Jump to content

SUBIECTE NOI
« 1 / 5 »
RSS
Info Coronavirus/Vaccinare vs Fake News

Valoare salariu tarifar dupa unir...

Copyright carte din 1940

Mini laptop No Audio Output Devic...
 Zdrobitor de fructe

Cort familie

Cum a fost pedepsit un medic care...

Camera frontala Alcatel 1S (2019)
 Achizitie mtb off road

Reteta speciala pt a fi preparata...

Raport suprafata vitrata la casa.

In interes propriu sau interes al...
 Magazin romanesc din Londra talha...

Seat ibiza 1.2 bxv

Cat traieste un purece?

Oglinda pentru barbati
 

Cămătăria - legală sau nu

- - - - -
  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
209 replies to this topic

Poll: Cămătăria - legală sau nu (130 member(s) have cast votes)

Cămătăria - legală sau nu

  1. Cămătăria este imorala, dobănda ar trebui sa fie 0 (20 votes [15.38%])

    Percentage of vote: 15.38%

  2. Cămătăria este imorala, dobănda ar trebui sa fie maxim 5% (14 votes [10.77%])

    Percentage of vote: 10.77%

  3. Cămătăria este (insert coin here), dobănda ar trebui sa fie intre 5 si 25% (6 votes [4.62%])

    Percentage of vote: 4.62%

  4. Cămătăria este legala doar la banci, dobănda ar trebui sa fie stabilita prin lege (33 votes [25.38%])

    Percentage of vote: 25.38%

  5. Cămătăria este perfect legală, detinatorii de capital sunt liberi să ceară cât vor (57 votes [43.85%])

    Percentage of vote: 43.85%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1
De Beers

De Beers

    Member

  • Grup: Members
  • Posts: 705
  • Înscris: 02.03.2006
In ultima vreme observ atacul furibund al socialistilor de pretutindeni ce doresc pe langa subventii ba disparitia banilor, ba dobanzi si taxe mici sau chiar zero, ba sa stea acasa toata ziua, sa vada bancheri spanzurati pe wall street, fugariti cu furci si topoare. Ma intreb de unde asa de multa ura proletara, de ce nimeni nu ridica o statuie celor care au dus omenirea inainte, care au avut curajul de a iesi din pestera si a inventa viitorul.


Mi-am dat seama ca bizonul este mult prea intoxicat pentru a gandi corect gramatical, ca este ametit de filozofia ieftina consumata fara masura la bodegile de mahala ale istoriei (sau la tv). Nu pot avea pretentia unor reflexe de campion de formula 1 de la cineva care a mers toata viata cu o caruta.

Prin urmare m-am gandit ca ar fi o idee foarte buna ca cineva sa explice "principiul motorului cu 4 timpi", sa explice de ce unii au ajuns la Mercedes cand altii inca se chinuie cu apa calda.

..



Intrebare simplă: cămătăria este legală sau nu?

Imorala sau nu. Cât este imoral, cât este legal?  

5% e ok? 25%? Pe zi, pe an?




..


Plutarch - Against Debt & Borrowing upon Usury

Quote

Plato in his Laws permits not any one to go and draw water from his neighbor?s well, who has not first digged and sunk a pit in his own ground till he is come to a vein of clay, and has by his sounding
experimented that the place will not yield a spring. For the clay or potter?s earth, being of its own nature fatty, solid, and strong, retains the moisture it receives, and will not let it soak or pierce through.

But it must be lawful for them to take water from another?s ground, when there is no way or means for them to find any in their own; for the law ought to provide for men?s necessity, but not favor their laziness. Should there not be the like ordinance also concerning money; that none should be allowed to borrow upon usury, nor to go and dive into other men?s purses, ? as it were into their wells and fountains, ?before they have first searched at home and sounded every means for the obtaining it; having collected (as it were) and gathered together all the gutters and springs, to try if they can draw from them what may suffice to supply their most necessary occasions?

But on the contrary, many there are who, to defray their idle expenses and to satisfy their extravagant and superfluous delights, make not use of their own, but have recourse to others, running themselves deeply into debt without any necessity. Now this may easily be judged, if one does but consider that usurers do not ordinarily lend to those which are in distress, but only to such as desire to obtain somewhat that is superfluous and of which they stand not in need. So that the credit given by the lender is a testimony sufficiently proving that the borrower has of his own; whereas on the contrary, since he has of his own, he ought to keep himself from borrowin

Quote

"The love of money is the root of all evil." (Timothy 6:10)

Jesus: 'If you have money, do not lend it at interest, but give [it] to one from whom you will not get it back." (Gospel St Thomas, V95)

"Unto a stranger thou mayest lend upon usury; but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon usury: that the Lord thy God may bless thee in all that thou settest thine hand to in the land whither thou goest to possess it."( Torah: Chapter 23, verse 20)

Edited by De Beers, 05 April 2009 - 17:25.


