This article was co-written by a student in my Wrecking Ball Writing Course. I give students the opportunity to write an article for publishing for taking the course. This gentleman is a professional economist and professor of economics. And I thought he did a great job.
It’s hard, if not impossible, for someone in their forties, fifties, and beyond to comprehend the daunting challenges of young Americans, unless they have kids living through it. The median existing home now sells for about 435k dollars. With thirty-year mortgages hovering in the mid sixes, the typical household would have to throw almost half its income at the payment on a median-priced home. The old thirty percent rule has been ground into dust.
Imagine being told to “just save a down payment” while you bleed rent. First-time buyers’ typical down payment last year was about nine percent, which on a median home is nearly 40k before closing costs, inspections, and the moving truck. Meanwhile the average rent sits around $2100 a month, so the very roof over your head siphons away the money you’re supposed to save to stop renting. The treadmill isn’t a metaphor. It’s the business model.
By comparison, our newlywed home in 2003, a medium-sized two bedroom home, rented out at $225 a month. Utilities were literally more than the home itself. The landlord offered to sell it to us for 25k. It’s hard to imagine what we did all of our pay-check back then. Goodness knows it wasn’t the car payment, which was only $195 a month for a barely-used, late model car.
Prices aren’t just high. Entry is booby-trapped. A median-income family would need something like a $17k raise to afford the “typical” home on median wages. In many markets you now need a six-figure income just to clear the bar for a median house. That isn’t avocado toast. That’s arithmetic that’s been weaponized
.The monthly squeeze doesn’t stop at the front door. The average new car price is now near 48k dollars. Even the used car is a $521 a month, and with nearly 12% interest. Pair that payment with rent and watch your down-payment fund evaporate in real time. Lenders know this. They price it in. They sell you longer loans, higher rates, and “protection plans,” and then call it mobility.
Wages limp while costs sprint. Sure, some charts show a quarter where pay nudged past inflation, but the affordability math for first-time buyers is still a slaughterhouse. Mortgage rates parked above 6% keep the gate locked even when list prices flatten. The result is the same. You work. The house wins.
And there are new players at the auction. Investors now scoop up roughly one in six homes that sell, turning starter houses into permanent rentals. They bid in cash, rehab by spreadsheet, and rent back to the very generation they outbid. You aren’t competing with a couple down the block. You’re competing with a portfolio of an investment house in some far away city.
Layer on student loans that average around 39k per borrower and you’ve got a collar you can feel every payday. And before you talk about how they should’ve opted out, consider that high school graduates have been inundated with 13 years of brainwashing assuring them if they don’t go to college they’re a loser, and letting down their family, their teachers, and their community. Miss a step and the algorithm nudges you into buy-now-pay-later for groceries, furniture, and even pizza. Tens of millions use BNPL, many make late payments, and plenty rely on it to bridge basic expenses. Credit has become oxygen, and the house controls the air.
So what is cheap? The only bargains are the things that keep you quiet. Imported trinkets made by people who took your job, and entertainment to numb you to the math. Fidget spinners, flatscreens, and streaming bundles are affordable anesthetics. Land, walls, a deed with your name on it, the table where your children will pray and grow, those are priced like forbidden fruit. The message is simple. Don’t own. Subscribe.
From eighteen onward the system grooms you for payments. First the tuition bill, then the car note, then the rent increase, then the installment plan for everything else. The gatekeepers smile and call it access. The apps reward you for borrowing. The underwriting boxes move just out of reach. And when you finally ask how anyone is supposed to start a household under this, the answer comes back like a script. Work harder. Stop buying coffee. Wait your turn. The predators prefer you docile, renting, and grateful for the chance to finance a mattress.
Call it what it is. A generation has been sorted into a permanent client class whose cash flow feeds lenders every month and whose dreams arrive on twenty four equal payments. If you can’t ever plant roots, you can’t build households. If you can’t build households, you can’t build churches, neighborhoods, or a nation your children will inherit. That’s the point. Debt cattle don’t fence the pasture. They graze where they’re told.
