1018
Comments (78)
sorted by:
55
henri_derelicte 55 points ago +56 / -1

This is what ESG in practice will look like.

23
Groundpounder 23 points ago +23 / -0

Don’t forget that ESG is just the precursor to global, CCP-style social credit scores on the individual level. MAGA? You starve

13
henri_derelicte 13 points ago +13 / -0

Social credit scores and ESG will be used and abused to move us towards a command (communist) economy

2
HeavyMetalPatriot 2 points ago +2 / -0

MAGA won't starve...but some of our meals might have been neighbors.

2
teleomorph 2 points ago +2 / -0

They're full of spike proteins now.

:(

1
Standingoak 1 point ago +1 / -0

Lard burns brighter with Spike Lard Candles

1
HeavyMetalPatriot 1 point ago +1 / -0

Just cook'em longer?

2
VolareVia 2 points ago +2 / -0

"I will EAT YOUR ASS"

  • Who else?
2
Gadsden 2 points ago +3 / -1

Help me flesh this out-

No more banks.
Everyone has guns. Anyone on your property can be shot. Safe sales skyrocket.

Prosper.

Where are the flaws?

22
Get2Gab 22 points ago +29 / -7

100%. Ban usury.

19
teleomorph 19 points ago +22 / -3

Fractional reserve lending (an ancient practice) should be much more highly regulated, but simply charging interest on loaned capital is a basic feature of free market capitalism and freedom of contract/agreement.

Banning that would be the greatest impediment to economic growth and opportunity in history, and essentially a hardcore anti-property anti-freedom communist action.

8
thelastlast 8 points ago +9 / -1

explain. because it doesnt seem like that to me.

19
Kinkinnatus 19 points ago +21 / -2

So in the middle ages, when usury was banned except for jews, there was little in the way of capital investment. Since there was no INTEREST in loaning money to people, only the institutionally empowered could curry such investment. You'd loan to your lord in exchange for title or privilege, and that was the extent of it.

Fast forward to the Napoleonic Era, and the kings of Europe have quickly run out of wealthy folks INTERESTED in loaning money to the war effort. Who do they turn to? The only folks hitherto capable of servicing a national debt and charging interest for the loans: jews. A small group of Jewish families, to be exact. The same ones who have controlled the monetary system since. You know who I'm talking about.

The West's anti-capitalist attitude toward usury stifled economic development for centuries while putting the Rothschild, et al in the position to capitalize national debt for profit. The fact that most Europeans didn't lend money at interest is the very fucking reason for the evils laid at the feet of usury themselves.

In other words, you have to be completely ignorant of history and economics, ie a communist, to blame usury for banksterism.

5
magalee 5 points ago +5 / -0

You seem to know your history. Why did the kings of Europe borrow from these wealthy jews instead of just taking it from them by force? Were the jews more powerful than the kings of old?

11
PhilosoGuido 11 points ago +11 / -0

That user is not exactly accurate. It was the Catholic Church that banned usury to OTHER Catholics. The Jews got into banking because the nobility WANTED to loan money on interest but were forbidden. Therefore they used the Jews as middle men. Catholic King A wants to loan money to Catholic King B but can't. So he loans it to Jew banker at interest who loans it to King B at a higher interest to get their cut. So they weren't going to expropriate Jewish banks. After the Reformation, many Protestants took the position that the ban on usury was applicable to the Old Testament only and started getting into banking providing an alternative market.

5
Kinkinnatus 5 points ago +5 / -0

I didn't say people didn't want to loan on interest. It was just banned between Catholics, which was practically everyone but Jews. I'm not seeing where what I said and what you said conflict.

2
magalee 2 points ago +2 / -0

That would make more sense as to why the kings didn't just rob the jews blind.

Edit- Thank you all for the explanations. Love learning about history, and how the jews became so rich and powerful.

1
wiombims 1 point ago +1 / -0

They did rob them blind, several times. People have also brought minorities who were good at (something) into their country so they could do that thing there. Some cities started off that way. People would also form crews and travel abroad to ply their trade (miners, sailors, etc).