#2
Kedarlaomer

Kedarlaomer

    Junior Member

  • Grup: Members
  • Posts: 209
  • Înscris: 08.03.2009
IMHO, cămătăria nu este imorală. Și asta pentru că nimeni nu e forțat să se împrumute.

#3
De Beers

De Beers

    Member

  • Grup: Members
  • Posts: 705
  • Înscris: 02.03.2006
Ok, atunci cat ar trebui sa fie "dobanda"?

120% pe luna e moral? 5 % pe zi? De ce este Nutu Camataru in puscarie?

..


Quote

Sikhism, although a faith that has come into existence much more recently in comparison, rejects the principle of taking what does not belong to you. Says Nanak. "To grasp what is another's is as evil as pig's flesh to the Muslim and cow's flesh to the Hindu. The Teacher shall intercede for his follower, only when he has not eaten carrion." (Adi Granth, Var Majh, M.1, p. 141)

Taoism, another modern religion states in the text :"Banish skill, discard profit, And thieves and robbers will disappear." [ Ch. 19] Theft, according to Wilson , means to take property that belongs to another or to the public. This encompasses fraud, usury, extortion, and dishonest trading.

Likewise, Confucianism is indicative in its text of a disliking of unjust transactions. "The Master said: 'The gentleman is familiar with what is right, just as the small man is familiar with profit.'" [ 4:16 ]

Islam of course does not allow riba - interest - in any case, even if it has not been accepted by Muslims countries throughout the world. According to Imam Ali, "If someone comes to you for a loan, he comes out of need. If I loan you money and I find that you have difficulty paying me back, Islam encourages me to forgive the debt. God will reimburse me."

Quote

Plato, Aristotle, Catos, Cicero, Seneca and Plutarch all condemned usury in one form or another (Birnie, 1958) . Their synchronized stance in the civil law can be seen, for example, from the Lex Genucia reforms in Republican Rome (340 BC) which outlawed interest altogether. Furthermore, to these ancient philosophical thinkers, modern reformists too can be included amongst those who rejected interest.

Adam Smith, despite being the father of free-market capitalism and advocating laissez-faire economics, strongly desired controlling usury (Jadlow, 1977; Levy, 1987) . Although he opposed full elimination of interest, he favoured the nuisance of an interest rate ceiling, to ensure that low-risk borrowers likely to employ socially beneficial investments, were not disadvantaged as a result of "the greater part of the money which was to be lent to prodigals, who alone would be willing to give an unregulated high interest rate" (Smith, 1937: 339).

Similarly, the great twentieth century economist John Maynard Keynes believed:"the disquisitions of the schoolmen [on usury] were directed towards elucidation of a formula which should allow the schedule of the marginal efficiency to be high, whilst using rule and custom and the moral law to keep down the rate of interest, so that a wise Government is concerned to curb it by statute and custom and even by invoking the sanctions of the Moral Law" (1936: 351-3).

Quote

...described usurers as ?wretched,? ?vulture-like,? and ?barbarous.?. In Roman culture, Seneca condemned usury for the same reasons as Aristotle; Cato the Elder famously compared usury to murder; and Cicero wrote that ?these profits are despicable which incur the hatred of men, such as those of . . . lenders of money on usury.?

_____
Plutarch, Plutarch?s Morals, translated by William Watson Goodwin (Boston: Little, Brown, & Company, 1874), pp. 412?24.
Lewis H. Haney, History of Economic Thought (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1920), p. 71.
Anthony Trollope, Life of Cicero (Kessinger Publishing, 2004), p. 70.

Edited by De Beers, 05 April 2009 - 17:31.


#4
Mosotti

Mosotti

    Geniu umil

  • Grup: Senior Members
  • Posts: 33,012
  • Înscris: 21.04.2004
problema nu este dobinda, ci se intimpla cu tine daca nu platesti la timp

#5
rsumy

rsumy

    Senior Member

  • Grup: Senior Members
  • Posts: 3,318
  • Înscris: 24.10.2006
Banii sunt o marfă, și ca orice marfă, au un preț.
Prețul banilor împrumutați = valoarea lor + dobânda.

