>>699095
Usury is just bad business. There's no reason to need a guaranteed profit on a loan unless you expect that the business funded by the loan will fail. Investment is licit for this reason, you're buying a real stake in something that you presumably think will succeed, if it goes down then you bear the responsibility. If you don't think it will succeed, you shouldn't be investing in it.
There may be some cases where usurious loans resulted in the funding of something worthwhile which otherwise couldn't have been bankrolled, but this is more than counterbalanced by the immense amount of guaranteed loans which are just designed to knowingly profit off of the shortsightedness of irresponsible people. So much of the economic system being based on an incredible amount of debt which which will inevitably be defaulted upon being treated as a bank's assets is a recipe for the plentiful economic disasters we've had throughout the last century.
Usury could have as easily set us back decades as quickened economic growth or technological progress, to pretend to know for certain either way is just conjecture. What isn't conjecture is the great mass of wealth accumulation in the hands of (((you know who))) and the attendant mass of human suffering which is the result of usury.
>>699321
Investment, that is buying stake in something which may or may not return a profit, is not a sin. All loans for consumption (like how money is "consumed" through being spent) whose sum is personally guaranteed plus interest, is usury and thus morally illicit. The only licit loans for consumption are those given out of a sense of charity, no profit can licitly be made through them. look up zippy catholic's usury faq if you want to know more.