who had gotten themselves mired in debt, they had a negative effect on interest rates, and on the productive use of capital. The mere threat of an edict would be enough to limit long-term loans for investment. The risks of such a loan were too great, since the chances of it being forgiven by the king sometime over its tenure were high. Such uncertainty about the political future induced lenders to increase interest rates, in order to compensate for the increased risk of loss. Although meant to provide relief, the edicts effectively increased interest rates. http://viking.som.yale.edu/will/finciv/c\\... The publish of interest rates on daily or monthly basis, is actually more useful - but it does take a bit of thought and inspection to spot whether it's p.diem, p.m., or p.a. .  But at the end of the day, if people aren't paying attention to something that critical, they shouldn't be contracting loans - and if they insist on doing so, whose fault can it be? I think you might be referring to usury. Interest doesn't threaten the financial system as a whole (although many believe that) as interest paid becomes principle in the hands of the lender. Back when I was a kid, interest rates were 17,18,19% and the system was not under threat, under fiat interest can go on forever as they can just generate more and more money (its only digits in a computer). The interest is repaid in part via human labour, so interest is a way of