PS. Dacă nu plătești la timp la cămătari, pățești la fel cum ai păți la o Bancă... :) .
Nu înțeleg...bancă sau cămătari, nu-i același lucru?
Aaaa... cămătarii ( majoritatea ) nu plătesc impozite la Stat? Asta e altă "mâncare de pește"...

rsumy

Edited by rsumy, 05 April 2009 - 17:44.


#6
De Beers

De Beers

    Member

  • Grup: Members
  • Posts: 705
  • Înscris: 02.03.2006
Din ce vad pana acum se pare ca suntem toti niste "ultra liberali".

(aici fiind si legatura cu legalizarea prostitutiei - probabil ambele meserii au aparut in acelasi timp si sunt la fel de vechi)


Quote

President Barack Obama on ?The Tonight Show with Jay Leno?


(Applause.) MR. LENO: Well, you know, it?s interesting, when you said -? it's, like, I had to laugh the other day when the CEO of AIG said, okay, I've asked them to give half the bonuses back. Now, if you rob a bank and you go into court ?- (laughter) ?- and you go, Your Honor, I'm going to give you half the money back. (Laughter.) And they seem stunned that we?re not jumping at this wonderful offer.

MR. OBAMA: Well, you know, the only place I think that might work is in Hollywood. (Laughter.)


Quote

Camataria, pedepsita cu inchisoare pâna la cinci ani
Potrivit Codului Penal, la Articolul 450, punctul 2, litera (a), ?se pedepsesc cu inchisoare de la unu la cinci ani operatiunile de imprumut de bani sau titluri de valoare efectuate cu titlu profesional de catre persoane neautorizate, direct sau prin acte simulate, daca dobânda stabilita este mai mare decât dobânda stabilita de lege?. De asemenea, Codul Penal mai prevede ca se sanctioneaza cu acelasi cuantum al pedepsei operatiunile de imprumut de bani sau titluri de valoare, efectuate de catre persoane neautorizate, direct sau prin acte simulate, daca se stabileste o capitalizare a dobânzii pentru dobânzi datorate pe o perioada mai mica de un an. Aceste infractiuni sunt prevazute in Titlul XI privind crime si delicte contra economiei, industriei, comertului si regimului fiscal ? capitolul [b]?Delicte contra vietii economice?

"Delicte contra vietii economice" - pff, ce intarziati. Nici nu ma mir ca suntem in urma cu 1000 de ani.

Edited by De Beers, 05 April 2009 - 17:52.


#7
Morticia

Morticia

    Active Member

  • Grup: Members
  • Posts: 1,885
  • Înscris: 05.05.2005

View PostDe Beers, on Apr 5 2009, 18:35, said:

Din ce vad pana acum se pare ca suntem toti niste "ultra liberali".

(aici fiind si legatura cu legalizarea prostitutiei - probabil ambele meserii au aparut in acelasi timp si sunt la fel de vechi)







"Delicte contra vietii economice" - pff, ce intarziati. Nici nu ma mir ca suntem in urma cu 1000 de ani.
La dracu'. Aici nu ai zis nimic de socialisti.... Esti bine???? :D

Ontopic: Problema nu e neaparat dimensiunea dobanzii, ci mai degraba faptul ca la "camatarii de strada" datele contractului sunt foarte variabile, si nu chiar in favoarea debitorului.
De asemenea, modul de executare in caz de neplata e, de obicei, cam dureros.

#8
mnezo

mnezo

    Senior Member

  • Grup: Senior Members
  • Posts: 2,749
  • Înscris: 06.03.2006
Io unul propun, alaturi de legalizarea camatariei si prositutiei, trecera in legal a omorului, violurilor si abuzurilor de orice fel, cuplata cu taxa "bag penis, tai copacu'". Adica cine'si permite si are bani, sa taie, spanzure si violeze ce vrea muschiu' lui. Asa, cam ca acu' 1000 de ani.

#9
schiaub

schiaub

    Member

  • Grup: Members
  • Posts: 651
  • Înscris: 18.02.2009

View PostDe Beers, on Apr 5 2009, 18:24, said:

[b]Intrebare simplă: cămătăria este legală sau nu?
in primul rand ca este legala.
Problema este moralitatea ei. Biserica catolica a interzis camataria prin sec. XII. Motiv ca evreii sefardici (aia spanioli) au capatat privilegii importante in regatele catolice, devenind bancherii regilor si feudalilor catolici. Reforma protestanta legalizeaza camata.

