| I don't think you can defend this statement. That entrepreneur can go to the money owner and sell stock. No borrowing, or interest, is necessary in that regard.
That the entrepreneur can go to the money owner is easy to say. What happens when the entrepreneur actually tries to do it? Does he go door-to-door, looking for someone with extra money to lend? Is there something like a union hall, where money owners hang out looking for borrowers? Does he put an ad in the paper, "Money Wanted"? Do people who have lots of money want to sit around all day playing Loan Officer, a job that pays around $120K? A market economy solves this problem of matching borrowers and lenders with brokers, people who do open up offices and who do sit around all day waiting for borrowers and lenders to come in. It's called specialization of labor. There are cost savings in it for both borrowers and lenders, which is why such entities are created, and why they stay in existence. One popular English word for an office that brokers loans -- that takes money from lenders under contract, and loans it out to others after checking out their credit worthiness -- is bank. There are also stock brokers and bond brokers and venture capitalists and so on, and even places that will loan you money against your next paycheck at mafia-grade interest rates. But those are just even-more-specialized forms of loan brokers. And yes, some people have rich relatives that they can tap when they want to open a Jiffy Lube franchise. But for the vast majority of people, banks are a very convenient form of money brokerage. They eliminate tons of hassle that would otherwise soak up everybody's time if we all had to guess who might be paying interest today, or who might have money to lend. One of the things the kookburger sites never talk about is "what happens after we smash the banks?" Other than the fact that we'll be free, and the birds will sing, and rainbows will appear. Where will people go to get car loans? Will a guy with no money, but lots on the ball, be able to get a small business loan and take his shot at becoming financially independent? How will that happen once the rainbows appear and all the elite people who used to work in banks have gotten jobs at Wal-Mart instead? What you'll hear is bunch of noise about "free market solutions" and "marketplaces." But poke at them long enough, insisting on details, and out will come something that they'll never call a bank, but which in fact is a bank. It will be a place where borrowers and lenders meet to strike deals. You listen to this for about five minutes, and you realize that sensible people are not really going to take a day off from work to go down to some Borrowing Hall in hopes of meeting someone who wants to borrow their $300 bonus. Very quickly, some guy is going to set up a card table in front of the place and offer to do the hanging-around for free; he'll get his cut from the borrowers. This is how A.P. Giannini founded Bank of America amongst the ruins of the San Francisco earthquake. So no sooner will the kookburgers smash the banks like an earthquake, then somebody else will start a bank. Because people want them. |
Your characterization of selling stock makes it sound like the money owner is making a gift by investing in a company. "No interest" does not mean that the money owner expects no return. People who invest in start-ups are looking for very high rates of return, because they are taking a huge risk. If you are an entrpreneur and you take in that kind of money, you'd better look in a couple of years like you've got something that is either going to go public or be acquired at twenty to fifty times what the seed investors put in. Otherwise you are going to be an unemployed ex-entrepreneur. I'm told that the number of former CEOs who are taking programming jobs in Silicon Valley has never been higher.