One time a buddy of my dad’s had cancer, couldn’t work and needed money. He sold my dad a pistol for 300 bucks. My dad’s more of a revolver guy so he sold it to me for 300 bucks. Fast forward 4-5 years the guy is back on his feet and wants his pistol back so I sold it to my dad for 300 and he sold it back to his buddy for 300. Then I went out and bought one just like it for 400. I think that works in places where you know the people involved or at best if you don’t know them you know their cousin. There’s other things involved. If you go to someone who doesn’t know you from Adam they don’t have that personal connection so that’s a non starter because they’ll always have something else to do with their resources if the possibility of profit doesn’t exist. My pet idea is that the Libertarian Party and its dues paying members would have been better off starting their own bank and credit processing system than wasting the money in politics. The response is typically I would be interested in that if was profitable. Why would profits come into it? You aren’t receiving a return on your investment in the libertarian party. So you’ll waste money on politics but because it’s a business you suddenly have to make money instead of just breaking even or even never seeing that money again but now there’s a system in place that does more for your ability to do business without the government shutting you down with a simple email to your bank instead of taking your bank to court, than 70 years or 700 years of playing politics was ever going to get you.

lenders make a margin, in all cases, the difference is that the rate is fixed into the contract until it is exited that is also a big misunderstanding about kosher and halal finance, it's almost insane that people wouldn't even realise that a lender has to make a profit!

Because it is consistent & generally less dangerous than misguided groupies...

The last couple of centuries of humans "cooperating" hasn't been a fantastic outcome. 😂

What do you mean by "greed"? My hypothesis is that that term doesn't mean what you think it means in a truly free market. Or more directly: it doesn't exist. Any profit you are able to generate in a free market is the result of providing value to someone else. If I take two $5 resources and combine them, via some process of effort and invention of my own, into a good that I sell for $15, then the person who bought that good freely decided that whatever new property I imbued into the $10 raw goods was worth at least $5 to him. It improved his life at least "five dollar's worth". He would trade five dollars worth of his own claims on resources to me. He wants this thing _today_ more than five dollars worth of other competing things in the future. More simply: Profits earned without aggression or State favoritism represent value added to society. So I've made $5. As money, that represents a claim on resources. One that was legitimately passed to me from the prior holder. I may choose to turn that $5 in for consumable today (maybe I buy cabbage from a farmer), or to hold it and defer my consumption until later. Where does "greed" factor in? Say I sell **A LOT** of $15 goods, and **MANY** people buy them, each of whom determines that my product improves their life. As the transactions are voluntary, my success can only mean I am on net adding value to society. Is that greed? Is too much success, adding too much value to society, greed? Is saving for too long - deferring my consumption - greed? _WHAT_ is "greed"? Surely you don't mean "creating and or selling goods and services through a free market whereby those whose lives are improved by trading with you enrich you accordingly"? That's "acting in one's own interest" but one's own interest can only be improved by creating value for others. Where does "greed" hide in this definition?