Schlake wrote:

Usury is wrong, not loaning money.  Stop trying to change the argument.

People need a place to live, you are right.  A place to live is a necessity.  But taking away all the places for people to live and forcing them to pay is basically slavery or serfitude. It's wrong.

Pinups4 wrote:

You're not. You're allowing them to buy something they can't afford at this moment from their own savings.

they agree to pay a fee for that service.

Interesting side note;  Is it immoral for a bank to give you interest for the money you deposit?

And charging money to people because they are poor is wrong.  Being poor isn't a crime.  Being poor isn't something you should be punished for.  Being poor shouldn't be justification for keeping poor people poor.

Banks aren't people.  Banks are objects.  Charging interest to an object has no moral failings that I know of.  I'm only concerned when the injured party is a person.

Schlake wrote:

And charging money to people because they are poor is wrong.  Being poor isn't a crime.  Being poor isn't something you should be punished for.  Being poor shouldn't be justification for keeping poor people poor.

Banks aren't people.  Banks are objects.  Charging interest to an object has no moral failings that I know of.  I'm only concerned when the injured party is a person.

How do you determine who is poor and who is not?

Schlake wrote:

Usury is wrong, not loaning money.  Stop trying to change the argument.

People need a place to live, you are right.  A place to live is a necessity.  But taking away all the places for people to live and forcing them to pay is basically slavery or serfitude. It's wrong.

you previously defined usury as charging any interest

And there are plenty of places to buy, but most tenants are not ready to buy, can't afford it, aren't sure they'll be in town forever, etc...therefore they rent

And my question about savings interest? Is that immoral?

In Balance Photography wrote:

How do you determine who is poor and who is not?

I'd say it is anyone who is blatantly exploited by richer people for the richer peoples gain.

Schlake wrote:

I'd say it is anyone who is blatantly exploited by richer people for the richer peoples gain.

How about a for example?

Schlake wrote:

And charging money to people because they are poor is wrong.  Being poor isn't a crime.  Being poor isn't something you should be punished for.  Being poor shouldn't be justification for keeping poor people poor.

Banks aren't people.  Banks are objects.  Charging interest to an object has no moral failings that I know of.  I'm only concerned when the injured party is a person.

banks employ people.  , they need to make money to pay those people. Called interest

They are owned by people, who need to make money to live and grow.  Some of the money those people who own it make is from interest

Landlords (of which I am one, without whom many people would be homeless) employ and are people. 

Rocks don't loan money.

Schlake wrote:

I'd say it is anyone who is blatantly exploited by richer people for the richer peoples gain.

But not someone who signs an agreement to receive something for a price?  Like, say, food in a store?

Pinups4 wrote:

banks employ people.  , they need to make money to pay those people. Called interest

They are owned by people, who need to make money to live and grow.  Some of the money those people who own it make is from interest

Landlords (of which I am one, without whom many people would be homeless) employ and are people. 

Rocks don't loan money.

Banks are not people, they are objects.

Schlake wrote:

Banks are not people, they are objects.

What about credit unions?

In Balance Photography wrote:

How about a for example?

Ok, lets say you get a job.  At your job, you produce $100 worth of left handed ear umbrellas per hour.  If your compensation isn't worth $100 per hour then you are being exploited.  The money you earned is being taken and kept by someone or something else who didn't earn that money.  Your labor is being exploited for gain by someone or something else.

In Balance Photography wrote:

What about credit unions?

Credit unions are not people, they are objects.

Do you really now know hot to tell a person from an object?  People are generally human and alive.

Schlake wrote:

Ok, lets say you get a job.  At your job, you produce $100 worth of left handed ear umbrellas per hour.  If your compensation isn't worth $100 per hour then you are being exploited.  The money you earned is being taken and kept by someone or something else who didn't earn that money.  Your labor is being exploited for gain by someone or something else.

so the cost of materials has no value, the other people working at the company should live off the generosity of family, the truckdrivers, store owners who sell the umbrellas...no one deserves the money but you?

Not the person who designed the umbrella or put the factory together and took the risk?

Pinups4 wrote:

so the cost of materials has no value, the other people working at the company should live off the generosity of family, the truckdrivers, store owners who sell the umbrellas...no one deserves the money but you?

Not the person who designed the umbrella or put the factory together and took the risk?

I never said any of those things.

Schlake wrote:

Ok, lets say you get a job.  At your job, you produce $100 worth of left handed ear umbrellas per hour.  If your compensation isn't worth $100 per hour then you are being exploited.  The money you earned is being taken and kept by someone or something else who didn't earn that money.  Your labor is being exploited for gain by someone or something else.

100 retail or wholesale?

In Balance Photography wrote:

100 retail or wholesale?

Whichever the product is being sold for, I guess.

