Lending money by rates or simply the usury (part 02) : a different perspective

   When many economist admit the practical working of usury in monetary system now, and they justify that implementation by reason of the missed opportunities, today; many others are bearing the idea of cancelling the usury from all commercial contracts and lending policies, including practical Christians and Muslims who consider that as a violation of God’s legislation, in case of the big gap between the rich people who become richer, and the poor who became poorer too with time when many people can’t pay their interests regardless to the origin debt and its services which denotes a new crisis in the road. And the authorities prefer to escape forward in hoping to get results, but they don’t know how much they waste from time and from other hidden and fruitful experiences until now, or maybe deliberately isolated, but they agree also that these economic benefits of usury, “make enormous problem from ethical and philosophical aspects”.

    The Islamic banks provide several ways to invest in money avoiding the usury transactions, the first experiences in this way were unilateral tries since the forties of last century until seventies in Dubai. Then these experiences are expended in many countries when the UK integrated these transactions as a part among their financial systems to collecting more and bringing an important amount quantity from Muslim community in there.

    There are 7 or 8 faces of financial products in Islamic banking, and I’ll mention here the most important of them like:  “al-murabah” (win-win) or “al-musharakah” (contribution in the capital, and whether in benefit or losses), direct or indirect investments. Besides; some other procedures and mechanisms (which we can explain all of them in one article or two) to insure the legal transactions between people, organizations or banks.

    From their benefits on global economy, these rules decrease the inflation rates, because the money is used just in legal investments, and not to make a large expenditure without production increases the volume of cash without exchanging for foods or services. And we get a monetary inflation in fact. The Islamic perspective is based on the principle of lending money without zero interests but with a deadline of course. But in case of “procrastination” and delay in payment of debts, what should we do if someone exceeds that deadline?

Regardless to the sinfulness toward the god (the reason which push the majority of people to rushing in payment); the logical sanctions are the imprisonment, inhibition him from the licit advantages for whole people, prevention from the financial facilities in his transactions and the reputation of - person/organization/company- in business generally.

    And from practical solutions we can cite: the collaboration between banks and financial institutions against those who delayed intentionally to pay off their debts to adding them into the blacklist.  Or like it is going now by holding on some of his properties to the bank or the entering of bank by a certain portion with the debtor in his realties.

The income inequality and its effects

    Statistics: The richest 1 percent of the world's population has access to nearly 14 percent of global income, while 20 percent of the poorest people are getting on the 1 percent only.

   The main economic challenge in our century is to decrease the immense gap in the incomes between people in the same country, and insure the most possible of transparency in the redistribution of wealth. All the disposable ways and procedures for achieving that goal are working within partial efficiency, which means that the inequality of income is a big problem in every country not only in the economic aspect; but also social and ethical sides in society as well. In many economies, the fiscal policy is used to maintain the financial system for supporting the economic efficiency (e.g: to reduce the tax evasion or cutting unproductive expenditures), then to spend these revenues more equitably.

   “Many policy makers view a more equal income distribution as a desirable goal, although the underlying motivations may differ. Lower income inequality is often viewed as important for achieving greater equality of opportunities to access economic, social, and political resources.”

   A lot of economists say that this inequality is useful for the economic growth, but today they believe by the contrast of that. Because of many social and ethical advantages coming by reducing the inequality affect positively on the economy. And the most used measure (to show what happen in fiscal policy and to measure its trend in every country) is GINI coefficient (from 0 “absolute equality” to 1 “complete inequality”). “The failure to redistribute income may also reflect a political reality, but it can be limited through more of conscious government policies.”

   Disposable Solutions: Fiscal policy has played a significant role in reducing income inequality in advanced economies, especially in economies with high initial pre-tax and transfer inequality.

   The government’s fiscal policies were a logical reaction to reduce the income inequality over time, especially in the advanced economies through direct taxes (like the income taxes) and indirect (like the expenditure on the education and healthcare or public pensions) to reach a positive points in contributing of growth of economy. And the studies viewed that many countries achieved a substantive progress in decreasing the inequality, but these policies weren’t efficient enough in longer-term.

   “Some economists said that the pursuing the equality can reduce the efficiency and the incentive to work and incest.” Furthermore; “the poor will not receive all the money that is taken from the rich.”

    I copy the same example I found in interesting article about this matter, when the tide is rising, it lifts all boats and helps whether the big and small boats in the port. Where the focusing is only on the small boats can lead to indirect help for all equally. In other way; the government subsidy (financial support) must be oriented to serve the fragile classes in society by projection on them in assigned methods guarantee the proper channel until the targeted people.

   “Still, there may be some win-win policies, such as better-targeted subsidies, better access to education for the poor that improves equality of economic opportunity, and active labour market measures that promote employment.”

Other victims in the societies (part 01)

   the lifestyles are the accumulation of habits and doings during many generations, and now we see many things in our lives so important to continue this life, maybe some among them are necessary really, but the problem is when the human becomes like a machine in the daily life, thinks only how to do that, how can i get this or that, ...etc. It's the nature of human to think, develop and enhance, but a lot of thoughts are wrong when we consider them obligatory to live (priority than other things).

