Notifiche
Cancella tutti
Pagina 1 / 2
Avanti
![[Utente Cancellato]](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/778c1a59c4c526294f36b9e20b2918f4?s=80&d=mm&r=g){kind=avatar}
Topic starter
12 Ottobre 2017 13:18
Is microfinance a neoliberal fairytale?
The complicated twists and turns in Bangladesh over the position of Muhammed Yunus, the Nobel prize winner, continue. Last week government officials were quoted saying that he had been ousted from his position as managing director of Grameen Bank, and there is clearly a nasty dogfight going on in Bangladesh over the reputation of its most famous citizen. Blame is now flying around in every direction – including the Norwegians for giving him a Nobel prize in the first place.
In the meantime, the film that has played a powerful role in challenging Yunus's global reputation as a pioneer of microfinance will finally be shown in London on Friday( I wrote about the film on this blog a month ago). After the film, the Danish film-maker Tom Heinemann will be in conversation with Alex Counts of the Grameen Foundation. Given how fiercely contested the whole subject of microfinance and the role of the Grameen Bank in particular has become, Counts deserves credit for taking on the debate publicly.
Inevitably, much of the media coverage has focused on Yunus himself, rather than the much broader questions Heinemann is asking about microfinance as an effective strategy for poverty reduction. After I last blogged on this, I had some very interesting responses, including one from the Cambridge economist Ha-Joon Chang, who directed me to a paper he had written (pdf) with Milford Bateman – one of microfinance's most vociferous critics and an interviewee in Heinemann film. Their critique of microfinance makes some very convincing arguments that urgently need rebuttal from the many development agencies and foundations around the world that have ploughed huge sums into the expansion of microfinance in the last decade.
Here are some of Chang and Bateman's top findings:
1 Microfinance is based on an attractive but false premise that poor people can make themselves richer providing they have access to credit. But wealth creation, outside of fairytales, is very rarely the result of individual effort. Rather it is a collective endeavour – requiring skills and knowledge – in institutions such as companies, co-operatives. Microfinance has erroneously put the individual centre stage, reflecting a neoliberal world view.
2 Microfinance has always maintained that it is self financing apart from the initial start-up costs. But what the last few months have revealed is that unless there is a big injection of government or aid funds, microfinance institutions have to charge very high interest rates. Without subsidy, interest rates soar to 50% and even higher. That really cuts into any possibility of small businesses being able to reinvest their profits.
3 Most loans are not used to create small businesses at all; they are used for "consumption smoothing" as the economists describe it, in other words, those items of extraordinary expenditure such as weddings, funerals or education and health fees. That is the kind of scenario which leads to indebtedness.
4 Finally, microfinance is not very successful at creating prosperous small businesses in the long run. Much was made of the "telephone ladies" in the 1990s who took out microloans to buy mobiles and rent them out. Initially they made handsome profits, but as Chang points out their income has dropped dramatically. If a business idea works and is accessible to poor people, everyone will pile in; it's why you see rows of women sitting patiently selling a few tomatoes in African marketplaces. Overcrowding is a result of very limited options in terms of technology, skills and financial resources: microfinance doesn't solve any of those problems.
Chang and Bateman cite academics arguing that the claims of microfinance are "in many respects a world of make-believe." These points all seem damaging enough but Chang and Bateman go even further, arguing that microfinance could actually inhibit poverty reduction by diverting attention and resources from the much more important state co-ordinated policy interventions, financial institutions and investment strategies that have been crucial to the success of fast-growing economies such as Vietnam, China and South Korea.
The gist of the argument is that the enthusiasm for microfinance has been rooted in the myth of the heroic individual entrepreneur, the rags to riches fairytales, Dick Whittington style.
Madeleine Bunting
The Micro Debt – a critical investigation into the dark side of Microcredit.
For decades Microcredit has been hailed as the #1 solution to eradicate poverty. In December 2007, the Danish independent journalist and film maker, Tom Heinemann met with a woman by the name of Jahanara – living in a slum-like house two hours drive outside the Bangladeshi capital, Dhaka. Shortly before the meeting she had sold her house to pay her weekly instalments. For months, she had been intimidated, harassed and abused by the members of her loan group and by the loan officers from the various Micro Finance Institutions (MFI) – including Grameen Bank – who had given her the loans. Two years later the film crew went back to investigate if Jahanara had succeeded getting out of poverty. She wasn’t.