BIBLICAL FOUNDATIONS: WHAT USURY MEANT AND WHY IT WAS BANNED
In Scripture, usury does not only mean outrageous interest. In Israel’s law it commonly meant any interest taken on a loan to a fellow Israelite, especially when the borrower was poor. The Hebrew words for interest carry the sense of a bite. That image matters. In an agrarian world most loans were not speculative investments. They were survival loans after a failed harvest, sickness, or loss of livestock. Interest on that kind of borrowing does not reward productive risk, it takes a bite out of a wound. Israel’s economy was therefore shaped to prevent debt from becoming a trap.
Land was allotted by clan and meant to remain within families. Gleaning laws told farmers to leave margins for the poor. Sabbath years released debts, and Jubilee returned alienated land. Within that covenant community, charging interest on need was forbidden, while charging outsiders was permitted. The aim was to build a people of neighbors rather than a market of clients.
Wisdom literature and the prophets reinforced the same moral picture by praising the person who lends freely to the needy and by condemning those who profit from distress. In the New Testament, the call to love enemies and lend without demanding back presses the same principle into the heart of Christian ethics. The point was not to paralyze trade. The point was to protect households from becoming permanent revenue streams for their rescuers.
HOW THE EARLY CHURCH AND MEDIEVAL CHRISTENDOM ENFORCED IT
The early church treated usury as a direct violation of neighbor love. The Fathers spoke with unusual unanimity. Basil of Caesarea called interest-taking a war on the poor. John Chrysostom ridiculed the fiction that money breeds by itself. Ambrose warned that usurers try to sell time, which belongs to God. Augustine folded the practice into his wider attack on greed. Preaching became policy. The Council of Elvira around 305 barred clergy who lent at interest. The Council of Arles in 314 repeated the ban. The First Council of Nicaea in 325 condemned clerical usury again, grounding it in the pastoral duty to feed the flock rather than feed on it. Eastern canons, later gathered at the Quinisext Council in the late seventh century, penalized both clergy and, in some places, laymen who profiteered from loans.
By the high Middle Ages the prohibition had hardened into a comprehensive legal and moral regime. The Third Lateran Council in 1179 declared notorious usurers unworthy of the sacraments and Christian burial unless they repented and made restitution. The Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 reinforced enforcement across Christendom. In 1311 the Council of Vienne condemned as heresy the claim that usury is not sinful. That is a remarkable data point. To deny the sinfulness of usury was to deny the fabric of Christian social teaching as the church then understood it.
Civil law followed suit. City statutes in places like London, Paris, and many Italian communes capped or prohibited interest among citizens. Royal ordinances voided usurious contracts, stripped offenders of standing, or confiscated property for alms. Enforcement was not only punitive. Christians also built institutions to make merciful credit possible. Beginning in the fifteenth century, Franciscans founded monti di pietà, public pledge banks that offered small loans at minimal cost against collateral so that poor families would not have to choose between hunger and a usurer. Parishes kept grain stores and alms chests. Guilds maintained mutual aid funds. All of this formed a social ecosystem designed to keep emergency credit from becoming long captivity.
WHY JEWISH MONEYLENDING GREW UNDER CHRISTIAN BANS
Medieval Europe still needed credit for trade, building projects, and royal wars. Christians were restricted by canon law from taking interest in most ordinary lending. At the same time, many realms barred Jews from landholding, craft guilds, and numerous offices. Halakhah forbids charging interest to fellow Jews while permitting interest to Gentiles. Those legal and social facts together pushed many Jewish communities into moneylending for the Christian majority.
Princes often extended protection because they relied on Jewish financiers for fiscal needs, then taxed them heavily and sometimes scapegoated them when politics soured. But all in all, in placed the bulk of European wealth in the hands of Jews, something that would come in pivotally important during the Zionist movement, with Jewish families like the Rothschilds being wealthier than some European nations. It’s hard to overstate the power and significance of Jewish lending during the era from the 1200s in Europe all the way up through 1948 and the establishment of Israel.
Despite being less than 1% of European population, it’s estimated that Jews controlled more than 70% of all banking. The wealth was (and still is) staggering. You might remember that the next time you see commercials begging impoverished Bible belt Christians in Appalachia to give their money to send impoverished Jews on a trip to the Holy Land. It’s the world’s richest 1% asking for sight-seeing money; not because poor Jews don’t exist, but because the cause could easily be funded by the world’s rich Jewish elite that to this day command an incredible sum of the world’s total wealth.
