Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by dylan604 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

dylan604

there's lending, and then there's predatory lending. let's not paint everything with the same brush.

View on HN

While true, that’s also not that helpful. Where is the line?

Somewhere in the middle.

What about risky borrowers?

I like to think the parable of jesus overturning the money changers' tables was because they were the equivalent to payday loans. here's money to pay for new goats/lambs with the promise that you pay me back in full plus some meat for my family vs here's some money for 3 goats and 3 lambs in the promise that you pay me back in full plus 4 goats and 4 lambs or it'll be a real shame if my nephew has to come and pay a visit.

The problem isn't that there isn't a common-sense distinction between the extremes; it's attempting to define the crossover point (presumably for the purposes of a "bright line" rule in law/policy/norms). Defining how much interest should qualify as usury is a classic "paradox of the heap" [0]; which may be a reason by some faith traditions simply forbade lending at interest altogether.

An interesting alternative to consider, is money that intentionally depreciates value at a fixed rate ("demurrage" [1]). In theory, this would incentivize lending at zero interest (assuming relative price stability for real goods, which is easier said than done).

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demurrage_(currency)

> An interesting alternative to consider, is money that intentionally depreciates value at a fixed rate ("demurrage" [1]).

This is exactly property of coins (gold, silver or copper). Even without debasement (like clippage) they were loosing value as they were worn out as a result normal usage. Money changers were exchanging worn out/damaged/clipped coins at current market value minus some comission.

> jesus overturning the money changers' tables was because they were the equivalent to payday loans

Jesus apparently didn't appreciated that a Jew coming from say Alexandia or Gallile had been bringing a bunch of coins of different origin, issuance, often clipped or destroyed by use... Charging 4-8 percent (kolbon) for exchanging used and foreign coins into new shekels required by Temple wasn't excesive. It is on par on charges for foreign purchases by today's banks.

Temple services (purification, healing) were on the other hand prohibitively expensive while Jesus provided them for free...

Many read that passage as Jesus against doing those activities in the temple, if they had been in the market outside he would have been okay.

The funny thing to me was that Jesus was only like 17 or so when he did this, if memory serves. It always seemed to me like a tantrum thrown by a teenager getting praised for being an asshat. Prior to that, he was a dick to his stepdad by essentially telling him "you're not my real dad". And these were the events canonized, so what other kinds of things were left out that these were the ones that were selected as the high notes?

He would have been in his 30s by any reading of the bible. (Luke 3 clearly says about 30, and also is clearly the start of his ministry)

Historically there were many Jewish people not happy about this happening in the temple. I doubt Jesus was the only one driving them away from time to time, they just kept coming back to the temple.

The rest of your post is just made up based on trying your best to interrupt things in the worst possible light it is not more reasonable than believing anything else.

"Why have you done this to us?" "Why are you looking for me? Do you not know I'm in my father's house?" => "You're not my real dad"

It's not made up. It's just modernized. And he was 12 according to NIV

The subject here is chasing the money changers out of the temple which the NIV also says would have happened after he was 30. There was a short incident where he said things like you said when he was 12, but that is a different situation.

How much interest you charge, and if you are doing it say to help people trough university, so that they can benefit society and or humanity, versus if you want people to promote people getting lavish people houses, wanting them to fail so that you can get other peoples houses.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com