Schlake wrote:

I never said any of those things.

um

'If you work making umbrellas and make $100 worth of umbrellas per hour and your compensation is not $100 per hour you are being exploited'

Where do you allow for other people or costs?

Schlake wrote:

I never said any of those things.

Oh, wait!  When I first wrote this I used the word value, but then I decided to be more specific, so I changed value to left handed ear umbrellas.  The meaning changed a lot when I did that.

Schlake wrote:
Whichever the product is being sold for, I guess.

Translated : what are these fancy words...Iunderstand them not

Schlake wrote:

Whichever the product is being sold for, I guess.

Profit is immoral?

Pinups4 wrote:

um

'If you work making umbrellas and make $100 worth of umbrellas per hour and your compensation is not $100 per hour you are being exploited'

Where do you allow for other people or costs?

I just realized the mistake I made when I rewrote part of it, and made a comment.

I'm saying $100 worth of value produced should be compensated by $100.

Schlake wrote:

I just realized the mistake I made when I rewrote part of it, and made a comment.

I'm saying $100 worth of value produced should be compensated by $100.

Adding up everyone in the value chain of the company, vendors, transport, sales, etc ?

Schlake wrote:

I just realized the mistake I made when I rewrote part of it, and made a comment.

I'm saying $100 worth of value produced should be compensated by $100.

Doesn't the free market set the value of the labor?

In Balance Photography wrote:

Profit is immoral?

I certainly think it is.  It's just exploitation.

Think about it.  Let's say a widget costs $100.  One person uses force and influence to deny access to widgets to everyone else but himself.  Then he sells the widgets for $17,000,000 each.  Maybe more, if he's feeling greedy.  Now pretend you're the person who doesn't have a widget, and needs one.

Pinups4 wrote:

Adding up everyone in the value chain of the company, vendors, transport, sales, etc ?

If they are part of the value chain, then yes.

Schlake wrote:

I certainly think it is.  It's just exploitation.

Think about it.  Let's say a widget costs $100.  One person uses force and influence to deny access to widgets to everyone else but himself.  Then he sells the widgets for $17,000,000 each.  Maybe more, if he's feeling greedy.  Now pretend you're the person who doesn't have a widget, and needs one.

Let's say you are right. Why would anyone ever go through the effort of bringing a product to market ?

Schlake wrote:

I certainly think it is.  It's just exploitation.

Think about it.  Let's say a widget costs $100.  One person uses force and influence to deny access to widgets to everyone else but himself.  Then he sells the widgets for $17,000,000 each.  Maybe more, if he's feeling greedy.  Now pretend you're the person who doesn't have a widget, and needs one.

Let's stick with your umbrella example. Everyone in the value chain equals 100 dollars right?

In Balance Photography wrote:

Doesn't the free market set the value of the labor?

The value of the labor is the value of the goods or products produced by the labor.

Pinups4 wrote:

Let's stick with your umbrella example. Everyone in the value chain equals 100 dollars right?

Ummmmm, ok?

In Balance Photography wrote:

Let's say you are right. Why would anyone ever go through the effort of bringing a product to market ?

Because people need things.  Even the person who is making the product needs things.  Probably other things.

Schlake wrote:

If they are part of the value chain, then yes.

cool. And are company owners part of the value chain? If not, how would the factory get there and how would the employees get jobs

Schlake wrote:

The value of the labor is the value of the goods or products produced by the labor.

Who gets paid more? The person who manufactured the item or the person who sells it door to door ?

Schlake wrote:

Because people need things.  Even the person who is making the product needs things.  Probably other things.

You mean we would trade products?

Aaron Lewis Photography wrote:
Because the need to file for bankruptcy shows the world that you're irresponsible and are mostly incapable of managing finances.

That's as much BS as much of everything else that has been posted in here.  You or anyone else don't know someone else's situation or how they got in debt.

Pinups4 wrote:

cool. And are company owners part of the value chain? If not, how would the factory get there and how would the employees get jobs

Are they owners creating value, or stealing value?

Think of this way, there are Takers, and Makers.  The Makers produce things of value.  The Takers take the value that the Makers produce and they hoard it for themselves.  If the business owners are just Takers, and not actually producing any value, then no they shouldn't get paid.  Sure, they might have set up the factory and provided the money to start things up, but if they've been made whole and been repaid for they work they did and the money they lent and they are no longer producing any value for the operation, then they are Takers.

GCobb Photography wrote:

That's as much BS as much of everything else that has been posted in here.  You or anyone else don't know someone else's situation or how they got in debt.

and sometimes people do need to declare bankruptcy and start over. But, since their debtors have lost big...the debtor should (and does) see consequence

The claim here Itook issue with is thE OP position that there should be no consequence.  Those of us who pay things on time don't agree

In Balance Photography wrote:

Who gets paid more? The person who manufactured the item or the person who sells it door to door ?

Which one is responsible for more of the value?