Este insa o mare problema cata dobanda se poate cere. Orice dobanda peste un anumit nivel duce la prabusirea economiei. De exemplu bancile in SUA percep pentru cartile de credit o dobanda de 13%, care este urcata automat cand debitorul face greseli. Este urcata la 23% sau mai mult. Astfel de dobanzi pur si simplu il distrug pe debitor si in final economia.

Citeam o analiza pertinenta pe tema dobanzilor percepute de banci sau de camatari. Ideea este ca orice dobanda care depaseste 9% sunt daunatoare economiei. Pur si simplu il paradesc pe debitor. Camatarii percep dobanzi enorme, chiar de 50% sau mai mult. Cartile de credit cu dobanzi de 13% (adica majoritatea) sunt periculoase.

De aceea biserica catolica in secolul XII a interzis dobanda iar pe evreii i-a expulzat din tarile catolice. S-a observat o conectie intre practica dobanzilor si aparitia saraciei.

Edited by schiaub, 05 April 2009 - 17:44.


#10
De Beers

De Beers

    Member

  • Grup: Members
  • Posts: 705
  • Înscris: 02.03.2006

Quote

Thus, on scriptural and moral grounds, Christianity opposed usury from the beginning. And it constantly reinforced its opposition with legal restrictions. In 325 a.d., the Council of Nicaea banned the practice among clerics. Under Charlemagne (768?814 a.d.), the Church extended the prohibition to laymen, defining usury simply as a transaction where more is asked than is given. In 1139, the second Lateran Council in Rome denounced usury as a form of theft, and required restitution from those who practiced it. In the 12th and 13th centuries, strategies that concealed usury were also condemned. The Council of Vienne in 1311 declared that any person who dared claim that there was no sin in the practice of usury be punished as a heretic.

____
Jacques Le Goff, Your Money Or Your Life (New York: Zone Books, 1988), p. 26.

Quote

n 1190, the Jews of York were massacred in an attack planned by members of the nobility who owed money to the Jews and sought to absolve the debt through violence. During this and many other attacks on Jewish communities, accounting records were destroyed and Jews were murdered. As European historian Joseph Patrick Byrne reports: ?Money was the reason the Jews were killed, for had they been poor, and had not the lords of the land been indebted to them, they would not have been killed.? But the ?lords? were not the only debtors: the working class and underclass apparently owed a great deal, and these violent pogroms gave them the opportunity to destroy records of debt as well as the creditors themselves.

___
Edward Henry Palmer, A History of the Jewish Nation (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1874), pp. 253?54. & http://www.routledge....sh/England.pdf.
Joseph Patrick Byrne, The Black Death (Westport: Greenwood Press, 2004), p. 8

Quote

In 1290, King Edward I expelled the Jews from England, and they would not return en masse until the 17th century.

From the Christian perspective, there were clearly problems with the biblical pronouncements on usury. How could it be that Jews were prohibited from lending to other Jews but were allowed to lend to Christians and other non-Jews? And how could it be that God permitted Jews to benefit from this practice but prohibited Christians from doing so? These questions perplexed the thinkers of the day. St. Jerome?s (ca. 347?420) ?solution? to the conundrum was that it was wrong to charge interest to one?s brothers?and, to Christians, all other Christians were brothers?but it was fine to charge interest to one?s enemy. Usury was perceived as a weapon that weakened the borrower and strengthened the lender; so, if one loaned money at interest to one?s enemy, that enemy would suffer. This belief led Christians to the absurd practice of lending money to the Saracens?their enemies?during the Crusades.

"God created three types of men: peasants and other laborers to assure the subsistence of the others, knights to defend them, and clerics to govern them. But the devil created a fourth group, the usurers. They do not participate in men?s labors, and they will not be punished with men, but with the demons. For the amount of money they receive from usury corresponds to the amount of wood sent to Hell to burn them"

______
Sidney Homer, A History of Interest Rates (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1963), p. 71.
Sermon by Jacques de Vitry, ?Ad status? 59,14, quoted in Le Goff, Your Money Or Your Life, pp. 56?57.

Quote

The first of the scholastics, Saint Anselm of Canterbury, led the shift in thought that labeled charging interest the same as theft. Previously usury was seen as a lack of charity.

St. Thomas Aquinas, the leading theologian of the Catholic Church, argued charging of interest is wrong because it amounts to "double charging", charging for both the thing and the use of the thing. Aquinas said this would be morally wrong in the same way as if one sold a bottle of wine, charged for the bottle of wine, and then charged for the person using the wine to actually drink it.

