|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
|
Regarding the "purposefully guide(ing) and determine(ing) by people" of markets.
A rather Orwellian notion. Aside from Fed Chairman Greespan, I think that there are few people, elite or not, that can guide the global or national markets. (Presuming that by market we are discussing the US or global economy.) Investors, no matter how large or small are most often motivated by their bottom line. Controlling or guiding a market would be analogous to trying to move a beach, with a broom. You might be able to move parts, but natural forces will put the sand where it wants to. NJ ____________________Reply Separator____________________ Subject: Re: Underlying philosophy of Microfinance Author: Holland6@aol.com Date: 3/2/99 10:45 AM In a message dated 3/1/99 9:15:04 PM Eastern Standard Time, SteelE01@newschool.edu writes: << Do you think the underlying philosophy of microenterprise development is the cause of poverty primarily due to market failures such as denial of credit & savings (no collateral or lack of human capital) not structural problems (like discrimination, sexism, and other forms of systematic oppression)? Thank you for your help! Take care, Eric >> I'd have to say it would be both, although more clear meanings of the terms "market failures" and "systematic oppression" must be defined. "Market failures" sounds too much like an invisible force that cannot be controlled. Rather, markets are purposefully guided and determined by people--often elite investors--who make investment decisions based on perceived risks and opportunities. Often, risk measurements are quite subjective. It depends on who sets the risk parameters and what type of return one is seeking (social, financial, or both). "Systematic oppression" sounds a lot like a conspiracy theory is at work, which it may be (after all, the U.S. engaged in a civil war over the oppressive system of slavery). But because systematic oppression is harder to prove than the subjective decisions of one person, reliable data sources must be used. Here in the U.S. public data disclosed by financial institutions showed that many banks and thrifts were systematically redlining poor and minority communities. I'm specifically talking about the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) which requires financial institutions to disclose where they make home mortgage loans, by census tract, to whom, by race, income, and gender of applicant, and what type of mortgage loan. Through HMDA and the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), community based organizations have been able to make a strong case for bank redlining in low-income and minority neighborhoods. The results have been increased bank lending and participation in underserved neighborhoods. But HMDA and CRA helped identify one specific problem--lack of bank investment in underserved communities--and does not offer specific solutions, i.e. jobs, credit, skills development, and technical assistance. Those solutions are still being worked out by the multitude of organizations and institutions working daily in poor communities. -Dan Holland holland6@aol.com This post transferred from the cdb-l mailing list |