We bought a business with SBA loan at 1.5x EBITDA. Most SMBs sell for 3x. Thousands of people buy businesses a year with SBA and 2% default. Blaming Robert Kiyosaki for this irrelevant and misses the point. Regardless if your pro/anti debt.
The blame was a bit tongue in cheek, at least for me. This guy obviously had bigger problems than reading a bad financial advice book. But Kiyosaki is terrible advice for anyone looking to improve their financial situation, for many reasons I won't bother with here.
Sorry Knowland, but I’m going to side with Benedict XIV here…
Who says: “One cannot condone the sin of usury by arguing that the gain is not great or excessive, but rather moderate or small; neither can it be condoned by arguing that the borrower is rich; nor even by arguing that the money borrowed is not left idle, but is spent usefully, either to increase one’s fortune, to purchase new estates, or to engage in business transactions.”
And I’ll leave you with this quote by Pope Clement V…
Who says: “Anyone who argues that interest isn’t sinful is a heretic”.
As I say, the above article is good - and may challenge your viewpoint.
There are countless other sources from Church fathers, councils, theologians, saints, and popes, that stand in opposition to your argument. Some of which are included in the article.
Ultimately, what you prefer doesn't matter. What matters is what the Church actually teaches, which is that interest is permitted.
Usury has never been defined as merely the taking of any interest at all. Historically, it's been defined as the practice of charging excessively high interest rates that exploit the needy.
I could not find the word usury in the catechism itself, which surprised me. There is a lot of discussion about unjust practices, but no categorical prohibition on usury. Hence, there is some level which is deemed unacceptable, but not all interest loans whatsoever.
It depends which catechism you’re using… the Catechism of the Council of Trent (the Roman Catechism) contains teaching on usury on page 272 (Part III - the seventh commandment). In short: all interest is usury.
This person’s first mistake was reading ‘Rich Dad Poor Dad’. Kiyosaki’s advice about getting into as much debt as possible is terrible 🤦🏻♂️
The principle isn't invalid: so many billionaires are in massive debt.
Glad I'm not the only one who noticed that! Guy's a con artist who's given some very bad and sometimes illegal (tax) advice.
That's your take away from this article?
We bought a business with SBA loan at 1.5x EBITDA. Most SMBs sell for 3x. Thousands of people buy businesses a year with SBA and 2% default. Blaming Robert Kiyosaki for this irrelevant and misses the point. Regardless if your pro/anti debt.
The blame was a bit tongue in cheek, at least for me. This guy obviously had bigger problems than reading a bad financial advice book. But Kiyosaki is terrible advice for anyone looking to improve their financial situation, for many reasons I won't bother with here.
I mostly appreciate his distinction between liabilities and assets, also his distinction about the stock market versus real estate.
Sorry Knowland, but I’m going to side with Benedict XIV here…
Who says: “One cannot condone the sin of usury by arguing that the gain is not great or excessive, but rather moderate or small; neither can it be condoned by arguing that the borrower is rich; nor even by arguing that the money borrowed is not left idle, but is spent usefully, either to increase one’s fortune, to purchase new estates, or to engage in business transactions.”
And I’ll leave you with this quote by Pope Clement V…
Who says: “Anyone who argues that interest isn’t sinful is a heretic”.
I'm not sure why you think those non-binding opinions are relevant at all.
The simple fact is that the Church allows interest.
This is very easy for anyone to confirm.
The personal opinions of people in the past aren't relevant. For example, St. Augustine said having sex with one's pregnant wife is illicit.
But the Church doesn't teach that.
As I say, the above article is good - and may challenge your viewpoint.
There are countless other sources from Church fathers, councils, theologians, saints, and popes, that stand in opposition to your argument. Some of which are included in the article.
All that matters is what the Church officially teaches, which is that charging interest is permissible and not usury.
You can look this up easily for yourself in the Catholic Encyclopedia and the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church.
In the 1917 code of canon law I believe, yes. I prefer traditional teaching on usury. Here’s a good article:
https://poorwithus.com/2019/06/25/usury-and-the-church/
Ultimately, what you prefer doesn't matter. What matters is what the Church actually teaches, which is that interest is permitted.
Usury has never been defined as merely the taking of any interest at all. Historically, it's been defined as the practice of charging excessively high interest rates that exploit the needy.
Have you read E Michael Jones's book, Barren Metal? Excellent work which covers usury, the way you explained.
Debt usually bares interest. Debt with interest is usury. And the Church’s teachings on usury are quite clear.
No, the Church allows interest.
I could not find the word usury in the catechism itself, which surprised me. There is a lot of discussion about unjust practices, but no categorical prohibition on usury. Hence, there is some level which is deemed unacceptable, but not all interest loans whatsoever.
It depends which catechism you’re using… the Catechism of the Council of Trent (the Roman Catechism) contains teaching on usury on page 272 (Part III - the seventh commandment). In short: all interest is usury.
No, that isn't what the Church teaches. Anyone can look this up in seconds in numerous places.
I'd have to see it; that isn't at all what I've heard or read elsewhere.