Ah, that makes sense at first pass anyway. Lending debt money is problematic. But if it were actually hard money being lent, and both parties agree to the interest, I don't see the issue. It's just that there isn't a clear level of what usury would be I guess.

Right, and I'm pretty sure the case for hard money has biblical support, but for the moment I don't recall a specific verse. It is a clearer and more encompassing truth to emphasize hard money over non-usury, but the end result is the same.

Oh I didn't see the previous notes first... Over 500 ish years ago, any interest was called usury. It was always violated, though, and was essentially a most to protect the wealthy - Medici and other Italian bankers and Venicians charged interest, while the pope kept the little guys from entering the racket. That doesn't make it okay, though.

On a hard money standard, say bitcoin, if i lent you 1 BTC to make your business, and you agreed to pay me back 1.05 in 2 years, should you make money, i don't see an issue.

No issue at first. Time value of money is a sound principle, and is the foundation of economics. But is it best to repay in kind, in specie? Sure, the money is theoretically unencumbered, so preferable to the lender. But look what we have now - we started from that premise and got fractional reserve banking, now with no reserves, and central banks. There's a human cost to this, and it can be measured in lives lost. There's an alternative : repay the value of the time via ownership in the productive asset. If you lend me 1 btc to buy a car, and I repay you the principle plus something for the time without your capital, which you could have applied to other productive possibilities, then we can both be satisfied if the interest takes the form of a percentage of ownership in the car. The car let's me get to work and be productive ; your ownership means you would get money if I sold it, but you still remain an interested party in my success while I use it. That's more advantageous to the borrower, who is the one in need, while amazingly not taking advantage in an unfair sense of the lender. Economic incentive remains, and externalities are neutralized.

Mulling this over. Have heard such a thing from saifdean at some point, but still don't see the problem with agreeing to pay back in kind if it's actual BTC being lent and BTC paid back. I may not want to carry on with encumbered asset, and you might agree to that. So we'd be mutually ok with such an areangement. I take the risk of default, so we're all good. I think it's like John said, where the real issue is lending credit money in the first place. Not sure still, just wanted to reply for now to let you know I'd read and appreciate the reply

It might be one of those things where all sides are right simultaneously. I agree with the Austrian position that the expansion of credit is the issue.

Yeah, still think my desire to be reimbursed in kind is fair/desirable, as extra money back lets me spend it on what I want most. I've heard maxis dumbly (?) argue that any interest of any kind is wrong, since carrying that out to extreme with fixed money means there is more owed than supply, but that's dumb as it simply means defaults must happen, which is the whole reason for the interest in the first place 🤷‍♂️

Right, the hardness of the money is the check on credit expansion. Defaults are good, in the sense that they keep the system healthy. That interest payment could also be from a secondary market, where your stake in the car is bought by someone who believes the asset will appreciate, or if the original borrower makes enough money from its use to buy out the shareholder. It could get creative - the only point where I'd say it definitely raises ethical concerns is if the asset owner turns it into a coupon with payments. And that'll totally happen, so we should game it all out before trying to change the system.

I think you are missing the part where a certain segment of the population likes making sure they are completely insulated from the risk of managing your money for you while simultaneously ensuring that you are required to let them manage your money for you.

in the nOW/my control ends @ my nose/knowz/ya YODL wdyt 😅>;.;<😃

Sounds like a great gig. I like the cut of your jib. Consider applying for a position at Yolobase, I think you might be a great fit ;)

We cimplain about fake daycares skimming billions, but not a peep about the guys who will penalize you with inflation unless you agree that they have full control of your savings between now and retirement. They control the power of your past savings and if they can sell you a house they control all your future earnings as well. It is almost funny. They give you a number to look at in your 401k account but they decide how that money will be used for 99% of it's "existence" it is a polite fiction that it is ours.

You're starting to sound more and more like a bitcoiner. Take that sh** outta the 401k and into self custodied hard assets (bitcoin is a good one), or at the very least manage it actively. I have little belief that money trapped in that system will be there meaningfully for anyone in the future. Have "known" that in me bones for a looong time. Part of the ah ha thing that got me interested in BTC. Related to the "turning around and running the other way" comment from yesterday, self custody BTC seems to me to be a very powerful and simple step in that direction.

Well, it helps that never put a cent into a 401k. It smelled like a scam. If everything proceeds as normal will I come out behind my peers financially? Probably. But more freedom in the meantime.

Definitely a scam. But maybe the move was to play the game and reap that employee match for a bit, THEN exit into hard assets before the bubble bursts. Hard to say, it's a dangerous game. Impressed you took that action! Well done

Same here. Not 1 cent, at least not that I know of. My parents think I'll die a hobo, but I'd rather that than be someone else's sucker. That **_never_** works out... The vaccine, which I got, proved it to me. Never again!

I didn't exactly take action. I took inaction. You get a new job out of college and some bank shows up to talk to you and the first thing they do is have you fill out with personal information you wouldn't give to your best friend. "Who the heck are you and no." It is amazing how incensed they get. "It is required" the heck it is. If I am not entering an association voluntarily then it isn't happening. I don't care how good it is for me.

I heard the original intent behind 401k was meant to be far more flexible than just pick a box from "aggressive/medium/low risk" options laid out by employers. Thats the law anyway. But banks were quick to integrate their limited options into the system and somehow that is all we're left to choose from. Have also heard these same banks invest this guaranteed money into the lesser assets, leaving room in the real performers to invest their wealthy and alert clients' money. It all makes sense to me, so I didn't verify too hard. There are ways to free that money up and self manage, or invest even in metals, but it's not frictionless. Need to look into it more maybe

I think the original intent of 401ks was to take control of your money durning your dangerous productive years. Money is agency and they would like to be the only ones with any of that.

Yeah, prob one version in how it was written up, and this version on how it was actually intended to work. Diabolical