“Not all that glitters is gold”
The meeting with Jahanara was only the first in a long string of interviews with poor people in Bangladesh, Andhra Pardesh in India and in the state of Oaxaca in Mexico. The Microcredit loan-takers told the same story over and over again: Most of them had numerous loans in various NGO’s and Micro Finance Institutions – and many must take new loans to cover the old ones. They paid annual interest rates ranging from 30-200 %, and they are under extreme social pressure from the other members of their groups not to mention how cruel and rude some of the loan officers behave when it comes to defaulting a single weekly payment. The film also brings interviews with renowned Microfinance experts such as Thomas Dichter, Milford Bateman, Alex Counts, Jonathan Morduch and David Roodman etc. And we interview local experts and NGO’s such as Khushi Kubur from Nijera Kori and Shahidur Rahman from ActionAid International.
A Nobel banker
“The Micro Debt” also takes a closer look at the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize laureates, Grameen Bank and Mr. Muhammad Yunus. The film reveals a number of secret documents proving how Mr. Yunus back in the mid-90’s transferred 100 mio. USD – where most was donated as grants from Norway, Sweden, Germany, USA and Canada – to a new company in the Grameen-family in order to save tax in the future. 12 years later the public is now – and for the first time – able to see what really happened to the taxpayers money.
The poor always pay back
The film crew travelled several times to Bangladesh, and visited some of the most hailed villages in the history of the Nobel laureate Grameen Bank. In Jobra we met the daughter of the famous loan taker, Sufiya Begun and in “Hillary Village”, where the former first lady in the USA, Hillary Clinton in 1995 came and cheered both Mohammad Yunus and Grameen Bank, the crew meets poor people who has gained nothing else but more debt due to microcredit.
Almost each and every loan taker interviewed told the same story. All had multiple loans in various Micro credit banks and organisations and all interviewed had a hard time trying to pay back their loans. Some had sold their house, others had their tin-sheets pulled of their houses to cover the weekly payments.
“The Micro Debt” was first aired in a special Norwegian version on November 30. 2010 at NRK1 and caught attention in medias all over the world. In may 2011, Muhammad Yunus was sacked from Grameen Bank. Officially due to age, but according to Mr. Yunus it was the film that led to his fall. “The Micro Debt” has – so far – been aired in more than 20 countries and has received several international festival awards.
http://tomheinemann.dk/the-micro-debt/
The Microfinance Illusion
Abstract
In both developing and transition economies, microfinance has increasingly been positioned as one of the most important poverty reduction and local economic and social development policies. Its appeal is based on the widespread assumption that simply ‘reaching the poor’ with microcredit will automatically establish a sustainable economic and social development trajectory animated by the poor themselves. We reject this view. We argue that while the microfinance model may well generate some positive short run outcomes for a lucky few of the ‘entrepreneurial poor’, the longer run aggregate development outcome very much remains moot. Microfinance may ultimately constitute a new and very powerful institutional barrier to sustainable local economic and social development, and thus also to sustainable poverty reduction. We suggest that the current drive to establish the central role of microfinance in development policy cannot be divorced from its supreme serviceability to the neoliberal/globalisation agenda.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2385174
Microfinance and the Illusion of Development: From Hubris To Nemesis in Thirty Years.