The pattern fueled resentment and periodic expulsions in Europe. None of this meant that the church blessed usury. Rather, it shows how the credit function found a path even when the dominant culture resisted it. Where the church could, it tried to restrain abuses by law and to replace predatory credit with charitable institutions. Where rulers prized revenue more than moral order, the ban eroded at the edges.
REFORMATION, MODERN ADJUSTMENTS, AND THE NARROWING OF THE BAN
The Reformation did not abolish the Christian suspicion of interest. It narrowed and clarified it. John Calvin famously permitted moderate interest in genuine commercial activity, provided several moral guardrails held firm. Do not lend at interest to the poor. Do not charge rates that exploit ignorance or distress. Do not let interest become an excuse for idleness. Do not allow lenders to shift all risk to borrowers, and so on.
The point was to distinguish productive finance from parasitic finance. Lutherans and Reformed magistrates commonly kept strict rate caps and punished sharp practice. In England the 1545 statute under Henry VIII allowed interest up to ten percent, repealed under Mary, then restored in 1571. Over the next century Parliament ratcheted the legal maximum downward, to eight percent, then six, then five. Early America inherited similar usury statutes at the colony and state level. Long after sophisticated instruments like bills of exchange evolved to move capital without nominal interest, Christian jurisdictions still sought to police the line between fair compensation and extraction.
The Catholic Church maintained the medieval principle while accommodating new realities. Papal teaching in the eighteenth century, most notably Benedict XIV’s encyclical on usury, condemned the core of usury as an unjust claim to profit without a just title, while recognizing so-called extrinsic titles that could justify payment. These included genuine risk, provable loss from delayed repayment, and reasonable administrative costs. In the nineteenth century, as deposit banking and public debt markets became common, authoritative moralists allowed receiving ordinary bank interest on deposits and bonds, not because money suddenly became fertile, but because the contracts now bundled legitimate titles like risk, service, and opportunity cost. The ban on exploiting the needy remained intact as a matter of doctrine and discipline.
By the twentieth century most Western legal systems had either repealed general usury prohibitions or replaced them with disclosure rules and consumer protection caps. States in the United States still keep usury ceilings, but high-cost carve-outs, fees, and new products often circumvent the spirit of those laws. Within Christian ethics, the once blanket condemnation narrowed to a twofold test. First, is the loan tied to real enterprise with shared risk and reasonable return. Second, is the borrower vulnerable in a way that turns interest into a fee on desperation. Where the first is true and the second is false, many Christians now accept interest. Where the first is false or the second is true, the old word usury still names the sin.
WHAT CHANGED, WHAT DID NOT, AND WHY GOD’S DESIGN STILL FITS
What changed across the centuries was not the moral judgment that profiting from distress is evil. What changed was the economic landscape and the sophistication of contracts that could legitimately compensate for risk, loss, and service. The church learned to bless instruments that helped enterprise without biting the weak. It also learned that anytime the bite returned under a new brand, social ruin followed as surely as before.
Medieval enforcement looks severe to modern eyes, yet it grew out of a clear memory of what unrestrained interest does. It strips a man of tools, then land, then his children’s labor, then himself. It concentrates property in a few hands. It replaces neighborliness with legal extraction. That was true in the time of Nehemiah when families sold fields for grain. It was true in the thirteenth century when cities wrote statutes to keep apprentices from sinking. It is true in ours when payday storefronts and digital credit siphon wages from the households least able to bear it.
The biblical guardrails still read like genius because they were designed by the God who loves free worshipers more than fat ledgers. Israel’s law tied land to families, kept charity close to the field, and forbade interest among brothers so that the poor could live beside the strong rather than under them. The early church carried that design into canon, pulpit, and parish practice. The Reformation trimmed away excess while preserving the heart of the rule. Modern Christian teaching continues to insist that finance must serve households, not harvest them. When a loan helps a neighbor stand, Scripture smiles. When a loan makes a neighbor a slave for life, Scripture calls it by the old name, usury, and tells us to stop.
If you appreciate my work, consider a paid subscription to access exclusive content (like the rest of this article, and lots more, like our Smite Club articles). This is one of the things I do to provide for my small farm and big family, so I sure appreciate it.
If you don’t do subscription, please consider a one-time gift of your choosing by clicking the ‘coffee link’ below.
Listen to this episode with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to Insight to Incite: Open Source Intelligence Analysis to listen to this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.
