Comment: How is interest any different from fractional reserve banking?

(See in situ)


How is interest any different from fractional reserve banking?

I understand the mechanics very well and as I see it, in the end, they both boil down to whomever controls the money, controls society.

Interest charges always go to whomever has the most money. As that person gains more money, he/she lends more and expands the game. Eventually, they could own the entire community/group/town/country/globe just from sheer expansion. There's absolutely no mechanism in place that stops this from happening but there certainly is one in place that accelerates it. And that, is your major concern of FR banking. That allows them to use both leverage and inflation to speed up the aforementioned process of taking over. Without this, it will still happen, just not on as fast of a scale.

How to ensure the economy still functions with the greatly reduced number of loans that would occur if we stopped using interest? If everyone was much wealthier, it would stop on its own. People would borrow for 3 reasons and there would be 3 types of 'lending' to support them.

Personal small-large loans would be handled predominantly by family, friends and good acquaintances. If this didn't work for someone, they could try the next method.

Small business and startup loans would be handled by wealthy family and friends with the balance made up by crowd-funding, donations or good old barn-raising type activities. This actually becomes a form of market research and future marketing for the business. It also provides a much needed feedback by informing the owner that the community wants these products and doesn't want those.

Large project funding would be raised by community and group funding, either through the crowd-funding / donations path or similar. The pool to call upon, however, would now include interested citizens as well as allied supply chain vendors. If a project was so large as to not be viable this way, it probably shouldn't be done the way it's being proposed.

On to your implication that people just have a right to profit from the time-use of their money since they are deprived of it for that time. I refuse to believe that this is in any way a type of right. If banks didn't exist (because we got smart and banished them), then people would return to paying someone to store their excess wealth securely so how is this any different? The only thing is the risk of not getting it back on time. That risk becomes a strong incentive signal as to if the loan/business/project should be done; a strong incentive toward credit worthiness (accountability) of the people; and an incentive to save the money up front so a loan isn't even required. Those are all incentives that support a stronger, moral society with strong community ties and neighborly actions. Just think of the good that would come from just those results.