Similarly, one cannot charge for a piece of cake and for the eating of the piece of cake. Yet this, said Aquinas, is what usury does. Money is exchange-medium. It is used up when it is spent. To charge for the money and for its use (by spending) is to charge for the money twice. It is also to sell time since the usurer charges, in effect, for the time that the money is in the hands of the borrower.

Time, however, is not a commodity that anyone can sell.


Quote

The Magna Carta commands, "If any one has taken anything, whether much or little, by way of loan from Jews, and if he dies before that debt is paid, the debt shall not carry usury so long as the heir is under age, from whomsoever he may hold. And if that debt falls into our hands, we will take only the principal contained in the note."

MAGNA CARTA (1215)



Interesant e si cum Biserica interzicea asta insa in culise imprumuta cu dobanzi uneori chiar de 2 ori mai mari.

Edited by De Beers, 05 April 2009 - 17:55.


#11
rsumy

rsumy

    Senior Member

  • Grup: Senior Members
  • Posts: 3,318
  • Înscris: 24.10.2006
Dacă nu e moral să împrumuți bani cu dobândă, atât Băncile cât și Cămătarii ar trebui scoși înafara Legii.
Corect? (e imoral...bla, bla).

rsumy

#12
De Beers

De Beers

    Member

  • Grup: Members
  • Posts: 705
  • Înscris: 02.03.2006
In afara legii??

Sa-ti aduc aminte cum a sarit in octombrie dobanda interbancara la 120% PE ZI? La BNR?

Time is a gift from God?


Quote

In similar fashion, it was argued that usury generates for the lender profit from goods that no longer belong to him?that is, from goods now owned by the borrower. As one Scholastic put it: ?[He] who gets fruit from that money, whether it be pieces of money or anything else, gets it from a thing which does not belong to him, and it is accordingly all the same as if he were to steal it.?

Another argument against usury from the late Middle Ages went to a crucial aspect of the practice that heretofore had not been addressed: the issue of time. Thinkers of this period believed that time was a common good, that it belonged to no one in particular, that it was a gift from God. Thus, they saw usurers as attempting to defraud God.

As the 12th-century English theologian Thomas of Chobham (1160?1233) wrote: ?The usurer sells nothing to the borrower that belongs to him. He sells only time, which belongs to God. He can therefore not make a profit from selling someone else?s property.? Or as expressed in a 13th-century manuscript, ?Every man stops working on holidays, but the oxen of usury work unceasingly and thus offend God and all the Saints; and, since usury is an endless sin, it should in like manner be endlessly punished.?

___
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, part II, section II, question 78, article 1.
Frank Wilson Blackmar, Economics (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1907), p. 178.
Le Goff, Your Money Or Your Life, pp. 33?45.
Jeremy Rifkin, The European Dream (Cambridge: Polity, 2004), p. 105
.

Edited by De Beers, 05 April 2009 - 18:00.


#13
rsumy

rsumy

    Senior Member

  • Grup: Senior Members
  • Posts: 3,318
  • Înscris: 24.10.2006

View PostDe Beers, on Apr 5 2009, 18:59, said:

In afara legii??

Sa-ti aduc aminte cum a sarit in octombrie dobanda interbancara la 120% PE ZI? La BNR?

Time is a gift from God?
Păi nu Piața reglează Prețul?  :) .
Sau când ne convine, e bine, când nu, nu ?

rsumy

Edited by rsumy, 05 April 2009 - 18:05.


#14
De Beers

De Beers

    Member

  • Grup: Members
  • Posts: 705
  • Înscris: 02.03.2006
;)

E dilema clasica dintre Shylock si Antonio, cine ar trebui sa aiba dreptate, piata sau religia..

Cine ar trebui sa aiba Puterea, mana invizibila sau statul..


Quote

Shy. How like a fawning publican he looks!
I hate him for he is a Christian;
But more for that in low simplicity
He lends out money gratis, and brings down
The rate of usance here with us in Venice.
If I can catch him once upon the hip,
I will feed fat the ancient grudge I bear him.
He hates our sacred nation, and he rails,
Even there where merchants most do congregate,
On me, my bargains, and my well-won thrift,
Which he calls interest. Cursed be my tribe,
If I forgive him!
__
William Shakespeare, The Merchant of Venice, Act 1, Scene

Quote

Claudius Salmasius (1588?1653), a French scholar teaching in Holland, thoroughly refuted the claims about the  barrenness  of moneylending; he showed the important productive function of usury and even suggested that there should be more usurers, since competition between them would reduce the rate of interest. Other Dutch scholars agreed with him, and, partially as a result of this, Holland became especially tolerant of usury, making it legal at times. Consequently, the leading banks of the era were found in Holland, and it became the world?s commercial and financial center, the wealthiest state in Europe, and the envy of the world.
__
von Böhm-Bawerk, Capital and Interest, book I, chapter III.