Abstract
The contemporary model of microfinance has its roots in a small local experiment in Bangladesh in the early 1970s undertaken by Dr Muhammad Yunus, the US-educated Bangladeshi economist and future 2006 Nobel Peace Prize co-recipient. Yunus’s idea of supporting tiny informal microenterprises and self-employment as the solution to widespread poverty rapidly caught on, and by the 1990s the concept of microfinance was the international development community’s highest-profile and most generously funded poverty reduction policy. Neoclassical economic theorists and neoliberal policy-makers both fully concurred with the microfinance model’s celebration of self-help and the individual entrepreneur, and its implicit antipathy to any form of state intervention. The immense feel-good appeal of microfinance is essentially based on the widespread assumption that simply ‘reaching the poor’ with a tiny microcredit will automatically establish a sustainable economic and social development trajectory, a trajectory animated by the poor themselves acting as micro-entrepreneurs getting involving in tiny income generating activities. We reject this view, however. We argue that while the microfinance model may well generate some narrow positive short run outcomes for a few lucky individuals, these positive outcomes are very limited in number and anyway swamped by much wider longer run downsides and opportunity costs at the community and national level. Our view is that microfinance actually constitutes a powerful institutional and political barrier to sustainable economic and social development, and so also to poverty reduction. Finally, we suggest that continued support for microfinance in international development policy circles cannot be divorced from its supreme serviceability to the neoliberal/globalisation agenda.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2385482
The Age of Microfinance: Destroying Latin American Economies from the Bottom Up
Abstract
This article argues that the microfinance model that arrived in Latin America in the 1970s has proven, as elsewhere around the world, to be an almost wholly destructive economic and social policy intervention. Centrally, I argue that the microfinance model is responsible for embedding and giving continued impetus to an adverse ‘anti-development’ trajectory in Latin America’s economies, one that has progressively helped to de-industrialise, infantilise and informalise the overall local economic and social structure. Until recently, the extent and precise nature of this ‘anti-development’ trajectory has been ignored for fear of undermining and delegitimizing the global microfinance model and, with it, the dominant political-economic philosophy – neoliberalism – that essentially gave life to it. Effective local industrial policies and ‘pro-development’ local financial institutions are now urgently required in Latin America to build genuinely sustainable and equitable solidarity-driven local economies from the bottom up.
http://www.networkideas.org/focus/sep2013/Microfinance.pdf
What Drives Household Borrowing and Credit Constraints? Evidence from Bosnia and Herzegovina
Abstract
Although Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) has experienced rapid growth in credit to households in recent years, most individuals are still credit constrained. This paper analyzes the determinants of household credit demand and credit constraints in BiH. To our knowledge, it is the first study on this topic employing household survey data (2001 and 2004) from Emerging Europe. Our results highlight the impact of the post-conflict and transitional nature of the country on the behavior of borrowers and lenders. As expected, age, income, wealth and education qualifications are the main factors driving credit market participation, while high income and high wealth lower credit constraints. In BiH, the probability of credit market participation peaks at 45 years old, considerably higher than in the advanced countries. At the same time, older individuals are significantly more constrained than their peers in the advanced countries. The results imply that the current credit boom may largely reflect the overall post-war demand, and indicate the worse-off position of the older generation in transition economy. Moreover, the results underscore the structural nature of unemployment as well as the mismatch between education qualifications and earning prospects in BiH. Education variables have no significant effect on the likelihood of being constrained, while, unlike in the advanced countries, being unemployed significantly increases the likelihood.
Table 4. Main Reasons for Obtaining Loans and Not Attempting to Borrow, 2001 and 2004 (In Percent)
Ps: Se Muhammed Yunus ha vinto il premio Nobel per la Pace sarà sicuramente bravo, buono, equo e solidale … 🙂
13 Ottobre 2017 15:25
Quello di Ha-Joon Chang l'avevo già adocchiato in passato, il resto è nuovo.
Grazie
"2 Microfinance has always maintained that it is self financing apart from the initial start-up costs. But what the last few months have revealed is that unless there is a big injection of government or aid funds, microfinance institutions have to charge very high interest rates. Without subsidy, interest rates soar to 50% and even higher. That really cuts into any possibility of small businesses being able to reinvest their profits."
Prendendo spunto da questo spezzone inerente ai tassi di interesse, che tu sappia, corrisponde al vero che la "finanza islamica" non prevede tassi di interesse? O è una sorta di artificio retorico ma nella realtà è il contrario?
Topic starter
13 Ottobre 2017 20:34
Deheb;235717 wrote: Quello di Ha-Joon Chang l'avevo già adocchiato in passato, il resto è nuovo.
Grazie"2 Microfinance has always maintained that it is self financing apart from the initial start-up costs. But what the last few months have revealed is that unless there is a big injection of government or aid funds, microfinance institutions have to charge very high interest rates. Without subsidy, interest rates soar to 50% and even higher. That really cuts into any possibility of small businesses being able to reinvest their profits."
Prendendo spunto da questo spezzone inerente ai tassi di interesse, che tu sappia, corrisponde al vero che la "finanza islamica" non prevede tassi di interesse? O è una sorta di artificio retorico ma nella realtà è il contrario?
