3 ms·

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microcredit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microcredit is a good overview. It amazes me that this doesn't get more coverage, especial

by celoyd 20y ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microcredit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microcredit is a good overview. It amazes me that this doesn't get more coverage, especially after the Nobel. One of many interesting details is that women get the majority of the loans because they're usually far better credit risks.

dfranke 20y ago
Sadly, microcredit is nowhere near profitable. Yunus et. al. are heavily government-subsidized. And the reason most of the loans go to women is that Yunus has a really bizarre feminist agenda. Microcredit is maybe a good way to run a charity, but it's not a business. http://www.mises.org/journals/fm/Dec06.pdf http://www.mises.org/journals/fm/Dec06.pdf
- felipe 20y ago
  IMHO the article in the PDF is highly biased, like for example when it takes the "Sixteen Decisions" completely out of context. The article also makes a number of claims without mentioning any sources at all. The only piece of reference provided is the infamous 2001 WSJ article, which was already extensively debunked way before the Nobel Prize. There is no feminist agenda. Grameen lands mostly to women based on their own experience showing that: 1) Women are more likely to pay the loan back; and 2) Women tend to invest the loan in long-term basis (ex: buying a cow to sell milk). The fact is that women are highly marginalized in developing countries, and men magically starts to listen to them when they somehow are able to make decisions without the men's approval. Women have a vested interest in the loan, and therefore they tend to be better payers. Don't believe on such "experts" -- If their theories were right, developing countries would be prosper by now :)
- nostrademons 20y ago
  The Mises article is incorrect. Grameen Bank's website (http://www.grameen-info.org/bank/) http://www.grameen-info.org/bank/) contains audited financial statements. The Grameen Bank broke even in 1984, hovered around the break-even point until 1993, and has made steady profits since then. It made approximately $15M on revenues of $112M in 2005. That's not particularly impressive from a financial standpoint, but it's certainly not a charity. It's more than most Web 2.0 startups make, after all.

by celoyd 20y ago

dfranke 20y ago

Sadly, microcredit is nowhere near profitable. Yunus et. al. are heavily government-subsidized. And the reason most of the loans go to women is that Yunus has a really bizarre feminist agenda. Microcredit is maybe a good way to run a charity, but it's not a business. http://www.mises.org/journals/fm/Dec06.pdf http://www.mises.org/journals/fm/Dec06.pdf

felipe 20y ago
IMHO the article in the PDF is highly biased, like for example when it takes the "Sixteen Decisions" completely out of context. The article also makes a number of claims without mentioning any sources at all. The only piece of reference provided is the infamous 2001 WSJ article, which was already extensively debunked way before the Nobel Prize. There is no feminist agenda. Grameen lands mostly to women based on their own experience showing that: 1) Women are more likely to pay the loan back; and 2) Women tend to invest the loan in long-term basis (ex: buying a cow to sell milk). The fact is that women are highly marginalized in developing countries, and men magically starts to listen to them when they somehow are able to make decisions without the men's approval. Women have a vested interest in the loan, and therefore they tend to be better payers. Don't believe on such "experts" -- If their theories were right, developing countries would be prosper by now :)
nostrademons 20y ago
The Mises article is incorrect. Grameen Bank's website (http://www.grameen-info.org/bank/) http://www.grameen-info.org/bank/) contains audited financial statements. The Grameen Bank broke even in 1984, hovered around the break-even point until 1993, and has made steady profits since then. It made approximately $15M on revenues of $112M in 2005. That's not particularly impressive from a financial standpoint, but it's certainly not a charity. It's more than most Web 2.0 startups make, after all.