splitting the list

An excekkebt statenebt Michael.
Yes, there are these two faces of community development.
CDFs can be viewed as opposite faces. One is an apologist for the existing
system. It tries to make an opening for those who are left out of it.
The other believes that people are left out of the system because the system
is flawed. And that a community movement could correct those flaws.
IMHO, it would be too bad to sperate thos views further, Rather, the
community development movement should be open to both.
The WTO was relevant and has changed the way we will all do business and it
increases our need to recognize the option we have in making community
loans. Let's keep the door open
Bill Ellis

----------
>From: michael jones <mjj5@cornell.edu>
>To: drwohl@earthlink.net, <courtj@globalnet.co.uk>,
<COMMUNITYDEVELOPMENTBANKING-L@cornell.edu>
>Subject: splitting the list
>Date: Fri, Dec 10, 1999, 12:56 AM
>

> I've been doing a little reading about the CDFI movement and its history
> lately, and it seems there are excellent historical reasons not to split
> this list serve into two--that there is excellent reason why our good
> contributor, David Wohl, might like to here about the WTO while discussing
> the CDFI fund. I'll be quick:
>
> The origins of cooperative credit, according to my reading of several
> historic sources, was about getting credit to those who's credit needs were
> not being met by conventional finance institutions; they were a direct
> reaction to the capriciousness of conventional financing and they strove to
> put community concerns back into banking. Today's CDFI movement does the
> same.
>
> Throughout the history of community financing, cooperative banking, CDFIs
> (whatever the terminology you prefer), a nuanced and important debate has
> transpired: how much should the cooperative credit practice be involved in
> the broader cooperative economics movement. One of the most prolific early
> writers and instigators of cooperative credit, Henry Wolff, was at one time
> the president of the International Cooperative Alliance. Frederick
> Bergengren, as the president of CUNA (the credit union national
> association) personally advocated for a much broader involvement for credit
> unions; he apparently felt that the institution of credit unions would be
> insufficient by itself to stave off the dehumanizing, destructive forces of
> corporate structures threatening the social values of most Americans.
>
> The mainstream cooperative credit movement has not maintained intimate
> connection to broader cooperative economics, choosing a more narrow focus
> on the practical business before them (though it has vacillated between
> acrimoniousness and essentially placating assistance). This failure is
> inextricably linked to the irrelevance of mainstream credit unions to
> community development practice.
>
> Discussion of the WTO negotiations, like amendments to CRA legislation, has
> an intimate connection with the direction of community finance! The unique
> contribution a nationwide list serve on community finance can make is to
> discuss practical matters in the context of broader social-economic
> developments. It would be a mistake to split the list in two, divorcing
> theory from practice--this union helps ensure both short term effectiveness
> and longer term relevance.
>
> It seems to me the benefit to all concerned with this list serve, is not a
> definitive answer as to whether "free" trade is good or bad, but how
> current developments on that front and many others effect the practice of
> community finance. To serve that function, we need both discussion of the
> WTO and of the CDFI fund, and what need have New England CDFIs for more
> capital!
>
> Thanks for reading.
>
> mj
>
> Michael Jones
> 421 Langford Creek Road
> Van Etten, NY 14889
> (607) 589-4102
>


This post transferred from the cdb-l mailing list

I've been doing a little reading about the CDFI movement and its history
lately, and it seems there are excellent historical reasons not to split
this list serve into two--that there is excellent reason why our good
contributor, David Wohl, might like to here about the WTO while discussing
the CDFI fund. I'll be quick:

The origins of cooperative credit, according to my reading of several
historic sources, was about getting credit to those who's credit needs were
not being met by conventional finance institutions; they were a direct
reaction to the capriciousness of conventional financing and they strove to
put community concerns back into banking. Today's CDFI movement does the
same.

Throughout the history of community financing, cooperative banking, CDFIs
(whatever the terminology you prefer), a nuanced and important debate has
transpired: how much should the cooperative credit practice be involved in
the broader cooperative economics movement. One of the most prolific early
writers and instigators of cooperative credit, Henry Wolff, was at one time
the president of the International Cooperative Alliance. Frederick
Bergengren, as the president of CUNA (the credit union national
association) personally advocated for a much broader involvement for credit
unions; he apparently felt that the institution of credit unions would be
insufficient by itself to stave off the dehumanizing, destructive forces of
corporate structures threatening the social values of most Americans.

The mainstream cooperative credit movement has not maintained intimate
connection to broader cooperative economics, choosing a more narrow focus
on the practical business before them (though it has vacillated between
acrimoniousness and essentially placating assistance). This failure is
inextricably linked to the irrelevance of mainstream credit unions to
community development practice.

Discussion of the WTO negotiations, like amendments to CRA legislation, has
an intimate connection with the direction of community finance! The unique
contribution a nationwide list serve on community finance can make is to
discuss practical matters in the context of broader social-economic
developments. It would be a mistake to split the list in two, divorcing
theory from practice--this union helps ensure both short term effectiveness
and longer term relevance.

It seems to me the benefit to all concerned with this list serve, is not a
definitive answer as to whether "free" trade is good or bad, but how
current developments on that front and many others effect the practice of
community finance. To serve that function, we need both discussion of the
WTO and of the CDFI fund, and what need have New England CDFIs for more
capital!

Thanks for reading.

mj

Michael Jones
421 Langford Creek Road
Van Etten, NY 14889
(607) 589-4102


This post transferred from the cdb-l mailing list