Comments | brendan831: What Ezra didn't know.

brendan831

What Ezra didn't know.

Nov 04, 2011 17:36

Last night I had a phone conversation with a friend about some fundamental economic concepts. One of them was interest or, to use an outdated and somewhat pejorative term, "usury". I've suspected, for a while now, that when many classical thinkers condemned "usury" they were reacting not to interest per se, but to the results of a bundle of ( Read more... )

econ 101

Leave a comment

Back to all threads

stage three profit, except when stage 2=0 salimondo November 5 2011, 14:21:00 UTC

Happy to see this work toward what we could call a MEST analysis of what money "wants."

The "prestige" part of this particular magic trick -- stage two -- is that we jumped from the baron as equity partner in a limited venture over the part where he invents the promissory note. The spice trade generates wealth that we all share in. The note harnesses [ob+ligare] time differently and generates its own armature of nine & eighty derivatives & refinements, many of which are stupid in a given set-up but none of which are inherently haram to the discerning.

The note at interest, for example, creates its own system of obligations to a "future" and the bounds of the system of value in that hypothetical scenario. Is the universe a steady state system or expanding? One might call this a magical link of sorts ( ... )

Multi-classing brendan831 November 7 2011, 18:56:09 UTC

Thank you. It is, indeed, his show to do as he will - so long as his stars are favorable. Karma, however, is a....

heaven & earth are not humane; they regard the ten thousand [basis points] as straw dogs salimondo November 7 2011, 22:16:59 UTC

True, the law of karma is arguably that bad money -- the baron's paper -- drives out good, but gold is nearly impossible to kill. So he can earn his comeuppance even in a fantasy medieval setting unencumbered by the latest & greatest innovations.

Why do the wahabis hate compound interest and the West adores it? Is there something essential at stake here and if so, who's right?

Law speakers brendan831 November 7 2011, 22:31:41 UTC

I don't think anyone would argue that the basic laws of physics, like gravity, aren't based on something essentially true about the world. They might be subject to revision, but there's something real going on "under the hood". We can overcome them by calling greater laws to our aid (those that govern the mechanics of flight), but we can only ignore them at our own peril ( ... )

CONTRA NATURAM salimondo November 7 2011, 22:51:24 UTC

Again with the Heidegger.

+1.

Thank you. brendan831 November 7 2011, 23:03:50 UTC

I always enjoy our exchanges.

we should do this more often salimondo November 7 2011, 23:10:45 UTC

Isn't time full and fun?

Back to all threads