The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
Besides, banks do not lend anything technically. They do not give something they have and then want that back (plus interest). The money they "lend" is not theirs nor anyone's. It's just money creation "out of thin year" - we discussed that.
What does that mean morally? For one thing, banks are in a privileged position. While everything goes right, banks get profit from the interest on money they did not have. When things get tough... at least for now, banks are the first to get a bailout, while obligations of the others remain the same (or grow).
Obligations is the thing to look in this money alchemy. For someone to earn a million someone has to borrow a million. The urge of lenders can easily be larger than the urge of borrowers. Even if borrowers follow their own will, is the urge of lenders morally impeccable? Or aren't they worse than cash hoarders, as on balance they stockpile money faster?
Say, you are the only millionaire on an isolated island. Is it bad for you if other fellows on the island borrow from you? You actually need borrowers, because otherwise you would have to grow crops and build a hut yourself eventually. That "refraining yourself" from spending the cash is actually evil, as it enslaves others, especially when barbarous interest eventually claims more than the whole island produces.
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 18 63 comments
by Luis de Sousa - Sep 13 33 comments
by ARGeezer - Sep 7 60 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 8 82 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 4 18 comments
by Bernard - Aug 27 5 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 1863 comments
by Luis de Sousa - Sep 1333 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 882 comments
by ARGeezer - Sep 760 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 418 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Aug 3014 comments
by Bernard - Aug 275 comments
by gmoke - Aug 27