Regards, Ivan
Ping!
Well, I guess Cindy Al-Sheehadi wont be getting it..
For once you can be proud of your grandfathers people ;-)
Indeed yes!
Thus poor ole Cindy Sheehan was left in the dust?
What does the delusional, self-appointed runner-up Cindy Sheehan get, a plaque?
(It was won last year by the International Atomic Energy Agency and its Egyptian head, Mohammed ElBaradei.)
What a shame there are so many undeserving people who win this prize!
I wonder how our forefathers in the West ever accomplished what they did without micro-credit.
Oh Boy...at least it wasn't cindy sh*thead... ;o)
This is cool news indeed. I did some think tank work with the guy who started GrameenPhone - providing cell phones to the poor in Bangladesh. He based his idea on the Grameen banks. Some people had the only phone in the village and made additional money by charging for calls, others used the phones for farm and other work-related information. It's turned into a real example of 'doing well by doing good.'
Why that sound's like George's explanation about the Bailey Building and Loan when the run started and Potter was offering fifty cents on the dollar.
Good news bump!
Finally, it sounds like a good choice has been made. A little better than Arafat.
Which is why I'm absolutely gobsmacked they got the prize.
L
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."
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.
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.