security to receive the money, such as giving the lender the use of some other productive land until the principal debt is paid. More like pawning something at a pawn shop and then buying it back when you get paid.