Ending poverty

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • George New York, NY
    April 19, 2013 4:32 p.m.

    @ 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.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    April 18, 2013 1:58 p.m.

    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 capitalism.

  • ECR Burke, VA
    April 18, 2013 1:29 p.m.

    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.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    April 18, 2013 12:43 p.m.

    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.

  • ECR Burke, VA
    April 18, 2013 8:38 a.m.

    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.

  • Hamath Omaha, NE
    April 17, 2013 8:40 p.m.

    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.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    April 17, 2013 4:01 p.m.

    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.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    April 17, 2013 3:33 p.m.


    My understanding is that the PEF pays for education which is different than micro loans for start-up businesses.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    April 17, 2013 1:29 p.m.

    To "Truthseeker" it does. It is called the Perpetual Education Fund. Read up on it.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    April 17, 2013 1:11 p.m.

    I'm wondering if the LDS Church participates in micro loan endeavors in under-developed countries?

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    April 17, 2013 12:39 p.m.

    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?

  • ECR Burke, VA
    April 17, 2013 6:17 a.m.

    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.