Originally posted by elam
View Post
The RCC guidelines are interesting--particularly 4:31-32---In Islam---all wealth belongs to God, who determines wealth distribution according to his will. Therefore any wealth/property that a human being gains is because of the blessings/grace of God and we are obligated to use it for benefit of all. Both the creditor (loan giver) and debtor (loan taker) are in a win-win because a person with excess money can put it to good use/benefit by investing (for profit) and the one that does not have money can also put it to good use/benefit in business (for profit). When both parties have mutual benefit neither needs to feel guilty about anything. Since transactions are contracts that determine both profit and risk sharing---both the investor and the bussinessperson share the loss and gain as per the contract. This is a much more democratic, egalitarian and just system than the one you described. Your system is biased towards the creditor who has no real risk (since loans have collateral or conditions) and unfair towards the debtor who shoulders an unfair level of risk.
The Church has had history of some compromise with toxic and/or questionable doctrines? Christianity (or rather Jesus Christ (pbuh)) was against interest right?
If you say that RCC charity was successful, I am inclined to accept it........Churches (Mosques, Temples...etc) are generally closer to their communities and can tailor to the specific needs and priorities of their communities more efficiently, speedily and flexibly than rigid, slow, bureaucracies/government institutions. They are far better at a bottoms up approach and because they can inspire people to altruism---they can gather volunteers as well as donations and this reduces the cost of reconstruction and gives the community a sense of pride and ownership in the community they have worked so hard to build. This sentiment of ownership and belonging will, in the long run, promote cohesion of the group and a desire to do better. This will bring prosperity---and without any interest laden debt-load, the prosperity produced can be used for more public benefits---which in turn will create more retained income---which in turn will spur the economy because it will increase demand for goods....Its a win-win for everyone.
In your model WB or other outside investors who go in to make a profit with an interest-based loan have nothing vested in the success of the community or the people they are loaning to---they are simply interested in the "yeild" as you called it---what they can get out of it---once they have made money---they will take their investment and go elsewhere to make more money---meanwhile the people and community will be left with a lot of debt and crippling interest payments that will suck any prosperity out of their community and into the hands of the rich money-lenders. Its a win-lose scenario---and Capitalism is based on this principle---it has been this way since its inception when the Dutch started the joint stock company (The East India Company--the VOC---and took their Guns and soldiers to force "open" trade so they could steal/exploit the resources of others for their own greedy benefit.) (The Portugese and Spanish were just as bad)
WB sounds good on paper---they claim "noble" goals of improving the "poor" but in reality their policies have caused more harm than good to the poor while making the rich richer....
In my dreamtime, I have assumed that the finances for my "refugee permanent housing" project have been procured, and expended, and the refugees have been allocated the properties of their choosing. As I suggested elsewhere the issue is how to give them ownership, and thus, how are they going to "pay off" the community debt incurred. I've envisioned an Inter-generational Loan model, which I presume would be most practically implemented via an Equity Banking model.---in other words these "refugees" are simply pieces of junk you--"the grand savior", move around or "allocate" so that rich guys in fancy offices can exploit them for generations to make money off of?.....
Consider---if YOU were a refugee---would you want your destiny controlled and decided or "allocated" by some stranger in a bureaucracy or by a nameless investor or would YOU want to be empowered to make your own choices about your own destiny and that of your community?
Comment