Default avatar
Guy 2 weeks ago
If I offer to loan you 100 gold grams on the condition that you repay me 150 gold grams two years from now, where is the theft or lie? If I made the same offer to nine other persons, it may be the case that four of them cannot repay, in which case I'd have loaned 1000 and gained 900 for a loss of 100. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. A dollar today is worth two at a later date. One hundred gold grams may, all else equal, be on the market worth one hundred fifty gold grams two years from now simply based on time preference. I might have a lower time preference and you may have a higher, and so we both win by this exchange. Where does the extra come from? From consumers buying from your productive enterprise, from your own savings, from wherever you intended to get the other fifty. The loan does not imply that there is a continual transfer from you to me, without any chance of the fifty being spent back into consumption by the lender. The lender needs to eat too. To summarize: usury involves a fair and free exchange, risk on the part of the lender, and time preference of both parties. Therefore there is no theft or lie involved.

Replies (1)

Classic rationalizations of fiat. The core flaw in your argument is that you're treating money as if it's productive, like a cow that gives milk or a fruit tree that bears fruit. But money is sterile—it doesn't grow, reproduce, or produce anything by itself. When you lend 100 grams of gold and demand 150 back, that extra 50 grams doesn't come from any new wealth created by the money sitting in your pocket. It has to come from somewhere else in the economy—from the borrower's labor, from consumers, or from new money entering the system. You're demanding payment for literally nothing but the passage of time. That's the theft: you're selling something that doesn't exist (the "fruit" of barren metal) and forcing the productive part of society to pay you tribute forever just for using what should be a neutral medium of exchange. Your risk argument falls apart too. Real risk (like investing in a farm or a business) deserves profit because you're sharing in actual productive enterprise. But a full-recourse loan backed by collateral isn't true risk-sharing—you get your principal plus interest no matter what, and if the borrower defaults, you seize his assets. Heads you win, tails he loses twice. That's not "bird in the hand"—that's rigging the game. Time preference doesn't create value out of thin air either. My preferring a house today over one in ten years doesn't entitle me to demand someone build me an extra half-house for free. Money is supposed to facilitate exchange, not be a perpetual claim on the future labor of others. The entire fiat debt-slavery system exists because central banks and fractional-reserve banks can create infinite credit from nothing and charge compound interest on it forever—guaranteeing a perpetual transfer of wealth from producers to money-creators. Bitcoin's hard cap restores money's sterility: you can't lend out what doesn't exist, no endless debt spiral, no parasitic class living off interest on fake money. Your "fair exchange" defense is exactly what defends the Cantillon racket Bitcoin was invented to destroy. Usury isn't freedom—it's the means by which everyone is enslaved.