jkraker

While I agree with some of this, there's a hubris in it that I find a bit distasteful. It seems to claim that there's only one type of person needed for society to thrive. Not surprisingly, it's the type that most aligns with who he identifies himself to be.

I think that the article is using caricatured descriptions of two categories that are more broad (people who are oriented toward change and those who are oriented toward stability) and highlighting only the good of the preferred group (his own) and the bad within the "other". The truth is, there are beneficial and destructive individuals in both groups, and there are perspectives from each that we need. I would argue that what society really needs is not the ascendancy of one group above the other but mutual respect and discussion of ideas between groups.

Which is kind of where he was going with the discussion of ideas. He just didn't have a big enough tent.

My experience does not include microloans, but I can clearly see the gap that they could fill in some of the situations I work through.

In many circumstances I encounter, financial need is a symptom of a deeper need that's harder to address and might even be exacerbated by financial gifts that aren't paired with something else to address the deeper need. Don't misunderstand. The financial needs in these cases are formidable with compounding impacts to be sure, but the root problem cannot be solved just by providing financial resources in the cases I'm describing. Satisfy a cash need and you can be only providing a bridge to essentially the same situation in the near future along with the despair of not being able to get out of the cycle yet again. By deeper needs I mean things like habits that need to change, mindsets that disadvantage, relational deficits, medical issues, etc. I also don't want to imply it's always primarily the person that needs to change. There are very real systemic issues in our society that need to be addressed for all to flourish.

Poverty is debilitating. Hope is important. When we can in our help identify real assets a person has (talents, passions, non financial resources, etc.) and empower them to be a part of the solution, there's hope there--they can act in a way that gets them to a better place. It might be assisted, but they're doing it. This is very important in many cases. If I take that same person and just impersonally satisfy their need, that can communicate they have nothing to offer, and it may reinforce problematic mindsets that are keeping them down.

Ultimately, microloans are just tools. All tools needs to be employed in the right way to be effective.

I personally think that this article is really just skimming the surface in the area some people broadly refer to as development work. Helping people toward sustainable, more independent situations is really difficult work, and there are a multitude of examples where even people with the best intentions did more harm than good, particularly when they blindly follow their own designs without paying specific attention to the people they're helping and the complex web of circumstances and history they live within. As the article detailed in the area of microfinance, there are unfortunately many people who shamefully further their own interests (money, reputation, etc.) in the guise of charity.

I really do think that applied correctly, microfinance is one tool of many that can be effectively applied for real good if it is not abused. The reason I think that is that in contrast to just giving someone something, microfinance can be more empowering in certain circumstances. In some development work, empowerment is a key ingredient to moving toward lasting change. I absolutely agree that there is potential for and are many examples of microfinance being used in harmful ways, but I think the same is true for just about every tool of development work. Even simply giving a person cash can be bad in some circumstances. This comes from my personal struggles in working a bit in the area of development as part of an organization that attempts to help people in lasting ways by leveraging a very limited pool of resources.

All that to say that I agree that microfinance is used to abuse people, but I don't think its use as such disqualifies it as a potential development tool.

I moved some of my high yield savings account into a 12 month CD recently to maintain a more tolerable interest rate for the next 12 months while the savings account interest rate inevitably tanks. That means I can't touch it for 12 months if I want the interest, but I was careful with the amount I put in the CD so that I will most likely not have to touch it.

This should in no way be construed to be advice because I'm unqualified to give it. It's just an option.

Social media gives a lot of people the platform to do this and some use it quite heavily. It would be interesting to see the correlation between something like "ferocity" on Facebook and real life actions.

The four dead ideas according to the article: 1) Business is more competitive that ever. 2) We live in an age of entrepreneurialism. 3) Business is getting faster. 4) Globalization is inevitable and irreversible.