Quote

Robert Jacques Turgot (1727?1781), a French economist, was the first to identify usury s connection to property rights. He argued that a creditor has the right to dispose of his money in any way he wishes and at whatever rate the market will bear, because it is his property. Turgot was also the first economist to fully understand that the passing of time changes the value of money. He saw the difference between the present value and the future value of money concepts that are at the heart of any modern financial analysis. According to Turgot:  If . . . two gentlemen suppose that a sum of 1000 Francs and a promise of 1000 Francs possess exactly the same value, they put forward a still more absurd supposition; for if these two things were of equal value, why should any one borrow at all??

Turgot even repudiated the medieval notion that time belonged to God. Time, he argued, belongs to the individual who uses it and therefore time could be sold. During the same period, the British philosopher Jeremy Bentham (1748?1832) wrote a treatise entitled A Defense of Usury. Bentham argued that any restrictions on interest rates were economically harmful because they restricted an innovator?s ability to raise capital. Since innovative trades inherently involved high risk, they could only be funded at high interest rates. Limits on permissible interest rates, he argued, would kill innovation?the engine of growth. Correcting another medieval error, Bentham also showed that restrictive usury laws actually harmed the borrowers. Such restrictions cause the credit markets to shrink while demand for credit remains the same or goes up; thus, potential borrowers have to seek loans in an illegal market where they would have to pay a premium for the additional risk of illegal trading.

Bentham?s most important contribution was his advocacy of contractual freedom: "My neighbours, being at liberty, have happened to concur among themselves in dealing at a certain rate of interest. I, who have money to lend, and Titus, who wants to borrow it of me, would be glad, the one of us to accept, the other to give, an interest somewhat higher than theirs: Why is the liberty they exercise to be made a pretence for depriving me and Titus of ours."

This was perhaps the first attempt at a moral defense of usury.

___
Jeremy Bentham, A Defence of Usury (Philadelphia: Mathew Carey, 1787), p. 10.
Jeremy Bentham, The Works of Jeremy Bentham, edited by John Bowring (Edinburgh: W. Tait; London: Simpkin, Marshall, & Co., 1843), p. 501.

Quote

It is a wonder that anyone let alone so many defied the law and their faith to practice moneylending. In this sense, the usurers were truly heroic. By defying religion and taking risks both financial and existential they made their material lives better. They made money. And by doing so, they made possible economic growth the likes of which had never been seen before. It was thanks to a series of loans from local moneylenders that Gutenberg, for example, was able to commercialize his printing press. The early bankers enabled advances in commerce and industry throughout Europe, financing the Age of Exploration as well as the early seeds of technology that would ultimately lead to the Industrial Revolution.
___
Davies, A History of Money, pp. 177?78.

Edited by De Beers, 05 April 2009 - 18:22.


#15
SuperDuper

SuperDuper

    Inactive

  • Grup: Senior Members
  • Posts: 13,294
  • Înscris: 25.04.2006
Este legea cererii si ofertei. Vrei bani pentru a iti satisface placeri? Pai ori muncesti si cheltui cat ai (si nu platesti dobanda), ori intinzi mana si atunci nu este nimani vinovat ca iti da ceea ce TU ceri (bani imprumut). Cat sa fie dobanda? Ce intrebare stupida este asta? Concurenta reglementeaza asta. Cine te pune sa iei de la unul care iti cere 120% pe an? Aaaa, nimeni altul nu iti da pentru ca s-a dovedit ca nu platesti inapoi? Pai asta este, poate este cazul sa te opresti din cheltuit banii altora.

#16
schiaub

schiaub

    Member

  • Grup: Members
  • Posts: 651
  • Înscris: 18.02.2009

View PostDe Beers, on Apr 5 2009, 19:09, said:

E dilema clasica dintre Shylock si Antonio, cine ar trebui sa aiba dreptate, piata sau religia..
e o dilema ce tine de bun simt (bunul simt este un simt natural al omului care are valoare statistica).