Tutto è partito da questo commento in home:
"Sinceramente non capisco chi deve per forza criticare senza neanche capire di cosa sta scrivendo. Mi riferisco alla parte dedicata al microcredito che in paesi in via di sviluppo funziona e alla grande pure. "
Quando ho chiesto info circa le fonti mi è stato risposto:
“Muhammad Yunus Premio Nobel...basta?”
Come dire, se è un premio Nobel allora... 🙂
Così ho pensato di fornire qualche riscontro circa più aree e paesi in via di sviluppo. Chang è stato fra i primi ad affrontare l’argomento e probabilmente uno dei più conosciuti che si possa citare. Se si vuole andare oltre bisogna leggere altre analisi o semplicemente andarsi a vedere qualche numero. Per conto proprio intendo. Se puoi e sai guardarti i numeri puoi anche fare a meno dei vari Chang. Chang ha il merito di essere guercio in un mondo di orbi ed essendo fra i divulgatori più bravi ed accessibili che io conosca non smetterò mai di consigliarlo.
In questo caso bastava fare una ricerchina con Google circa “micro-debt” o "microfinance” per farsi un’idea di base ma evidentemente non ce la si fa.
La stessa cosa vale per “sharia finance”, “islamic finance”, ecc. In questo caso troveresti che il primo risultato è una voce di Wiki ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_banking_and_finance ) con un'importante bibliografia. Fra gli altri ti segnalo questo: http://iugc.yolasite.com/resources/Reference%20Book%2004%20-%20Islamic%20finance,%20law%20economics%20and%20practice,%20M.%20El%20Gamal.pdf .
Risponderti è complicato ma se vuoi una risposta secca ti dico che non esiste “una finanza che non preveda tassi d’interesse”. Vi sono iniziative più o meno "etiche" e funzionali il cui scopo è offrire un sostegno finanziario a condizioni agevolate ai propri soci o in genere promuovere lo sviluppo del proprio territorio/comunità.
Ci sono vari esempi di “finanza cooperativa”, da qualche anno va di moda citare la JAK ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JAK_Members_Bank ). Cito questi perché dicono di praticare l’interest-free banking (tasso zero) ma non è così. Nel caso di JAK il costo del credito dipende oltre che da uno spread fisso anche dal mancato rendimento dei depositi obbligatori ( o post-risparmi secondo loro) e quindi, a seconda dei rendimenti di mercato, il tasso effettivo (costo implicito + costo esplicito o spread) può variare sensibilmente (che io ricordi si è arrivati anche al 10-15% ).
Ci sono diverse iniziative di “banca etica” di cui preferisco non parlare ma in origine e fino a non molto tempo fa le nostre varie casse di risparmio, banche di credito cooperativo, casse rurali ed artigiane, ecc, funzionavano…
Topic starter
14 Ottobre 2017 12:09
Ancora Bateman per il Guardian:
Microcredit has been a disaster for the poorest in South Africa.
(The finance model was supposed to help the country's disenfranchised, but has just pushed them further into debt)
After apartheid ended in South Africa in 1994, the international development community quickly arrived with plans to promote the microcredit model. Proclaiming that it would rapidly bring new jobs, incomes, empowerment and dignity to the poorest black communities and townships, expectations of rapid progress ran high.
However, the microcredit medicine applied to post-apartheid South Africa has turned out to be a deadly one. It is now increasingly clear that the much-lauded market-driven microcredit model has inflicted untold damage on the South African economy and society. Concerned investors are rapidly leaving the bloated microcredit sector, with many users arguing that it is on the verge of a self-orchestrated collapse.
The microcredit-induced problems that emerged in South Africa are two-fold. First, microcredit per se is actually an "anti-developmental" intervention. For one thing, it exists on paper to support the smallest income-generating activities, but in practice is increasingly all about supporting consumption spending. In South Africa, the microcredit movement has created an incredibly risky and expensive way to support the immediate consumption needs of the very poorest.
With few poor individuals possessing a secure income stream that might ensure full repayment of a microloan – unemployment is now higher than it was under apartheid – many of the poorest individuals have been forced to repay their microloan by selling off their household assets, borrowing from friends and family, as well as simply taking out new microloans to repay old ones. For far too many now "financially included" individuals in South Africa, using microcredit to support current spending has been a disastrous and irreversible pathway into chronic poverty.
