You misunderstood the meaning of my post. Whats funny is the idea that you could somehow "create" money out of nothing by simply printing it, then attempt to balance its value by creating incentives for people to use. The part I think is funny, is that the people that have the prerogative to lend out the recently printed money, don't have to take the same risk as the people who have borrow it to create value. The "unfair" part is the part where money is printed, and given away for "free" to "investors" who don't "deserve" it, but make the argument that without them, the system will collapse because market valuations have been distorted for so long that only prolonged distortion can stabilize it.
Its not some nefarious scheme, its just the best way that has arisen to do things thus far. It wasn't "designed" or "planned" and in order to make the system more efficient, a new method of transactions needs to be established, and many groups are working hard to come up with a cryptocurrency to solve this problem.
Regarding interest and "usury" there is no difference, because there is no definition for "unreasonable" interest. I have an irresponsible friend, that I know if I give $100 to, there's a 1% chance that I will get my money back. So than why would I give him money at a rate that would be unprofitable for me when I can do other more useful things with it? Say I have another friend who I have good reason to believe will give me back my money 99% within our agreement. Obviously the second would get a better interest rate because there is less risk and he might be more useful with the money than I could be.
How do you calculate risk? Well let 10,000 other people with money offer him better terms (driving down the interest rate) if they think my judgement is wrong, and if it turns out to be the case they make money, if not they lose money.
Its not for you to say, ALL Investors you have to get involved with the business, for one, the person receiving the money might not want to give up control, nor the investor give it, because that might not be his area of expertise. Then again, maybe it is, and you have specific investors called VC's that do get involved.
Its actually ridiculous that people in the 21st century could consider the usury argument valid and actually praise Dogmatism. The greater concern is actually about creating and maintaining a competitive marketplace of creators and investors, then about the rates they charge -which is determined by simple supply and demand.
Try limiting the rates to your definition of "Fair", see what happens. Hint: Google "the cobra effect".