One fairly clear one that I have heard that is not based on interest rate alone is that a loan was not usurious if the debtor gains positively (such as a house with a mortgage, or an investment such as a car) with the loan, there being a clear benefit to both parties, unlike a situation such as a loanshark who's intention is to exploit a debtor in a bad situation, and not necessarily the best thing for him. This would mean that advertising for some payday loans makes them usurious, as they suggest a (very, like 4000% APR) high interest loan to pay for nights out and other things that can't really be called investments. A source for this definition is JK Galbraith's History of Economics, Penguin, 1991.
Of course, some religious definitions do not make this distinction, for instance some Muslims in the UK cannot take out Government-backed low interest student loans, even though they clearly (hopefully) benefit the debtor and interest is set to be the same as inflation, 0.0% in real terms.
- Write it up and throw it in. Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 20:24, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Which makes me wonder if we should mention payday loans this article, as they are called legalized loansharks, in places such as The Guardian and also here on RW. Is there a possible situation where it is in the debtors overall interest to pay 4000% APR? Perhaps a vital car repair that will allow you to earn back the money and pay the loan back straight away?Tombo1bo (talk)