
-------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous (ID: wYDjmqec)  05/11/23(Thu)17:12:30 No.426635245▶
>>426626875 (OP)
Retards don't understand usury when they don't understand how medieval society worked.

In a village there was a social expectation of - get this - that villagers who had a worse harvest this year would get helped by the ones who had a decent one, if it wasn't systemic, since there was a decent element of random chance involved. This would obviously not apply to lazy bums and the like.

But in comes the usurer who says that instead of helping each other, he's going to give gold to one villager so he can BUY the grain from the other villager that year. Then the next year, the other villager has a bad harvest (again, not a famine situation, just rainfall patterns and the like affecting patches of land), and the usurous jew gives him as much money so he can buy from the other villager.

At the end he demands payment from both, more than they asked from each other in payment. "Oy vey, the money did work too goyim". He has replaced the original system of christians helping each other over natural disasters with a system where, doing exactly ZERO extra work and changing NOTHING about how the flow of goods went, merely the context of them, the jew has landed himself some coins and a lynching from the now angry peasants who understand they've been duped.

In a modern context usury can at least be argued with arguments of (((financial services))) and the like, but in a medieval context for the average person usury would bring nothing but another freeloader over a system that did not need them
-------------------------------------------------------------

