Why is Kiva funding loans to people in THE RICHEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD?!

[Guest]

.

[DoubleR]

I'm reminded of a Kiva Fellow blog by Evie Marzec titled "A Problem of Success" while she was in the Ukraine:

http://fellowsblog.kiva.org/2008/10/19/a-problem-of-success/

I would encourage everyone to read it if you haven't.  Evie makes a reasoned case as to why Kiva posts loans to Ukrainian merchants dressed in seemingly "middle class" attire and not of the elderly woman sitting on a blanket selling vegetables.

I concede that one can argue that Kiva has strayed from its mission of "lending for the sake of alleviating poverty".  However, I believe this was an issue prior to the US launch.  If this is the main argument against US loans, then where were the voices of these same critics when loans such as the following were posted....

The well-dressed Moldovan farmer carrying a Blackberry:
http://www.kiva.org/app.php?page=businesses&action=about&id=100443   or

This refinely dressed cosmetics saleslady from the Ukraine:
http://www.kiva.org/app.php?page=businesses&action=about&id=90995   or

The A/C retailer in Lebanon who is using his loan to pay for his wedding:
http://www.kiva.org/app.php?page=businesses&action=about&id=64767

I recall Premal saying in various interviews prior to the US launch saying something along the lines of "poverty exists everywhere" (if somewone can direct me to a link with a transcript or direct quote, that would be great).  I agree with that statement, but I don't think the US loans posted thus far meet that criteria.  I think there would be a stronger case for the US loans if they came from areas such as South Central LA (Premal's hypothetical example that he keeps using) or rural Appalachia.  If this isn't the reason behind the sentiment against the US loans, I'd be curious to learn what the true reasons are.

Regards,
Ronan

[mejane]

All of you who are leaving..........
Leaving Kiva is not going to hurt Kiva.........
Leaving is going to hurt the poor that we can help through Kiva. 
For me this is an easy way to make a difference.

Jane

[Kay]

 

[Ashley]

I'm reminded of a Kiva Fellow blog by Evie Marzec titled "A Problem of Success" while she was in the Ukraine:

http://fellowsblog.kiva.org/2008/10/19/a-problem-of-success/

I would encourage everyone to read it if you haven't.  Evie makes a reasoned case as to why Kiva posts loans to Ukrainian merchants dressed in seemingly "middle class" attire and not of the elderly woman sitting on a blanket selling vegetables.

I concede that one can argue that Kiva has strayed from its mission of "lending for the sake of alleviating poverty".  However, I believe this was an issue prior to the US launch.  If this is the main argument against US loans, then where were the voices of these same critics when loans such as the following were posted....

The well-dressed Moldovan farmer carrying a Blackberry:
http://www.kiva.org/app.php?page=businesses&action=about&id=100443   or

This refinely dressed cosmetics saleslady from the Ukraine:
http://www.kiva.org/app.php?page=businesses&action=about&id=90995   or

The A/C retailer in Lebanon who is using his loan to pay for his wedding:
http://www.kiva.org/app.php?page=businesses&action=about&id=64767

I recall Premal saying in various interviews prior to the US launch saying something along the lines of "poverty exists everywhere" (if somewone can direct me to a link with a transcript or direct quote, that would be great).  I agree with that statement, but I don't think the US loans posted thus far meet that criteria.  I think there would be a stronger case for the US loans if they came from areas such as South Central LA (Premal's hypothetical example that he keeps using) or rural Appalachia.  If this isn't the reason behind the sentiment against the US loans, I'd be curious to learn what the true reasons are.

Regards,
Ronan

Ronan, I would have taken exception to the Lebanon loan, had I seen it.

I'm sure there are many people in the US who could benefit from microfinance, but the loans posted so far appear, at least on the face of it, to be going to people who don't really need them. In fact most of them look better off than me and I consider myself to be incredibly fortunate and am constantly thankful for the position I am in.

Those are my true reasons.

[DoubleR]

Ronan, I would have taken exception to the Lebanon loan, had I seen it.

I'm sure there are many people in the US who could benefit from microfinance, but the loans posted so far appear, at least on the face of it, to be going to people who don't really need them. In fact most of them look better off than me and I consider myself to be incredibly fortunate and am constantly thankful for the position I am in.

Those are my true reasons.

Ashley,

Thanks for clarifying your position.

Regards,
Ronan

[A Nonny Mouse]

I don't intend to change any of my lending plans because of the US loans.  I find them interesting, just as I do all the other loans.  When I find one that 'speaks' to me, I will cheerfully loan to it.

I find it telling that two of Kiva's biggest lenders, LaurentD and Good Dogg, have lent to US borrowers.  If it's good enough for them, it's certainly good enough for me and my microscopic portfolio.   

Nonny

[joanna_h]

Given that all of every dollar you loan goes to who you choose (which can just be the very poor if you want) and kiva takes no cut of that, why does it matter who anyone else is able or willing to loan to? None of your money is going to people you aren't happy about funding, nor is it going to the people who made the decision to allow US loans.

[Rob1615]

the loans posted so far appear, at least on the face of it, to be going to people who don't really need them. In fact most of them look better off than me...

Poverty defies appearances.  What does poor look like?  Unshaven and in rags?  I've met a handful of poor people in my travels and the tidiness of their homes and neatness of their appearances would take many of us to task.

Beyond that point, your argument assumes a zero sum game (ie a dollar to a US borrower is a dollar less to a borrower elsewhere).  Certainly the addition of US borrowers has resulted in new capital for Kiva.  Most of these dollars are recycled into new loans to either additional US borrowers or those elsewhere in the world.  I would argue it's a net benefit to developing world borrowers who represent the overwhelming majority of loans and are therefore disproportionately advantaged by additional loan capital paid into Kiva.