1
JesusisKing 1 point ago +2 / -1

Basically it’s because the Catholics should have banned expensive egotistical wars

6
Shalomtoyou 6 points ago +6 / -0

Sometimes they did. You'd borrow money with the Jews, and if you got deep enough into debt that you couldn't pay it back, you get take it through force along with some rhetoric about religion, and kick them out.

In practice though this seems to me as killing the goose that lays the golden eggs. You get a lot of gold at once at the cost of not being able to use it over a long period of time.

5
Kinkinnatus 5 points ago +5 / -0

Many kings relied on Jews for their coinage skills. Not only did they provide a source of monetization, but they then could pay taxes to kings in coin. At a time when most taxes were paid in-kind, this placed certain Jews at the bedrock of medieval economies. Although, some kings did act against these interests within their borders.

5
teleomorph 5 points ago +5 / -0

Europe has a very long history of respecting private property rights. It didn't just start with USA.

And also a long history of militia and decentralized power. If Kings gained reputation of just taking what they want from whoever they want they face threat of losing public support and being overthrown.

2
Bonami 2 points ago +2 / -0

One thing the kings/nobles used to do was borrow from Jews, run up a tab, label them as horrible for one reason or another, and burn them alive.

Those Jewish pogroms that have gone on for centuries, this is how they started.

3
thelastlast 3 points ago +3 / -0

huh. interesting thanks.

2
JesusisKing 2 points ago +3 / -1

Very interesting take which I appreciate. Definitely a different way to look at it.

6
teleomorph 6 points ago +6 / -0

Fractional reserve banking is where banks can loan out 10 or even 50 times more money than they actually have reserves for. That's a whole can of worms of which there are plenty of videos, books, documentaries explaining the problems and consequences of that practice.

Regarding interest-based loans (aka "usury)":

If I want to sell you a car, would you be against us agreeing (making contract) for you to pay for the car in monthly installments over 5 years? Even if the overall cost would be higher (agreed upon) amount than if you paid all at once? You can't afford the car otherwise, so sounds fine, right? A market trade of private property between two individuals. Simple as.

Now if you need to borrow money (just another form of property/capital) in order to start your local bakery or tech start-up, and you come to me (an investor or bank) for that capital, and want to pay me back in installments over the next 5 or 10 years, why THE FUCK would I lend you that money, incurring the risk of not having it paid back, if there was no INCENTIVE for me to do so? The incentive can only can in the form of interest (being paid back more than lent).

Without interest-based loans there would no more investing in any economic endeavors ever again.

The investor or bank trading money/capital/property in exchange for the promise of a larger sum paid over time is simple market transaction and contractual agreement between two private entities.

OP and everyone in these comments against "usury" is saying they want the government to use force to ban this basic human right of agreement/contract and exchange of private property, which would demolish the global economy and civilization itself.

This is one of reasons why National Socialists self-identify as "anti-capitalist" and the "true socialists".

1
thelastlast 1 point ago +1 / -0

well what would happen if loans were illegal. interest or no interest.

philosophical question that I cant figure out.

3
teleomorph 3 points ago +3 / -0

As I said, if interest-bearing loans ("usury") were illegal then there would be no more loans at all, so it makes no difference.

And if there were no more loans, then the billionaire class would be the only ones capable of starting any new businesses and ventures. And only millionaires would be able to buy things like houses/property.

It would be the WEF's vision of mass extermination, enslavement and control times a million.

-1
thelastlast -1 points ago +1 / -2

what i dont get is how I, as a peasant, cant save up enough money to start my own business, or do anything else that makes loans "necessary"

how can you argue loans are necessary for a functioning society? seems almost unamerican. am i being naive?

