Tuesday, March 23, 2010

Usury

Ancient usury meant the loaning of money (or anything) at interest, and was fiercely proscribed or severely limited by several major religious traditions. As transactions of this sort became imperative for the development of large-scale economies and international trade, however, the definition of what was proscribed morphed into excessive rates of interest (which, as a scalar rather than an absolute notion was susceptible to vagueness and hence upward creep -- consider ruinous 21% credit card rates that are not illegal). It is tempting to blame usury, traditionally a sin, for many of our modern economic inequalities, but though it is certainly an enabling condition, its demise as a social constraint on economic exploitation is at least as much a consequence of present economic arrangements as a cause of them.

It has both downsides and upsides. For example, The fact of easy credit for home buyers puts upward pressure on the cost of homes, thus forcing everyone who wants to own a home to borrow at interest (the rates may be modest, but the amortized outlay over many years is often two or three times the sale price of the home, or more). Those who would have preferred to save their money until they could buy a home outright are mostly priced out of the market by this process, and by the steady march of inflation to which it contributes. On the other hand, the increased price of homes makes it possible for them to be better designed, more energy efficient, etc. than they would otherwise be, since the greater market value of homes permits builders to invest more in their design and construction. Unless this just leads to larger homes (which it sometimes does), it can substantially improve the housing stock, and the quality of life of those connected to the building trades.

1 comment:

brendon tomasi said...

i think that moderate usury makes sense, if i don't have something but think it is important enough to have sooner than i will be able to afford it, then i would like the opportunity to weigh the cost/benefit option to value the worth of the item. i think that the interest makes someone think twice about what they need/want, and if there was a need, then i would happily accept the interest, especially because in my need, i am investing in myself. this leads me to our discussion the other day in class, how can we outright buy materials to build a house if the sense of being comfortable in ones own home cannot be broken down into monetary value, or if it could would make building a home out of most everyone's grasp (think of the professor's jam)? the difference may be that i am not talking about a gift, but the attachment to the good exponentially attaches subjective or emotional value on the good. i was also wondering if usury being a sin for christians but acceptable in jewish tradition created an envy that contributed to discrimination leading to the holocaust