Posted on 10/13/2006 3:50:33 PM PDT by MadIvan
Notice the wording of the Nobel people, unfortunately. They talk of "lasting peace" being brought about be the end of poverty and again, they impose a left-socialist vision of human action on the world and they also refuse to acknowledge "capitalism" instead calling it "Economic growth."
What makes you think they did not have banks back then?
Those poor people in Bangladesh are trying to pull themselves up by their boot staps when they don't have any boots.
What this bank does should be commended. They are "teaching" people to fish, not providing the fish.
Will they be successful, I don't know, but they have a chance, and it is an effort worth doing.
The development of extensive banking systems both on the large and small scales was indeed crucial in the rise of the West.
Doug.
What you have to understand is that the Nobel Peace Prize Committe is trying to create "peace" themselves by giving out this darned prize. That is whby Gorby, Annan, Arafar and many other lately got the prize. They wanted to push the people in a particular direction. They want to create "peace" themeselves.
Infact, some leftist on the Nobel Comitee wanted to give the prise to GWB after 911 because they thought it would make him not attack Iraq.
I think the Nobel guys should give the prize to themselves. Cause that what they want.
Cheers.
I was disappointed that Tookie Williams didn't win it before he was executed. That would have been fun.
So if this isn't a new idea, then it shouldn't be worthy of Nobel prize.
It's a new idea in Bangladesh and much of the 3rd world. Additionally, this is the first time microcredit has been organized with the express purpose of boosting development.
Perhaps if the world's journalists and political leaders weren't constantly trashing the United States, and instead encouraging the emulation of its success, then there wouldn't be a poverty problem in so much of the world.
I wonder where the term "grubstake" came from, and what it means.
I like the concept described here, and what it portends for a certain religious cult.
According to this article from 1999, this gentleman is actually spreading cult-like collectivism (although only the 16th "decision" of the bank would seem to support that assertion). The other fifteen seem unobjectionable to me, however the following description in the article gives me pause:
Yet a close look shows that Grameen suffers from similar problems as US microcredit. From the beginning, its subsidies from international foundations and international financial institutions were very high. And today, only 3 percent of its assets are in the form of deposits from individuals and businesses, and it has never turned a profit. In fact, it is not a bank at all. It is more correct to view Grameen as a conduit for international aid dollars. What about Grameen’s low default rate of less than 3 percent? That sounds great until you look at precisely how the Grameen "Bank" goes about collecting the money (which its lends at 20 percent interest). Peer pressure is their phrase. Coercion is closer to the truth. Employees engage in weekly, door-to-door monitoring of the lives of all borrowers. Borrowers attend weekly physical training classes, are indoctrinated in collectivist ideology, and are told to be 100 percent obedient to the ideals of the bank, or else lose their borrowing privileges. On the whole, it is a process that has more in common with a cult than sound finance.
A few years back, the Grameen bank and its micro-credit approach to lending was profiled in a Scientific American article, and immediately afterward Al Gore picked up on it and touted it as the way to fix all of America's problems with poverty. Of course, Al Gore is well known for jumping on the bandwagon of trendy causes, always eager to dish out an intelligent-sounding quote without having bothered to apply any critical thinking skills to the topic at hand before spouting off, which later collapses under its own weight or after more careful consideration by more informed people.
These are loans, not gifts. Recipients still need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps to make interest payments -- and only 2% in Bangladesh have defaulted. These microloans loans start up businesses, spread capitalism and wealth, and benefit everybody (including the lendors!).
Wonderful and inspirational.
OK, this guy sounds like a Muslim.
Now in the Muslim religion, isn't it wrong to charge interest? I know there are ways they get aroung this, but I imagine it is hard to get a loan in Islamic countries because of this.
Well, Bangaladesh is majority Muslim and his name is Muhammud . . .
I guess the Salafist/Wahhabi interpretation of the anti-usury passages of the Koran doesn't have much clout in Bangaladesh.
The whole concept of microcredit is a old idea but redone, or innovated to a higher degree with extrodinary results.
FWIW, even before this great land was founded, the concept of loans, and banking had been around and used to produce financing, but never as such a small level and never in these parts of the world....and microcredit is a pretty new term.
Also, keep in mind, that being a "new idea" is not nor has ever been criteria for winning a nobel prize which is why every now and then you will see the unusual, where someone wins a prize for something that is either a further application, or improvement, a bigger extention of something else, and yet that something else never has won the award.
John Nash got his noble prize for his game theory, but by the time he got it, several folks has won awards for work based on using game theory and its applications before Nash won his.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.