3
BlackPilled4Decades 3 points ago +3 / -0

Example you want to buy a house. You don't have money to purchase the house for cash. So you spend the next 50 years of your life saving money to buy the house. It takes you a longer time to buy the house because your rent keeps going up as does the value of the all the homes. If you take out a lone for the house, it may take you the rest of your life to pay the loan off, but at least you got to live in the house while you paid it off. And because you were smart, you got a fixed interest loan and your rent didn't keep going up every 6 months. Sure your banker made some money off of you, but didn't you enjoy a higher quality of life over time?

1
wiombims 1 point ago +1 / -0

You're being naive. Peasants generally don't even own their land which makes it really hard to make any profit off that land. You get paid enough to stay alive and your only chance to climb out is to send your kids to a craftsman which is tricky because they have their own kids. But even if you did own the land, making money off farming is really difficult. Your best bet is to raise horses and make a crack cavalry unit in which case you're raping and pillaging - a much worse "ethical" issue than usury.

1
NormalCitizen 1 point ago +1 / -0

It all depends on the size and scale of the business.

Without loans or mortgages farmers could only have tiny farms.

A moderate sized family business farm might have 700-1,000 acres... And might require a line of credit to buy seed and fertilizer, well over $200k in the spring. Then pay it back after harvest.

Lots of other businesses require short term loans to operate.

And mortgages to grow.

Could it be possible without? Sure, but the scale would be massively reduced.

-1
user2827 -1 points ago +1 / -2

Well no, because instead of an interest rate, there would be a "cost" for the loan.

The problem with usury is that the motivation of the lender is to keep people unable to pay back because you make profit every day that it's not paid back.

The alternative would be to have a cost for the loan upfront that could factor in how well they might repay, time required, and a "something" should the loan default.

This motivates the reclamation of the debts because whether it takes 6 months or 5 years, the repayment value is the same.

2
VolareVia 2 points ago +2 / -0

Exactly

Did anyone seriously not ever even bother to ask if there was a way to effectively loan money without infinitely expanding interest that could still be profitable to the creditor without the fucking scam of 'collateral'?

I have in my head a potential alternative, but I realize I'm no banker so I wanna hear what the experts have to say before I sperg out. Let's hear it, from anyone reading this.

1
teleomorph 1 point ago +1 / -0

"loan money without infinitely expanding interest that could still be profitable to the creditor"

You and the person you're responding to are talking about the difference between regular fixed interest rate loans and variable rate loans. Both are interest loans/usury. And although variable rate loans are much riskier, they're still just a voluntary contract that both parties agree too. (See my other comment below to the person you are responding to.)

1
VolareVia 1 point ago +1 / -0

No I'm actually not.

The alternative I'm talking about is not a loan at all. The alternative I've been thinking about is a fixed-term tithe. Rather than paying 5% interest on a $260k mortgage in an example, I figured someone earning 62k a year could pay 17% of their gross pay (worked out to about 35% of their net) and in 25 years it would be equivalent to a mortgage. HOWEVER, legal ownership would be transferred on day 1, with the payments as a contractual obligation, and no collateral. It ends after 25 years whether the tithe-taker has earned the money back or not.

1
user2827 1 point ago +1 / -0

I'm surprised that nobody else seems aware of this (or a minority at least).

Collateral is still part of the equation in lending when the risk is high. It's something you're willing to put on the line if the loan is defaulted on.

The distinction is that a person borrows, say 30k on a car loan they get a loan with x% interest, and a scheduled time to repay and conditions for default. Where every month you pay x% of the principle... of course this is a more profitable way to loan.

The only significant difference would be that a person wants that 30k loan and they would consider the overall risks on the loan to determine a cost value, so a 30k loan might need a 10k in cost or, if this is a loan that will be repaid in a month it might cost 2k for the loan. I mean, even a month without the money to lend there's still a cost.

It works with all scales, and actuaries already have most of the risk type data, it's just instead of determining an interest rate becomes an equation of the cost to borrow the money.

1
teleomorph 1 point ago +1 / -0

Sounds like your just describing the difference between fixed and variable interest rate loans. Both are still interest loans aka usury.

