5 ms·

There is nothing about the theory of microfinance that relies on the existence of international borders or differences in purchasing power. You have created a s

There is nothing about the theory of microfinance that relies on the existence of international borders or differences in purchasing power. You have created a straw man. The fact that "impact per dollar" is greater when one is able to exploit purchasing power differences makes it relatively more attractive as a charitable enterprise, so many charity organizations gravitate there, but it is absolutely not a necessary component of a successful microlending structure.

SilasX 11y ago
>There is nothing about the theory of microfinance that relies on the existence of international borders or differences in purchasing power. But there is about the Vimes theory, which is what I'm criticizing. That theory implies that microfinance should work within a society, where dollars don't go as far for the poor. The fact that microfinance is more effective as you deviate further from that situation, is then a point against that theory (even if not completely opposite). You're responding to a different point than the one I'm making. My point: "Vimes is wrong to attribute poverty to the poor not having access to a loan of $50 to buy longer-lasting stuff, as that would imply intra-society microloans would fix it, which doesn't happen." The point you're criticizing: "Vimes implies microfinance never works." (That, by the way, is how a well-supported accusation of strawmanning would look. "Strawman" means "replied to a wrong argument", not -- as you seem to be using it -- "one fact you relied on is false".)
- dangerlibrary 11y ago
  > which doesn't happen. My point is that it does, just not as often.
  - SilasX 11y ago
    And we have a term for "a theory which only accounts for a small, unrepresentative subset of phenomenon": it's called a bad theory, which was my original point.
    - dangerlibrary 11y ago
      The alternative theory you seem to be putting forth is "poor people remain poor because they make bad decisions and have no impulse control." I would call that a bad theory.

SilasX 11y ago

>There is nothing about the theory of microfinance that relies on the existence of international borders or differences in purchasing power. But there is about the Vimes theory, which is what I'm criticizing. That theory implies that microfinance should work within a society, where dollars don't go as far for the poor. The fact that microfinance is more effective as you deviate further from that situation, is then a point against that theory (even if not completely opposite). You're responding to a different point than the one I'm making. My point: "Vimes is wrong to attribute poverty to the poor not having access to a loan of $50 to buy longer-lasting stuff, as that would imply intra-society microloans would fix it, which doesn't happen." The point you're criticizing: "Vimes implies microfinance never works." (That, by the way, is how a well-supported accusation of strawmanning would look. "Strawman" means "replied to a wrong argument", not -- as you seem to be using it -- "one fact you relied on is false".)

dangerlibrary 11y ago
> which doesn't happen. My point is that it does, just not as often.
- SilasX 11y ago
  And we have a term for "a theory which only accounts for a small, unrepresentative subset of phenomenon": it's called a bad theory, which was my original point.
  - dangerlibrary 11y ago
    The alternative theory you seem to be putting forth is "poor people remain poor because they make bad decisions and have no impulse control." I would call that a bad theory.