Kiva.org

[alias_sqbr]

So, I joined debunkingwhite a while ago and there's been some interesting discussion about the problems involved with adopting overseas babies, and it's gotten me thinking about less probletic ways we in the developed world can help those in less developed countries(*). And then today I found(**) Kiva.org, an organisation which organises microloans for entrepreneurs in developing countries. You get all your money back in the end (most of the time), and unlike most charities all of your money gets to the actual needy person rather than half of it going to admin stuff.

That just strikes me as awesomely cool. EDIT: trs80 (how do I link to him?) makes some good points about it's flaws below.

Also, an amusing error at the top of my screen: "Oops! Looks like Frank's nibbling on the wires. Please try again in a few minutes. If you continue to get this error, let our Support team know. (Frank tells us the servers are delicious)". Mmm. Wires.

(*)I'm not a big fan of this terminology, but "first world" etc is such a relic of the cold war. Anyone know a better way of putting it?
(**) Indirectly, via many interesting sidetracks, via littlebutfierce's suggestion to check out wiscon on this post

Comments

[trs80.ucc.asn.au (from livejournal.com)]

Some discussion for and against: http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2007/10/12/193535/95

[alias_sqbr]

I don't know, their objections seemed to be:

• that it was basically a charity, which, duh. And if they think charities are bad in principle well then yes, I guess the site is not for them.
  
• That it is not as good as an actual charity, why not just give the money outright, which...I guess, but it seems more productive to encourage sustainable stuff than just give handouts. Also this way you can "donate" a lot more money.
  
• That they use Paypal who are dodgy, which I can understand but on the plus side they've waived their usual fees
  

None of these strike me as very damning.

[trs80.ucc.asn.au (from livejournal.com)]

Let's try again. http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn10202006.html is (indirectly) linked from the comments and one point it makes is the recipients have to pay ~25% interest, the other complaint was that featuring on Oprah had reduced the usefulness of the site.

Not that I've given much thought to microloans, my main aim was to provide links.

[alias_sqbr]

Ahhh, sorry, see when I tried getting to that link all I got was "Everyone thinks microloans are great, but in fact...*REGISTER NOW TO READ MORE*" :)

That is kind of disturbing. HMMMM. Dammit, I had a feeling it was too good to be true but couldn't find anything against it via google. Thanks.

I certainly see how it fits so nicely with the american ideal of everyone bringing themselves up by their own bootstraps, where loans are sooo much better than straight charity :/

[myfyr.livejournal.com]

Yeah, to my mind the only valid complaint/question in there (which was generally a bit obfuscated by an additional "where's my share?") was the question of interest. I looked at Kiva a bit last year, and from what I remember they basically farm out the actual lending to a bunch of local organisations. They are responsible for collection of money and charging of interest (ostensibly to cover costs, which is why you see nothing).

Now, there is apparently a maximum limit (which the article suggests is quite high) but it would be interesting to know how appropriate it is, and how closely it's monitored. And how closely the debt collection is monitored, for that matter. Hopefully no leg-breaking involved...

Essentially, the on-the-ground operation is not particularly transparent, which is my problem with most charities.

On the other hand, the basic principle is sound - an interest free loan is much better all around than a hand-out. Although I still think that straight out charity is possibly still better for many things (clean water and education, for example. Although an international HECS style scheme would be interesting...)

[alias_sqbr]

Essentially, the on-the-ground operation is not particularly transparent, which is my problem with most charities.

Yeah, it's annoying. I don't mind donating to a good cause, but donating to corrupt middle men is less appealing.

Although an international HECS style scheme would be interesting

For that to work you'd pretty much need a prosperous and generous highly organised world government, at which point the whole charity thing becomes rather moot :)

[stephbg.livejournal.com]

How do you feel about "industrialised nations"?

[alias_sqbr]

Hmm....yeah, that kinda works.