Going further, of the very small percentage of microcredit that actually does go into supporting income-generating microenterprises (as per the original model), the fact remains that the business activities that emerge are simply not the drivers of sustainable development and poverty reduction. The rafts of new street traders, barrow boys, spaza shops and the like have generated very little, if any, positive impact in South Africa's poorest local communities. Centrally, late-apartheid South Africa already possessed a very large informal economy in the black townships, one that was composed of exactly such simple low-capitalised no-growth activities.
Among other things, this existing capacity helps to account for the high rate of job and income displacement that emerged after 1994, when new microcredit-supported informal microenterprises took demand, and subsequently income, away from the rafts of already struggling businesses in the black communities. The inevitable hyper-competition that arose was one of the central causes in self-employment income falling dramatically between 1997-2003, dropping by more than 11% per annum.
This was not microcredit's intended poverty reduction so much as the intensification of poverty, suffering and deprivation among the very poorest communities forced into informal sector work. Even worse, social tensions were greatly exacerbated thanks to hyper-competition and the aggressive taking of clients away from existing businesses, while ethnically-motivated business turf wars inevitably began to rear their ugly head too.
Perhaps most importantly, the growing dominance of the microcredit model has meant that South Africa's scarce financial resources have essentially been diverted away from more productive and sustainable business activities; notably away from formal manufacturing-led SME development, which the country desperately needs. Microcredit institutions that successfully mobilise savings, remittances and public and private investment funding, and then profitably channel this largesse into microcredit applications, effectively de-fund the very enterprise sectors most closely associated with sustainable local economic development and poverty reduction.
Just as in microcredit-saturated Latin America, the programmed diversion of South Africa's scarce funds into microcredit applications has been a first-order development disaster in the post-apartheid era. The market-driven microcredit model in South Africa has progressively helped to destroy the important economic, social and institutional foundations that underpin a healthy local economy.
A further intractable problem with microcredit in South Africa is related to the extensive commercialisation that was introduced into the global microcredit industry in order to make it financially self-sustaining. Like Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke, far too many high-profile microcredit supporters and policymakers also naively bought into the myth of the free market, including its particular aversion towards robust regulation. There was hope that for-profit microcredit institutions would dutifully stick to their allotted mission and responsibly lend to the poor. However, just as in the wider economy, where the actions of the financial institutions on Wall Street brought on a global recession, the widely-held assumption that private banks and microcredit institutions would be responsible also proved to be spectacularly wrong.
Bombarded with microloans in such a way that today they simply cannot repay even a fraction of what they owe (estimates are that 40% of the South African workforce's income is spent on repaying debt), South Africa's poor are now caught in a microdebt-trap of unimaginable proportions. Only now are people realising that the real aim of the private banks and microcredit institutions in South Africa – exactly as in the case of Wall Street's infamous sub-prime lenders – was not to help their poor clients, but to extract as much value from them in the shortest time possible before leaving the sector and moving on to other fields of business.
Unfortunately, the very worst impacts of microcredit in South Africa have taken place in the poorest and most vulnerable regions, especially around the mining district of Rustenburg. Here, many of South Africa's largest and most prestigious banks opted to pour in vast amounts of microcredit in order to quickly generate profits at the expense of the hardest-working yet most vulnerable individuals imaginable. The result of pursuing this goal was massive profits for the private banks and microcredit institutions and, of course, huge financial rewards for their high-profile CEOs, but personal devastation for the vast majority of already heavily indebted mineworkers and their families. Sadly, largely in order to make additional money for its managers, even the ANC-linked and once radical National Union of Mineworkers got involved in pushing microcredit onto its poor members through its part-ownership of UBank.
South Africa's microcredit model and its supporters – much like their counterparts around the world – have been widely discredited. Extracting the poor from the grip of the microcredit movement will not be easy, however, in a country where officially sanctioned exploitation of the poorest black communities seems to remain, even under the post-apartheid government.
But the alternative is to leave things as they are and deal with an inevitable Arab Spring-style uprising, the end result of which one simply cannot predict.
