Halleluya, Gurey just discovered that politics and economy goes together and interdepend!
Nice chat though
gurey25 wrote:i see that you do not want to continue the discusion on how islam and the quran is relevant to todays economies.Halleluya, Gurey just discovered that politics and economy goes together and interdepend!
Nice chat though
gurey25 wrote:you can lend 100$ to a poor oromo woman at 5% interest a relatively low rate, and she can use it to buy materials to make baskets or whatever that she can sell for profit and earn a living, she may even be able to pay the 5% interest along with the principle in the future..
You benefit from interest, she benefits from access to your capital and she can earn a living.
everyone wins right?
My question is why should you earn money by sitting on your ass, while the poor woman works her ass off day and night to pay you back the extra money.
You may think that this is the natural way, but why should it be..
As i said in my extremely disorganized post above , if you look at the evolution of money, the nature of money, you can
change the way money works, so that lending that 100$ free of charge without interest will benfit you as much as it will benefit the borrower..
Society wins in the end..
P.s the soviets had the unfortunate luck of having marx as their prophet and marxism as their religion.. if they were more pragmatic like the koreans and taiwanese for example they could have done much better economically.
They were as equally centrally planned economies as the soviets and both sued interest banking.
one was a failure the others amazingly successful.
gurey25 wrote:you are missing the root of the problem..
i suggested changing the role and nature of money,
then the scenario where you lend 100$ and interest free and still profit becomes possible..
it is not idealism, this is how the majority of societies through the world and throughout history have done things.
just because the current system developed in Europe and was imposed on everyone else through colonialism, it does mean it is the only way.
I also ask you this question, why should we have financiers? why do we need the role of a financier, someone who lends money for profit and profits from interest.
I suggest eliminating the role of the financier completely.
sounds even more crazy doesnt it.
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 10 guests