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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marquette_National_Bank_of_Min....
Prior to that, usury laws existed in most states that restricted consumer loans to something like 5-13%.
Personally I don’t have an issue with the concept of interest itself, but if you look at the huge amount of Americans in debt paying 20-30% on credit cards, it certainly seems excessive and usurious to me.
The only working moral on this mortal coil is a dose of empathy for your fellow human (and if you can bring yourself to it: your fellow animal). It doesn't require a new mental model, just proper stewardship.
And yes, most religions have weighed in on gambling as most societies have been shaped by religion. Secularism is a recent thing.
It's not as if the latter are ingrates, but the social ritual of showing gratitude is not there among them, and maybe in some small way, that does breed less thankfulness in the long run...
There was once a so called fair profit rate of 4% in the middle ages and early modern age, in Hungary. Greek wine traders operating there featured the number 4 on their seals and ornaments of their houses. (They were also often tried for violating this rule)
In those ages of course there was no constant inflation in the current sense, gold standard was used for payments, etc.
source, in Hungarian language, the site of the greek ethnic minority's cultural institute (the pictures feature one such ornament): https://gorogintezet.hu/kultura/2022/07/gorog-kereskedok-sze...
https://gorogintezet.hu/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/15264.jpg
I find religious people passionate about following the rituals of their religion (for many more than the intention), in a similar way as atheists are passionate about other rituals (their sport, their eating routines, etc.).
For me the absence of thankfulness equals more with awareness. Should I be thankful I have a house? I prefer to be annoyed other people don't have, or that I can't do better (ex: have a house that generates less carbon, etc.).
I was dead for what we assume to be billions of years since this universe popped up, and soon I will be for what we understand to be far, far longer. These moment are precious, and those meals and the people we share them with are too. It makes so much sense to express gratitude for them.
That little moment to remind yourself that it’s all borrowed from the universe and will need to be given back is, I think, essential to actually living. Without that appreciation, does any of it really matter at all? Without it you’re only seeking the next thing to desire. Eventually there won’t be a next thing to desire, and you’ll have never had a chance to savour any of it.
> Secularism is a recent thing.
Sokrates and Buddha would like a word.
Socrates and Buddha were 2,500 years ago and I don’t think I’d describe them as being secularists. Secularism is something that came out of the Enlightenment, in the West at least. It is absolutely a recent thing for the purposes of the discussion.
Where it goes wrong though is if we take it too far and start connecting this to some non-existent deity, which in turn makes us construct an incorrect model of the world (such as if we’re not thankful for the food, then next year there will be a drought as a punishment).
I suppose codifying beneficial practices into religion or spiritual beliefs is just part of being human.
<cough> buy here pay here car lots <cough>.
The Quran, which id consider among those as a "Holy book" condemns gambling pretty outright multiple times.
No doubt it was. Workers were alienated before the industrial revolution too, and we were already emitting CO2 before the 1950s, but the scale of the problem changed in a very impactful way.
Of course I doubt we can get reliable statistics from 1920s, but I don't think you should disregard their argument just because it was happening before. Gambling is as old as numbers, and it's not going to go away, but we can still look for the factors that drastically increased the magnitude of the issue.
> most religions have weighed in on gambling as most societies have been shaped by religion
I don't know if it comes verbatim from the Bible, but there are many denominations that find that gambling is sinful. Direct prohibitions from the scripture aren't the only source of religious rules - especially for secular questions.
As another example, many denominations have strict rules against alcohol - despite the many positive stories about alcohol in the bible and the role of wine during communion.
"The [Hindu] text Arthashastra (c. 4th century BCE) recommends taxation and control of gambling."
"The Buddha stated gambling as a source of destruction in Singalovada Sutra. Professions that are seen to violate the precept against theft include working in the gambling industry."
Instead of asking a lazy question as a challenge, you could have spent 3 seconds looking this up. It wasn't particularly hard: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambling#Religious_views
Reincarnation, the soul, karma, etc aren't exactly compatible with materialistic secularism.