Topic starter
14 Ottobre 2017 12:11
Qui David Hulme:
Is microdebt good for poor people?: A note on the dark side of microfinance.
http://media.microfinancelessons.com/resources/hulme_microdebt_SED2000.pdf
Topic starter
14 Ottobre 2017 12:15
Qui in modo ancor più didascalico:
Five Reasons Microcredit Fails in the Fight Against Poverty
Numerous studies have been conducted over the years examining the impact of microcredit. We've summarized some of the most important studies in a separate article, but the results are mixed. Microcredit is not the silver bullet it was once considered to be. Here we highlight Five Reasons why Microcredit Fails:
1. Most Microcredit loans are used to fund consumption as well as development. Studies have shown that many beneficiaries use their loans to cover short term emergencies rather than address long-term economic growth. (4) The result is that that microcredit may have minimal impact on income growth.
2. Most Microcredit programs produce over-indebtedness.The dark side of microcredit is microdebt. (5)Microcredit introduces external debt into a community and can produce unhealthy dependence. Microcredit can also diminish existing informal safety nets and adversely affect social cohesion. (6) Many who receive loans lack ability to repay the loans and don't develop an incentive to generate their own sustainable source of funding.
3. Most Microcredit loans are expensive and rely on high interest rates to meet operation costs. (7) Microcredit, which targets the poor, is much more expensive than commercial bank loans aimed at middle and upper class populations. Microcredit is rarely sustainable among the poor at modest interest rates and very rarely reaches the most poor. For example, the largest microfinance bank in Latin America, with over 2.5 million subscribers, Banco Compartamos, has charged nearly 200% per year on its loan products. (8)
4. Most Microcredit loans promote economic inefficiency. In communities where microcredit is widely employed, copycat businesses often develop with a limited local market. Microloans enable the creation of new businesses, but the new businesses replace existing ones. Competition and lack of consumer demand in poor communities drive business failure and the majority of new businesses fail within a short time. (9)
5. Most Microcredit programs exploit rather than empower. (10) The commercialization of microcredit over the past fifteen years has had a major negative impact: "commercial microcredit institutions are subject to demands for ever-increasing profits, which can only come in the form of higher interest rates charged to the poor, defeating the very purpose of the loans." (11) Heavy handed collection tactics have been documented as exploitative interest rates are combined with extortion. Financial literacy and education are often excluded as precursors to loan products. As a result, many poor become trapped in deepening cycles of poverty and debt.
http://www.fivetalents.org/media-center/blog/29-general/1016-microcredit-fails
18 Ottobre 2017 18:22
Grazie della aggiunta, non conoscevo.
Non essendo della materia, ti ho fatto quella domanda sulla finanza islamica perchè ogni tanto appaiono frasi come "....il denaro che usiamo con il prestito e gli interessi...." e amenità del genere.
Ho visto da dove è partito il discorso del micro-credito e, per persone che non conoscono la problematica e le conseguenze, potrebbe apparire insieme alla finanza islamica, un cavallo di battaglia per "salvare il mondo e sovvertire il sistema di potere attuale".
Se puoi rispondere: a cosa pensi sia dovuto il cambiamento di comportamento delle varie casse di risparmio, banche di credito cooperativo etc.?
Topic starter
18 Ottobre 2017 22:33
E' complicato Deheb. Non me la sento. Quello che potrei dirti lo puoi trovare da solo cercando "riforma banche di credito cooperativo". Leggi più link che puoi.
Per il passato recente dai un'occhiata qui:
Non li ho controllati quindi più ne leggi meglio è 🙂
Mi spiace.
21 Ottobre 2017 8:08
Grazie comunque, una traccia me l'hai comunque data. Nessun problema, ripensandoci mi è sembrata una domanda molto generica ma, come dicevo dall'altra parte, uno ci prova.
ps: sull'altro post ho scritto che non avresti risposto perchè...[...]. in realtà questa tua risposta l'ho vista solo ora. Conoscendo un pò il tuo stile ho pensato, erroneamente, che una domanda così potesse ottenere una risposta del tipo: "usa il tuo ditino e vedi...."
Non avendo ricevuto nessun avviso e non avendo controllato sul forum pensavo la domanda fosse passata senza risposta.
Mi scuso.
