I really admire Hugh's drive to blow the whistle on these guys. He's exposed himself to a lot of risk and has sacrificed many comforts in order to go through with this.
Brilliant, thank you, have been saying this for a while. 'In the box economics' will anyway not work, not on a macro nor micro level. But big thank you for exposing the insanity.
I think the real question is: so, should an individual that wants to truly help simply not do this? Or should they go forth, understanding, it may not really help? Or, is there a better alternative?
Can you sort the OK from the bad, where the OK banks are nonprofits and all for-profits are obviously suspect? You'd need some more conditions such as capped compensation, but the basic idea is the bank should be credible as a social business.
Let's see... because starting such a business is not as easy at it seems, or because established businesses have a big edge in certain kinds of industries, where it takes a long time and effort (usually aka "capital", but that does not need to be $), and can simply accept lower profits in order to drive the newcomer out - they, as the bigger players, will be able to accept low/no profits for much longer than the newcomer (same as the human body fights infections), because...(no more space)
This is very interesting and quite disturbing. But I have to wonder why this fellow, instead of bemoaning the lack of state regulation, doesn't simply start a microfinance company himself and do it right? If the people wanting microfinance had the option of going to his reasonable service or a gang of loan sharks, I suspect the problem would be quickly rectified.
i am not sure about that! where I have seen it work, in Australia supported by a bank arm, they are offering low or no interest because they are supplied by VOLUNTEER groups who pre-vet everything, do budgets etc.
I don't see how it is a zero sum game in that example he gave of tomatoes. If you help someone and that someone succeeds, isn't it much better than not helping? That person who succeeds will have more to consume (generating demand) and help others.
If I had to guess, the 190% interest number is from something like a $15 fee on a 30-day $100 loan. (That is approximately a 190% APR.) I can't tell if this guy believes what he's saying or not, but using BS figures to justify your conclusions, makes your argument look weak. I guess some people will buy your book, but first you have to convince them to buy your BS.
I stumbled on this searching for something else but stayed for the whole hour - great talk!
I really admire Hugh's drive to blow the whistle on these guys. He's exposed himself to a lot of risk and has sacrificed many comforts in order to go through with this.
Brilliant, thank you, have been saying this for a while. 'In the box economics' will anyway not work, not on a macro nor micro level. But big thank you for exposing the insanity.
that was a great talk. thank you for uploading.
I think the real question is: so, should an individual that wants to truly help simply not do this? Or should they go forth, understanding, it may not really help? Or, is there a better alternative?
Google 'Money Debt', for a bit of background on money, interest, and debt.
true, nothing more than True
Can you sort the OK from the bad, where the OK banks are nonprofits and all for-profits are obviously suspect? You'd need some more conditions such as capped compensation, but the basic idea is the bank should be credible as a social business.
Let's see... because starting such a business is not as easy at it seems, or because established businesses have a big edge in certain kinds of industries, where it takes a long time and effort (usually aka "capital", but that does not need to be $), and can simply accept lower profits in order to drive the newcomer out - they, as the bigger players, will be able to accept low/no profits for much longer than the newcomer (same as the human body fights infections), because...(no more space)
cool
This is very interesting and quite disturbing. But I have to wonder why this fellow, instead of bemoaning the lack of state regulation, doesn't simply start a microfinance company himself and do it right? If the people wanting microfinance had the option of going to his reasonable service or a gang of loan sharks, I suspect the problem would be quickly rectified.
i am not sure about that! where I have seen it work, in Australia supported by a bank arm, they are offering low or no interest because they are supplied by VOLUNTEER groups who pre-vet everything, do budgets etc.
He spent 10 years at it. How much more do you expect him to give?
I don't see how it is a zero sum game in that example he gave of tomatoes.
If you help someone and that someone succeeds, isn't it much better than not helping?
That person who succeeds will have more to consume (generating demand) and help others.
If I had to guess, the 190% interest number is from something like a $15 fee on a 30-day $100 loan. (That is approximately a 190% APR.) I can't tell if this guy believes what he's saying or not, but using BS figures to justify your conclusions, makes your argument look weak. I guess some people will buy your book, but first you have to convince them to buy your BS.
Almost unbelievable APR right? Contrary to what you might think, this is very true for Micro Lending in Third-world countries.