It would be interesting to know if there have been models of economies that disallow usury and rent seekers. I know Michael Hudson has made the distinction between industrial and rentier capitalism [1], and there is also CASSE [2] (but that seems to be aligned with the "too many people" ideological line), but I am not aware of any contemporary writing on the nature and dynamics of economies that disallow usury and rent seeking in principle.
Historically, even societies that disallowed usary still needed financiers - they would just hunt them down and kill them when it came time to pay the piper.
Not even attempts at communism have survived removing dynamic markets.
Usury in a basic definition means lending money with interest, and the collection of that interest. [1]
Lending money involves risk. The only way to offset risk is with potential gain - ie, interest. You're not going to loan someone a few million, knowing you might lose it all, and having no expected gain.
If you don't have loans of any kind, you basically don't have a market. You can't form most kinds of businesses, you can't invest in equipment, etc etc. Even in strict communism where the government owns the things that allows businesses to run you need capital to buy materials and perform research before you can sell products.
If you can't buy and you can't sell, you don't have any modern conception of a market.
[1]: It can also mean to charge exorbitant interest
> Usury in a basic definition means lending money with interest, and the collection of that interest. [1]
Good. This is fine.
So we strike various other non-sequitors from your original reply:
> Not even attempts at communism have survived removing dynamic markets.
Free markets, profit making, private property, incorporation for making profit (by providing goods and services) are all entirely orthogonal to the very specific 'debt instrument' of "lending money at interest". Even the broad concept of 'debt' itself is not limited to a specialized form of debt that involves usury.
The solution space of financilizing an economic system is not limited to interest bearing debt instruments. And to insist that any alternative is "communism" does not bear scrutiny.
> Historically, even societies that disallowed usary still needed financiers - they would just hunt them down and kill them when it came time to pay the piper.
I assume you refer to the stormy relations between medieval European kings and their bankers. A gentle reminder that European history is not the entirety of human history. (Just as an aside, who besides the Templars got killed over defaulted debt?)
You mentioned "markets" also known as "bazaars". Did you know that while European kings were allegedly killing their bankers there was an entire thriving civilization next door that disallowed interest bearing debt instruments?
There have been suggestions that usury was instrumental in the social dislocation that significantly contributed to the collapse of food supplies in Mesopotamia. (I can't find the link atm). Regardless, it is an intriguing fact that the 3 Semitic religions that arose in succession in the same "cradle of civilization" after the demise of Mesopotamia and neighboring bronze age civilizations -- that is Judaism, Christianity, and Islam -- all felt it necessary to put the injunction against usury in the proverbial mouth of God in primary scripture. Rather curious, don't you think?
http://SmartestMan.Ca/bankmath explains that interest is not usury when paid at the beginning of the contract, only usury when collection is attempted at the end. If you borrow 100 and at the end, owe 110, you can't pay it back. that creates a mort-gage death-gamble where not all can pay. If you borrow 100, pay the interest right away, you owe 100 and have 90 and the banker has 10 with which to buy your products and let you pay the bank back. Musical chairs with money only happens when you leave the interest to turn into usury at the end of the game.
```
We need not assume that interest rates were "economic" in the sense of being within the ability of most cultivators to pay. Abject need was the motive for agrarian debt. A key financial dynamic of ancient civilizations was precisely the problem of debt arrears (including unpaid tax collections) mounting up beyond the ability of many borrowers to pay. This is what led to the royal amargi, andurarum and misharum "Clean Slate" proclamations of Mesopotamia during 2400-1700 BC, cancelling agrarian debts (but not commercial obliga- tions, that is, the placement of money with tamkaru-merchantsto finance their trade ventures).
```
(Sorry for the long quote)
It then goes on to list the common interest rates of borrowing money for various markets which includes a listing for Mesopotamia. Just because they engaged in debt cancellation doesn't mean they didn't practice usury - quite the opposite, indicates they practiced it quite a bit.
Practically, the anthropological origins of usury prohibitions have very little to do with non-usury markets. Even those groups which you listed practice usury - they simply put those who practice it into secondary (or lower) social groups.
The reference to communism attempts isn't a non-sequitor since depending on the particulars of their brand of communism they either want to limit usury to only a national/popular entity or get rid of it entirely. When discussing non-usury based markets they are basically the closest modern examples we have - and it's worth noting the only surviving self-labeled communist country with a functioning economy is China, who allows usury!
> Just because they engaged in debt cancellation doesn't mean they didn't practice usury - quite the opposite, indicates they practiced it quite a bit.
Well that is the whole point! Mesopotamia invented usury, among other long standing contributions, including the Zodiac, and various mod 60 constructs. And that amazing civilization totally collapsed.
Btw, Debt cancellation ("jubiliee") is the cause celebre of the economist I cited in my OP. If you are interested in the topic, Michael Hudson is your man.
> Practically, the anthropological origins of usury prohibitions have very little to do with non-usury markets. Even those groups which you listed practice usury - they simply put those who practice it into secondary (or lower) social groups.
This is a fair point and one never underestimates the hypocrisy of mankind. That said, the point remains that it is interesting that something in the collective memory of the region zeroed in on usury as a "sin".
> The reference to communism attempts isn't a non-sequitor since depending on the particulars of their brand of communism they either want to limit usury to only a national/popular entity or get rid of it entirely.
As CCP has demonstrated, Communism is apparently an extremely plastic concept. /g My objection to your OP was and remains this: removing usury from the political-economy regime does not mean "communism".
> it's worth noting the only surviving self-labeled communist country with a functioning economy is China, who allows usury!
I don't know about you my fellow human, but I place very little value in the pronouncement of highly placed individuals, protected by their police states, regarding their ideals and aspirations.
- The economy is an ecology.
- A company is an organism.
- Rentiers are carcinogens.
It would be interesting to know if there have been models of economies that disallow usury and rent seekers. I know Michael Hudson has made the distinction between industrial and rentier capitalism [1], and there is also CASSE [2] (but that seems to be aligned with the "too many people" ideological line), but I am not aware of any contemporary writing on the nature and dynamics of economies that disallow usury and rent seeking in principle.
[1]: https://michael-hudson.com/2021/01/the-rentier-resurgence-an...
[2]: https://steadystate.org/