Many thanks to the DN editors for this fitting tribute to a great man. Mr.
Yunus' efforts to help common people in his own country and throughout the
world to find ways to support themselves and their communities is not an attempt
by him to become wealthy or famous. It was for the simple reason of helping
others. His example has helped us all be more aware of human potential and the
fact that almost everyone, if given the chance, will do whatever is required to
support themselves. The concept he promotes is for local interests -
neighborhoods and communities - to work closely with individuals to help them
prosper. Instead of sitting back preaching or complaining, Mr. Yunus shows us
that only by riolling up your sleeves and getting involved can this concept
benefit all, or at least many. As the DN editors have so eloquently pointed
out, the recognition now coming his way is appropriate and well deserved.
Let me summarize the article.A capitalist sees an opportunity to
serve an underserved market by giving them small loans, which are repaid. He
then loans them more money as their businesses get larger.The end
result is a decrease in poverty.Now, did the liberals notice that
poverty is being eliminated by CAPITALISM, and not the forced redistribution of
wealth through the government?If it works for the poor in other
countries, why can't capitalism work for the poor in the US who want to get
out of poverty?
I'm wondering if the LDS Church participates in micro loan endeavors in
To "Truthseeker" it does. It is called the Perpetual Education Fund.
Read up on it.
re:RedShirtMy understanding is that the PEF pays for education which
is different than micro loans for start-up businesses.
To "Truthseeker" from the official website for the Perpetual Education
Fund. The fund is nearly identical to the micro loans. According to the
website "When a student has graduated and is working, he or she then pays
back the loan to the fund at a low interest rate."Money is
loaned to the poor, they get an education, then repay the loan with interest.
Yes the difference is paying for education, but the result is the same. The
poor are able to lift themselves out of poverty.
Re: We could do the same thing here. A big reason that it might not
work here is that there is a fail safe system. The poor in Bangladesh have seen
their loved ones die and starve. We have such a fail safe system here (Welfare)
that the motivation to try hard enough to really make a business survive (which
is really hard on the small business level) may not be enough for many of the
poor here. Notice I am not saying that welfare is good or bad. I am just
pointing out a potential negative consequence that Welfare might have if we
tried the system of micro-loans here. Still, it's a great idea
and worth trying.
The microcedit system implemented my Mr. Yunan is not capitalism - at least not
capitalism as we know it. The traditional methods and institutions of financing
- the capitalists - have turned away from the people that this system serves
because they have been classified as too poor or to big a risk to receive a
loan. Microcredit is a communitarian system that has faith in people and stands
behind them with a belief that they will repay the loans and that they would
rather work than rely on charity. Instead of making this a rant about
"liberals" and a false claim that this is "capitalism" we should
recognize it for what it truely is - communitarianism. Some might call that
socialism but it isn't. In fact it is the common thread behind the
phuilosophy espoused by John Adams and other "conservatives" in years of
our nation's birth. Captialism is too short sighted and focused too
heavily on maximum profits to make a difference in the third world.
Communitarianisn is the pathway out of poverty and the third world.
To "ECR" I hate to break it to you, but this is capitalism.Those who choose to invest their privatly held CAPITAL are loaning money to
the poor in anticipation of a profit on the money that they loan.This is capital pure and simple.You should read Adam Smith's
"The Theory of Moral Sentiments" before "Wealth of Nations" and
figure out how those to realate to eachother.
Redshirt - Webster's defines capitalism this way - "an economic system
characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments
that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the
distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free
market."So capitalism had its chance and it turned away from
helping the folks that have benefited from the Microcredit system.
Communitarianism has come to the rescue and, using it's focus on creating
success defined by more than just profit, it has lifted the lives of many who
would have otherwise been left behind. Capitalism has never been that high
minded with its short term gains crowding out the greater good.
To "ECR" again, read the book Adam Smith's book "The Theory of
Moral Sentiments". It describes how thoes with wealth should use their
wealth for the benefit of others.For capitalism to be successful,
you need moral sentiments and capitalism. Socialism is never succesful.Most of your last post is disconnected thoughts that make no sense since
capitalism is working and is benefitting the poor by providing them with money
to build businesses in a free market system.Even using your
definition of capitalism, the micro-loans is capitalism. Trust me, it is ok to
admit that. You can freely admit that socialism does not work as well as
@ Redshirt: Actually, this is not capitalism nor is the LDS Church's PEF
the same thing as this program.The big difference between
capitalism/PEF and this program: There is no profit associated with this
program - there is no interest paid to the lender of the money. You pay $1000 -
you get $1000. No capitalism because there is no profit - maximized
or otherwise.No PEF because there is no interest charged.