I actually enjoy the objections of both Patrick and Frank because they are contructive and make sense.
Here we go: Patrick, if you lend someone a piece of gold and get the piece bank plus a smaller one, you won't be hauled to prison - BUT - might be forced to donate the smaller piece to a charity fund. What two adults do among themselves is up to them, unless one of them gets something for nothing. The charging of interest is forbidden in so far that someone gets something for nothing. Now, if the guy comes to you to get one piece of gold in order to buy something and sell it a profit and you participate in the profit, that is perfectly fine. You shared the risk, hence you are entitled to share in the profit. How much of the profit you get is a matter of negotiation between the two of you. If you however charged him interest, did not share the risk and got something for nothing, then you loose the something extra you got. Frank, by not allowing people to get themselves into debt the system actually forces freedom on them. Think about it for a minute. Our perceived freedom is unreal when we are forced to pay the governments' interest through indirect taxes and inflation. Our right to choose interest bondage is not impaired by the abolishment of interest. Instead the right to accept people into bondage through lending them money at an interest is curtailed. Your ex-wifes are welcome to try to sell themselves into bondage, that's their free choice. The one who accepts them, though, will be punished. If you are offering money at interest to the public, then in most countries you need a license - which you are very unlikely to be able to get as a private individual with very limited means. BUT lending third parties your money against interest without a license is illegal in this day and age in most countries. The law is seldom enfoced, but it's still there. And if you lend too much to too many people the gov will try to get you on money laundring and racketeering charges. Again, this is what is happening today. By abolishing interest however, we do not abolish the profit motive nor do we abolish lawful gaining from investments. You started out by mentioning the value of the time factor. There is no reason why you should not charge something for your time and service, an administration fee or service charge if you will. But that one must be independent from the amount of the 'investment' and should be calulated based on the time and effort you put in. As you see, you would get to levy those charges because you did something for it. If you are willing to invest into the promise of an ex-wife to pay you back for buying her a new wardrobe, then that could entitle you to charge a risk fee. But you can't charge fees on fees and by charging a risk fee you would invite your ex to simply spend the gold and never pay you back. The crux of the matter is indeed that interest accrues interest and that someone gets something without doing anything for it. It might come as a surprise to many Americans on the list, but most non-US holders of credit cards actually balance their accounts at the end of each month, many actually have positive balances on their cards. >From this I deduct that having debts is not considered natural per se. Indeed, when asking some people why they didn't use their cards when they were short of cash at the end of the month, I got people saying that they would never use the credit facilities of the card because of the fees and interest. IMHO this is the way any adult human should think about it, but many succumb to the lure of instant ownership and worry about paying later. Then they often end up loosing owenership and being saddled with debt. Well, and it is you and me who are paying their debt and interest if they don't. It is you as a share holder and me as a tax payer, who suffers from people not paying back their loans and interest. You get less dividedn because the bank you hold shares in made less profit. And I pay more tax because the bank offset the loss against taxes. And everyone else pays higher interest to help the bank to cover the risk of the non performing loans. Hence the freedom of your ex's to sell herself into interest bondage costs ME, YOU and EVERYONE ELSE. And we get nothing in return. If your ex had no way to borrow, we would all be better off. If it was illegal to profit from lending her money, then nobody would give her any. And that is what I am arguning for. I am not saying that it should be impossible for people to obtain funding for worthwhile causes. I am saying that the one who gives them funding should participate in the profits and share the risk. You want to buy a car but don't have the money? No problem, I buy it and rent it to you. Lease-back, if you will. I have next to no risk, because the car is mine. You get to use the car as if it was your own and will look after it because you expect to buy it off me as soon as you have the cash. In the meantime you are paying rent to cover for the depreciation. Need a new home entertainment center? Which one do you want me to buy? Want an expensive holiday or a perfume for a chick? Bugger off and get back to work ;o) Cheers, Robert. budget & privacy website hosting http://www.cyberica.net e-commerce & e-business services http://www.cyfrocash.net budget domain registrations http://www.u2planet.com --- You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common viruses.
