> Usury and debtor's prisons, like slavery, died out not because they were morally reprehensible but because they gave way to more efficient means of achieving growth. Don't kid yourself.
The word “usury” means either the practice of making unethical loans, or simply charging any interest for loans. It should be clear that neither form of usury has died out — even if you consider regular loans ethical, surely you’ve heard of “payday loans”?
Neither has slavery but both ills are greatly diminished from their peak. It is now more profitable to do other things (lend at reasonable rates, pay wages) due to a variety of factors (mostly technology).
You objected to the assertion that society has been set up to reward ownership of capital. You somehow fail to acknowledge that when lending at interest is disallowed, owning capital does not automatically lead to accumulating more capital — a process which you called “a law of nature”, and which is clearly anything but.
The question is not whether reasonable interest rates are more profitable than others, but rather — whether society would be better off if lending at interest was disallowed altogether. I submit that it would.
The word “usury” means either the practice of making unethical loans, or simply charging any interest for loans. It should be clear that neither form of usury has died out — even if you consider regular loans ethical, surely you’ve heard of “payday loans”?