Proverbs 22:7

Post Reply New Topic

"The rich rule over the poor, and the borrower is slave to the lender."

In one commentary it made it sound like this is the way it ought to be, however the verse says nothing about whether it should or shouldn't be but rather that this just was simply the case (and indeed, at least I perceive so, it still is the case). People who are loaned money are thereby indebted to those who loan and are therefore at the lender's mercy more or less. Discuss.

Are you against all borrowing? A market economy requires a certain amount of lending and borrowing to grow.

ruveyn

If the Bible says that the rich rule over the poor and the borrower is the slave of the lender, then that is the way God wants the world to work.

[quote="pandabear"]If the Bible says that the rich rule over the poor and the borrower is the slave of the lender, then that is the way God wants the world to work.[/quote

A borrower might be a future producer and thereby a future lender. We borrow, we use the money well, we pay it back and we prosper. Without borrowing hardly anyone would be able to own a house. Then we would have a new biblical verse: The Landlord shall rule over the Tenant.

ruveyn

Not all borrowing, but when it is borrowing money which one has no certainty of being able to pay back - that is what I personally would be against.

more like how king james and his ilk wanted it.

Any kind of borrowing carries a risk. Some borrowing is less risky than other borrowings. A lender knows (or should) know the risk he is taking when he lends money.

ruveyn

The risks of borrowing and the risks of lending are not the same, recourse for each party is also different, and the two -- borrowing and lending -- have just become confused.

Here is where this discussion began:

"The rich rule over the poor, and the borrower is slave to the lender."

Just a few years ago, my wife and I entered into a mortgage or "death grip" that anyone, including us, could see we would never be able to live and work for long enough to ultimately repay. The loan was one of those sub-prime, high-interest ones written just under a decade ago. At the time, I only entered into that arrangement because my sons-in-law and I had a plan for either or both of them to eventually take it over ... but that never came to pass. So, and when unable to pay after just a few years, my wife and I just "walked away".

That proverb stands as a warning to borrowers: "The rich rule over the poor, and the borrower is slave to the lender." Our lender could not have possibly not known the distinct possibility of our eventual defaulting on the loan, but that lender also knew its recourse could/would easily overwhelm our own.

A lot of lenders are just greedy.
A lot of borrowers will take money and don't give a rats ass about giving it back.

Shakespeare vs. God

Polonius:
Neither a borrower nor a lender be,
For loan oft loses both itself and friend,
And borrowing dulls the edge of husbandry.

Good advice from a father to a son, I would say.

But bad economic advice. With an approach such as that of Polonius we would never have had a vibrant industrial/technological society.

ruveyn

Yes, the very "industrial revolution" that first took husbands/fathers and then even wives/mothers out of homes. So, Polonius was definitely correct:

It would appear that one has a choice between sharp-edged husbandry and a vibrant industry.

I think that I'll take the sharp-edged husbandry, so as to avoid slavery.

I prefer vibrant industry. It promotes health and prosperity.

People who live frugally and neither borrow nor lend will eat nuts and berries all their lives.

ruveyn

Well, according to the Bible, the USA is now China's slave.

And, who has the more "vibrant industry?"

Why do I get the feeling that this proverb is being taken out of context?

Because it was written thousands of years ago, and you feel that it is no longer applicable.