   We got in this life many stumbles to limit our vision to horizons, maybe they came from close people, from the general direction in the country (through stupid policies of half-leaders maybe...etc). and the people who are victims to these situation, and we can find them in every country, why they look like victims, because they’re skilled people, educated, young (and you can imagine the power of youth age) all these advantages, but they haven’t anything in life, and don’t get any half opportunity to achieve something, and the wise among them feel that they’re burden on their families, their friends, their societies. They suffer from these situations, then another failure, and maybe third, fourth, ..etc, in different sides in life. In the midst of these conditions, their failures in fact, maybe small, negligible or a little immense but they still failures until now, right, and this is the problem.

   The different events start to accumulate, and in your mind also you start be convinced it's a true crisis, because you still haven't meet any positive thing for few days or weeks (in your mind you think that, because you just see in this way now).

   When these people met a failure for some certain reasons, they thought that the problem is in them, it’s true relatively in somehow but not absolutely, because of many factors are playing in the events and they can interfere in them. “I saw in one document some people who quit the life of today, and preferred the free life in the forest without any exaggerated confines made of the lifestyles in society today, only because they felt by the hypocrisy in the society and it isn’t appropriate to live. They don’t believe it. and remember! You’ll lose the taste of the life if you haven’t any purpose and you don’t do anything in that way to achieve something.

   As we said in the previous articles, that many people suffer in this world, not because they haven’t chance to work something or to give an addition, or they can’t be productive, although they’re ready and eligible to give an additional value, but the problem is in their environment where they couldn’t get an interesting progress because the opportunities are null.

   Another view on the topic; a lot of people are qualified and skilled in their jobs, but they’re fired because they didn’t like the oppression and they wanted to apply in reality their rights. They thought it's easy to do, but in the end; they look like guilty people because they didn’t prefer to keep the silence on unjust matters, because they though really that the government can guarantee their rights and they talked in absolute democracy when they ask their needs and rights, whereas they become disappointed unfortunately and chocked from that.

    Not only that; but they can’t even find a new job in reason of “you threaten the standing of our company, you probably put a crucial case in our company or bring a menace” I saw a report about some people in this situation who feel destroyed and they can’t succeed to have a new job ‘they’re not accepted” when they apply to do. Is it fair enough? I don’t think so it’s a disaster in our century, this 21^st century.

The rights & confines:

  The liberty represents a philosophical problem, where philosophers divided between 2 ways, who says it’s absolute for the human, and in contrast who sees it’s limited in confines. And every one among them has his arguments to confirm his opinion. We don’t want to broaden in this matter through the philosophical aspect because of the aim here is to light the way and give a general idea about “ the freedom of expression”, in the time where it becomes one of top issues in world today, with several faces and aspects.

  A lot of slogans are on, in the name of human rights (generally), or women rights, minorities …etc, which proving that the world in confused between many opinions because of “ambiguity in definitions “, and in this way the concept changes from person to another. And that also brings the diversity in positions and reactions too.

  If we say that the human being has the right to do everything he want, so that’s an arguments of individual liberty, and democratic life in society, if we can say that, so is it possible to justify the abuse of somebody to others as a freedom in conducts ? Furthermore; if I choose driving in highway but in the opposite direction, or acclaim in street with rude speaking and ugly words, only because i want to do that, is it logical??!!! I think this doing couldn’t be expected only when the person is fugitive or mad. And this blindly acting and it isn’t a real right from human rights.

 We give another example; when you hear on TV,  and you receive daily letters mocking from you, because they don’t like your orientations, or what are precious for you, aren’t the same for them. Can we call that as a freedom of speech too?? !!!

Every person, part, or nation, …etc, has a set of sanctities and symbols, which mean models for them in whole life. Is it logical to accuse these symbols and abuse them because they aren’t valuable to me? I think it’s not, or there is another incitation to this stupid doing ..maybe?

 We can’t imagine the democratic reality which considers the freedom of expression, without control and define the concept of this kind of liberties and define that in every domain, so what do we mean by the freedom of expression?

   Maybe somebody says: it means to say (everything I want) about every matter even if the saying includes an abuse to others, other replies: when they accuse me, I couldn’t stay silent, and here we’ll have a mess, a conflict. The act which looks like a liberty in first opinion, this second sees it as an abuse. And that means: if the opinion is mocking and not building, surely it’s a provocation like what it’s happening in policies or gov criticism.

   But to override by your opinion to accuse sacral rites of other communities with no reason, so nobody agrees to you where it is not your business to judge them if they’re right or wrong, whatever in their reflection or religion. And the precise definition which we can give it to “the freedom of expression” is: the liberty of individual (or organizations or authorities) in opinion through his doing or saying stops where it is the end of freedom of others, and no right to override that or abuse them, because they all have the right in their own doings and beliefs, if they don’t touch the beliefs of others communities too. That’s what I meant by the second example (about TV’s ridiculing), when we see many means of media do that to insult communities or nations. In order that shouldn’t be a target to provoke them under the name of freedom.

   In this way we reach the imperative truth:

The freedom of individual “of sound mind” in his opinion, undergoes to confines dictated by his mind, (just to prevent him from assaulting others), without causing any damage or loss of his rights. This concept can be applied to institutions and organizations in the same time.