If you want to argue against variable rate loans that is one thing, but they are a much newer mechanism than regular classic usury/interest-based lending.

But I would argue that even variable rate loans are still voluntary contracts between 2 free individuals, and should be allowed. But they are more risky and people should be more educated about the risks before taking them. Just as people should be allowed to leverage their investments, even though there is much higher risk of losing everything.

1
user2827 1 point ago +1 / -0

Yes, in a sense... but no.

The difference would be that, if one person pays more lump sums, their loan will cost less than one who makes the monthly payments only.

So, it would be similar but if you wanted a 250k house you might get a mortgage where you would have to repay 350k whether it takes 5 years or 30 years to repay. There's still 100k of interest involved, but it's set, and doesn't reflect the time, the expected time of repayment would factor into the costs though.

2
dr_gonzo 2 points ago +2 / -0

Our fractional reserve system is completely regulated, but it's regulated by the fractional reserve bankers themselves. That's effectively what the Federal Reserve Act defines.

The president nominates people to their board of directors, but that's about the only direct control any elected office has over them. Congress could alter the act itself, but seem to have no interest in doing so. Weird huh?

My point being, people often say "such and such industry needs to be regulated", but then who regulates the regulators? And this problem gets even more complex in the field of banking/currency.

But one thing is for sure, allowing the richest, most corrupt central banking assholes to control absolutely everything sure isn't working out. We're being raped daily

1
VolareVia 1 point ago +1 / -0

What's pro-property about having 90% of your house paid off, getting fired for not taking the vax, and then losing 100% of your house because you can't make payments?

"Collateral" is when they take everything for not getting enough of the potentially infinite amount of money they think you owe them. And not being able to opt out of it because they do this on the behalf of everyone through the Federal Reserve.

1
teleomorph 1 point ago +1 / -0

Losing your job because you got fired for not vaxing, or even because you were stuck by lightning and paralyzed, and then not able to complete your repayment, is just shit luck, which is part of life. Not everyone who deserves a good life gets one. Life and nature is not fair. And free markets are just an extension of nature. You can win or lose, but at least you have the opportunity to try to win, unlike in non-free-market nations.

In the US you are guaranteed the Right to PURSUE happiness. You are not guaranteed happiness.

If you don't want the risks incurred from borrowing, then "a lender nor borrower be".

You are free to make to make the choice.

2
45fan 2 points ago +3 / -1

"That's antisemitic!"

-1
Drooperdoo -1 points ago +4 / -5

Ethical people banned usury 109 times in the past, by getting rid of those who perpetrated it in their countries. Ready for the 110th?

2
Kinkinnatus 2 points ago +2 / -0

And we'll just force people to invest money?

1
VolareVia 1 point ago +1 / -0

There are alternatives to infinitely expanding interest. Why not a fixed monthly fee for borrowing that doesn't explode to infinity? What about a fixed time period payment plan when payments are auto-withdrawn as a percentage of income? A tithe basically.

Collateral is evil. The bank still owns your home until it's 100% paid off, after which the government continues to tax its very existence. You already own nothing when it comes to the important things you need to sustain yourself.

1
Kinkinnatus 1 point ago +1 / -0

Sure, but that's not a problem inherent to usury, nor is collateral.

12
Strike08 12 points ago +12 / -0

The problem is that there isn't a bank left that isn't fully controlled by the WEF or in government hands in the Netherlands

12
South_Florida_Guy 12 points ago +12 / -0

The idea that the Dutch need to cut to those levels to "save the planet" while China and India can keep on like usual is beyond any words to describe how retarded it is.

11
Klown_Schwab 11 points ago +11 / -0

It's just an excuse to steal land from farmers.

They purposely impose unrealistic regulations. Farmers can't meet those regulations and make a profit. Go bankrupt. Forced to sell their farms.

Big banks and investment firms swoop in and buy that land.

Probably in a few years the government (which is conspiring with the banks) will quietly loosen regulations so the banks can operate that land with a profit.