Atata timp cat dobanzile mari creaza un clivaj intre bogati si saraci, dobanda este imorala. De exemplu. In anii 1990, sistemul la noi fiind aiurea, camatarii propaseau. S-au format interlopi, in special tigani, care percepeau dobanzi enorme. Cand debitorul ajungea in incapacitatea de plata, camatarii interveneau cu forta parului. Ba chiar si cu gloante. Au aparut astfel nenumerate palate cu turnuri in Rom^nia, dotate cu mertane, Porsche, Lamborghini si alte martoage de genul asta.

E imoral. De aceea in antichitate si in Evul Mediu biserica s-a impotrivat dobanzilor.

Pe de alta parte fara banci nu exista economie. Iar bancile sunt motivate doar de dobanzi. Dobanzile reprezinta profitul bancilor (exista si alte servicii prin care bancile pot castiga, dar ele castiga in special prin dobanzi). Motiv ca dobanzile trebuie sa existe. Dar nici chiar in felul in care s-a intamplat recent cand bancile au facut profituri uriase. Au facut profituri uriase, cand altii au saracit, tocmai fiindca au perceput dobanzi uriase, plus penalizari si alte chestii.

Dobanda este ok atata timp este controlata, tinuta sub un anumit nivel. Ori de cate ori dobanda depaseste un anumit nivel ea creaza clivaje intre diferitele categorii ale populatiei ducand in final la crize grave economice. Exact cum astazi trecem printr-o criza grava.

Simtomatic, cel mai mare tun in aceasta criza economica, a fost dat de un evreu, Madoff, care a organizat timp de 20 de ani o schema piramidala sprijinit fiind de coetnicii sai care controleaza Wall Street-ul, sistemul bancar, guvernul de la Washington D.C.

Edited by schiaub, 05 April 2009 - 18:22.


#17
Anjin`

Anjin`

    Senior Member

  • Grup: Senior Members
  • Posts: 2,160
  • Înscris: 10.05.2005

View Postrsumy, on Apr 5 2009, 18:34, said:

Banii sunt o marfă, și ca orice marfă, au un preț.
Prețul banilor împrumutați = valoarea lor + dobânda.

PS. Dacă nu plătești la timp la cămătari, pățești la fel cum ai păți la o Bancă... :) .
Nu înțeleg...bancă sau cămătari, nu-i același lucru?
Aaaa... cămătarii ( majoritatea ) nu plătesc impozite la Stat? Asta e altă "mâncare de pește"...

rsumy
Ca taie degete chiar nu se pune? Pai si  bancile platesc?
Nu numai evreii erau cu dobanzile, desi am inteles ca aveau un avantaj pentru ca nu avea biserica autoritate asupra lor.
Si sienezii imprumutau bani, am citit in regii blestemati.
Pai ce faceau cu creditorii in evul mediu era o cretinitate, si romanii cred ca aveau asta ii zicea tabula rasa, si mai nou "moratoriu de datorii" cred, s-a intamplt si in japonia medievala, efectul asupra economiei bun nu este. Da nu e acelasi lucru camatar cu banca asa ca nu stiu de ce ar trebui sa fie legala camatoria.
O dobanda foarte mare, care nu e reglata de pretul pietei dupa mintea mea e o forma de inselaciune.

#18
De Beers

De Beers

    Member

  • Grup: Members
  • Posts: 705
  • Înscris: 02.03.2006

Quote

e imoral..

=

Quote

In 1913, in New York, a moneylender who issued loans to people who could not get them at conventional banks appeared before a court on the charge of usury. In the decision, the judge wrote:

"You are one of the most contemptible usurers in your unspeakable business. The poor people must be protected from such sharks as you, and we must trust that your conviction and sentence will be a notice to you and all your kind that the courts have found a way to put a stop to usury. Men of your type are a curse to the community, and the money they gain is blood money"

This ruling is indicative of the general attitude toward usurers at the time. The moral-practical dichotomy was alive and kicking, and the moneylenders were taking the blows. Although their practical value to the economy was now clear, their moral status as evil was still common “sense.” And the intellectuals of the day would only exacerbate the problem.