Also, I think it depends on how you come to these rituals. If it's just something you grew up with there's a good chance it's just some words you stumble through before a meal.
The largest Christian denomination, the Roman Catholic Church, teaches that, while games of chance aren't intrinsically evil (ie running an MC simulation), and low stakes gambling is allowed (raffle), gambling must be
- fair. That's obvious
- even odds for all participants
Presumably, no house advantage
- not be pathological
You cannot play if you're addicted to gambling, have an addictive personality, or often that an addiction could arise
- not involve very high stakes as the money would have been better spent on the poor
No $10 000/hand table.
If we want less money around college sports there need to be a lot more rules all over the place to make sure there is less profit to be had. Or we could just let people get paid for labor even though they are also students, which is the fair things to do and it's something we do in just about every other context.
Million dollar salaries for the coach, hundreds of millions poured into the administration all on the backs of kids who were ruining their health (bad hits, concussions) had no benefits, and nothing to show for it after the left [1].
It was abusive
[1] their college tuition was free, but they weren't given an education since they were expected to train 40 hr and TAs were expected to give free passing grades.
Then, in the Middle Ages, Catholic theologians added nuance introducing a concept of time value of money - ie when you lend out $100 you also lose the ability to use that $100 for the time of the loan. The concept of a small interest rate was adopted.
Which is fine, except it opened the flood gates until we eventually got the high interest rates we have today.
What makes our rates usurious? That they are issued with the issuer knowing the principal will never be paid off.
Also, the deflationary effects of high interest rates are not because it causes unemployment, but because it reduced the rate of increase of the money supply.
Of course, lowered money is recessionary, which leads to unemployment which puts downward pressure on wages; but wages aren't the reason for inflation - the increase in monetary mass is.
It has the advantage that it is compatible with most (all?) preligions, certainly the Abrahamic ones.
Try it as a therapeutic. To release all the angst and problems before going to bed.
(If you recall your catechesis, that's laying your your problems at the feet of the cross)
This part I have small nitpick about:
> Also, the deflationary effects of high interest rates are not because it causes unemployment, but because it reduced the rate of increase of the money supply.
It's hard to see how that's not synonymous with increased unemployment, particularly given the oft quoted Phillips curve and the NAIRU.
> (such as if we’re not thankful for the food, then next year there will be a drought as a punishment).
It's funny that you mention this, because two thousand years ago, a new religious movement came up that believed exactly that (Christianity).
Including GaTech, a top5 eng school, that requires an A average to get in.
Source: dealing with undergrads complaining about their grades and their effect on their scholarship.
EDIT: I agree with what you maybe claiming that "education" does not justify legal gambling. And you're certainly right that most states abuse this argument and the fungible nature of money to just slosh money around.
EDIT: the lotto money is put in a fund that goes to pre-K programs and scholarships. The average required to keep the scholarship is set by the fund's size.
There's however also a problem with too much agency. It breeds anxiety, discontent, unhappiness. Not everything in your life is under your control, and expressing undirected gratitude is one way of acknowledging that.
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.
I'm not an expert on this - how does this idea differ from that of 'seigniorage' where the sovereign can profit from the creation of money?
Your example only addresses the buying power of the sovereign; it's not obvious that it should affect the prices of goods between private parties.
[1]: (PDF) https://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=501...
[2]: (PDF) https://history.hanover.edu/hhr/18/HHR2018-fergus.pdf
Its at a smaller scale, but it can be seen with counterfeit currency today. Cash-heavy businesses have to absorb whatever amount of counterfeits they accept, so they are really valuing your dollar at $0.99 if they might have to throw it out.
The result? I definitely find it's helpful navigating the ups and downs in life. Like any other skill, if you practice gratitude you can be grateful even when you've had a significant loss, and it really helps you pull through that. Vice versa you can remain humble through significant improvements in life.
Humans have been fighting against "chance" for the whole evolution (chance of starving if you don't catch something, chance of suffering if you take a bug, etc.). I fully agree, you should not feel responsible for it, but you should not like it (or thank it) either.