5
magalee 5 points ago +5 / -0

These leftists/democrats are more retarded than you think.

2
18-to-life 2 points ago +2 / -0

Classic leftism death spiral: narrative >> truth, leading to poor decision making, leading to destruction of everything good.

2
monkadelic 2 points ago +2 / -0

Ive been to China. I was eye-opening. You hear this sentiment a lot, but when you see it in person you realize there really is no changing anything if China isn't on board. Not only do they not give a shit, they actually go above and beyond with their waste. Order a soft drink at a fast food place there, and it comes in its own plastic bag, inside the plastic bag the rest of the food is in. Why? why does a drink need a plastic bag? Cause fuck you planet, thats why.

7
Brooklyn_Patriot_76 7 points ago +7 / -0

WTF are they going to loan against with those retarded numbers, dirt?

6
impera 6 points ago +6 / -0

I'd like to see the dumbfuck bankers starved to death with no food being supplied to them by the farmers they are fucking with. Why shouldn't the farmers have the same authority to withhold from them?

Or you know, they can eat zee bugs.

9
slangin_paint 9 points ago +9 / -0

Maybe farmers should only sell food to people who don't do business with globalist ESG WEF companies.

3
rockytrumpoa 3 points ago +3 / -0

Cooperatives and parsoc

1
shill273 1 point ago +1 / -0

They will be provided for

1
DrStormfagFedglowie 1 point ago +1 / -0

Zee bugs ain't kosher. Funny how that works.

4
2024isNOW 4 points ago +4 / -0

Sorry, but going to another lender won’t work. Your people allowed authoritarian politicians to rise to power because feelings and now everyone will pay. The authoritarians will regulate any non-complying bank out of existence. Enjoy the hard times, you dumb fuckers.

3
rockytrumpoa 3 points ago +3 / -0

Youre goddamn right. All wars are banker wars ,and the central banking system without sound money is as evil as it gets.

3
2020stolen 3 points ago +3 / -0

Cattle is one of the most environmentally sustainable forms of food production.

They can subsist entirely on nitrogen fixing plants that grow in poor soil that is otherwise unusable for large scale agriculture.

3
TheLittleLebowski 3 points ago +3 / -0

I take it you do not have any form of bank account then, since you're so vehemently against them.

3
Ironball 3 points ago +3 / -0

Better yet, farmers should make a co-op and create their own bank, packing plants, and distribution. Screw the establishment.

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
1
MostBannedPatriot 1 point ago +7 / -6

O.P thinks the farmers should just do without financial investment from banks.

OHHH USURY USURY THE BANK IS GOING TO MAKE INTEREST AND THE FARMERS WILL CONTINUE TO BUSINESS AND MAKE PROFITS ALSO OMG ITS COMMUNISM ALERT THE TRANNIES

1
VolareVia 1 point ago +1 / -0

Don't be an idiot. Have you honestly not even contemplated an alternative financial instrument to the interest bearing loan that isn't massively exploitative?

"Oh don't do anything different to try and get ahead in this shitty economy! Just do what the bankers want"

Fucking idiot.

Also didn't I deport you ages ago? Pretty sure I did. BEGONE!

1
K-Harbour 1 point ago +1 / -0

Rob - ‘O - Bank?

1
DrStormfagFedglowie 1 point ago +1 / -0

Rabbi bank

1
Skills 1 point ago +1 / -0

The economic realities are such that the entire system is based on usury, it requires systemic change, not just a few people refusing to participate.

1
flashersenpai 1 point ago +1 / -0

I'll do with my money what I please.

1
VolareVia 1 point ago +1 / -0

Or you'll do with someone else's money what you please and be aghast when you can't handle the interest....

1
CommieCrats 1 point ago +1 / -0

move to New York and LA

1
IronWolve 1 point ago +1 / -0

These banks invest in china, but push ESG on their own citizens.

Maybe time to name and shame the president of the bank, instead of just the bank name. Put names to the scumbags in charge.