The most influential economist of the 20th century was John Maynard Keynes (1883–1946), whose ideas not only shaped the theoretical field of modern economics but also played a major role in shaping government policies in the United States and around the world. Although Keynes allegedly rejected Marx’s ideas, he shared Marx’s hatred of the profit motive and usury. He also agreed with Adam Smith that government must control interest rates; otherwise investment and thus society would suffer. And he revived the old Reformation idea that usury is a necessary evil:

When the accumulation of wealth is no longer of high social importance, there will be great changes in the code of morals. We shall be able to rid ourselves of many of the pseudo-moral principles which have hag-ridden us for two hundred years, by which we have exalted some of the most distasteful of human qualities into the position of the highest virtues. . . . But beware! The time for all this is not yet. For at least another hundred years we must pretend to ourselves and to everyone that fair is foul and foul is fair; for foul is useful and fair is not. Avarice and usury and precaution must be our gods for a little longer still. For only they can lead us out of the tunnel of economic necessity into daylight.


Although Keynes and other economists and intellectuals of the day recognized the need of usury, they universally condemned the practice and its practitioners as foul and unfair. Thus, regardless of widespread recognition of the fact that usury is a boon to the economy, when the Great Depression occurred in the United States, the moneylenders on Wall Street were blamed. As Franklin Delano Roosevelt put it:

The rulers of the exchange of mankind’s goods have failed, through their own stubbornness and their own incompetence, have admitted failure, and have abdicated. Practices of the unscrupulous money changers stand indicted in the court of public opinion, rejected by the hearts and minds of men . . . [We must] apply social values more noble than mere monetary profit.



And so the “solution” to the problems of the Great Depression was greater government intervention throughout the economy—especially in the regulation of interest and the institutions that deal in it. After 1933, banks were restricted in all aspects of their activity: the interest rates they could pay their clients, the rates they could charge, and to whom they could lend. In 1934, the greatest bank in American history, J. P. Morgan, was broken up by the government into several companies. The massive regulations and coercive restructurings of the 1930s illustrate the continuing contempt for the practice of taking interest on loans and the continuing distrust of those—now mainly bankers—who engage in this activity. (We paid a dear price for those regulations with the savings and loan crisis of the 1970s and 1980s, which cost American taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars. And we continue to pay the price of these regulations in higher taxes, greater financial costs, lost innovation, and stifled economic growth.)


____
James Grant, Money of the Mind (New York: Noonday Press, 1994), p. 83
John Maynard Keynes, “Economic Possibilities for our Grandchildren,” in Essays in Persuasion (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1963), pp. 359, 362. Online: http://www.econ.yale...16a/keynes1.pdf.
Franklin D. Roosevelt, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1933, FDR, First Inaugural Address, 1933
To understand the link between 1930s regulations and the S&L crisis, see Edward J. Kane, The S&L Insurance Mess: How Did it Happen? (Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute Press, 1989), and Richard M. Salsman , The Collapse of Deposit Insurance—and the Case for Abolition (Great Barrington, MA: American Institute for Economic Research, 1993).

Madoff..

Quote

The tremendous growth in this industry is a direct consequence of government policy. Since the 1930s, the U.S. government has encouraged home ownership among all Americans—but especially among those in lower income Brackets. To this end, the government created the Federal Home Loan Banks (which are exempt from state and local income taxes) to provide incentives for smaller banks to make mortgage loans to low-income Americans. Congress passed the Community Reinvestment Act, which requires banks to invest in their local communities, including by providing mortgage loans to people in low-income brackets. The government created Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, both of which have a mandate to issue and guarantee mortgage loans to low-income borrowers.

In recent years, all these government schemes and more (e.g., artificially low-interest rates orchestrated by the Fed) led to a frenzy of borrowing and lending. The bottom line is that the government has artificially mitigated lenders’ risk, and it has done so on the perverse, altruistic premise that “society” has a moral duty to increase home ownership among low-income Americans. The consequence of this folly has been a significant increase in delinquent loans and foreclosures, which has led to wider financial problems at banks and at other institutions that purchased the mortgages in the secondary markets.

..

Quote

O dobanda foarte mare, care nu e reglata de pretul pietei dupa mintea mea e o forma de inselaciune.

Esti putin "socialist". :P Credeti ca daca ar fi legala, daca ar fi reglementata eficient incat executarile silite sa fie facute fara "taieri de degete", oare nu ar fi o varianta interesanta pentru orice pensionar ce isi tine acum banii in banca?

Edited by De Beers, 05 April 2009 - 18:36.


Anunturi

Bun venit pe Forumul Softpedia!

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Forumul Softpedia foloseste "cookies" pentru a imbunatati experienta utilizatorilor Accept
Pentru detalii si optiuni legate de cookies si datele personale, consultati Politica de utilizare cookies si Politica de confidentialitate