Topic starter
21 Ottobre 2017 18:02
Non hai nulla di cui scusarti, figurati. In realtà la riforma non c'entra niente 🙂
Cioè, "c'entra" ma io alludevo ad altro. Comunque, fossi in te, prima di concentrare la mia attenzione sulle BCC, cercherei di farmi un'idea complessiva circa l'evoluzione del sistema bancario. Forse per te Ideas non è adatto. Magari poi eh? Cerca fra i lucidi dei corsi di "economia degli intermediari finanziari". Nell'immediato non ti servirà quasi a niente ma almeno avrai qualche elemento in più per "leggere" gli eventi e magari passare oltre. Se qualche concetto non ti torna ed hai bisogno di aiuto chiedi pure. Mannaggia a me... Questa sera ordino la Playstation 🙂
21 Ottobre 2017 23:33
Lo ripropongo da questa parte:
"Vorrei poter scrivere tutto ciò che so/penso ma non posso o se preferisci non voglio. Sono argomenti delicati. Non è per fare il saputello che se la tira, capisci? Il mio non è snobismo d’accatto, è solo questione di privacy, riservatezza e salvaguardia (personale). Se talvolta mi rifugio nel sarcasmo è proprio perché vorrei ma non posso. E piuttosto che portarti a spasso con qualche discorso vagamente ispirato preferisco stare zitto. Sarcasmo o ironia che con te non mi sembra di aver fatto e che comunque, tranne rari casi, non ha mai scopo canzonatorio."
Capisco bene, non è un discorso nuovo.
E' gia indicativo ciò che hai scritto "Ci sono diverse iniziative di “banca etica” di cui preferisco non parlare...."
Infatti la domanda inizia con "Se puoi rispondere..." a cui si potrebbe aggiungere "se ne hai tempo e voglia" vista la complessità dell'argomento.
In passato anche con Mincuo ho avuto le stesse risposte su certi argomenti delicati.
Non essendo della materia per me sono importanti alcune indicazioni, alcune linee da seguire e altre da evitare. A dirla tutta non è che sia così affascinante, almeno per me, questa materia. Ma come dicevi, se si vuole capire qualcosa dalla storia e dal mondo economico bisogna passare. Sono più stimolanti le relazioni tra queste.
23 Ottobre 2017 15:23
Riassunto delle puntate precedenti:
“Ho visto da dove è partito il discorso del micro-credito e, per persone che non conoscono la problematica e le conseguenze, potrebbe apparire insieme alla finanza islamica, un cavallo di battaglia per "salvare il mondo e sovvertire il sistema di potere attuale”.”
Coincidenza vuole pochi gg dopo arriva in home un articolo che verte sulle questioni monetarie.
Da qui questa mia considerazione di commento:
“Questo era uno degli aspetti inerenti alla mia domanda sul forum”
Per “salvare il mondo “ intendevo quei concetti che più o meno originano da qua:
"l'inganno della moneta fiat" e il suo alter ego “l’inganno della moneta debito"
e tutto quello che uno può aggiungerci sull'argomento.
Inoltre, in giro per il web ogni tanto appaiono dei sistemi (miracolosi) che salverebbero il mondo (capitalistico, è d’obbligo specificare….) e allevierebbero le sofferenze di tutti. Lo è stata la MMT a suo tempo (bei tempi quelli…-sospiro-) e adesso c’è la moneta positiva, o tutto il circuito facente capo.
Poi in alcuni angoli più nascosti ci sono soluzioni come il microcredito (che non funziona come da aspettativa, anzi) e qualcuno ha citato la finanza islamica perchè, se noi siamo sommersi dal debito dovuto agli interessi, questa è priva di interessi quindi dovrebbe risolvere, previa applicazione della stessa.
Questo è più o meno l’intreccio mnemonico che mi fa legare questi argomenti.
Già in precedenza sei apparso chiedendomi, sempre su argomento monetario, cosa significasse per me “la carenza di moneta” o qualcosa di simile. Ti ho risposto in maniera ironica “quale moneta?” visto il contesto precedente che poi coincide con quello attuale: quella a debito, a credito, della banca ma centrale o periferica, o quella di stato……
Ogni problema sembra debba necessariamente passare per una soluzione monetaria, la famosa sovranità monetaria.
Intanto però non capiamo ancora bene cosa sia questa benedetta moneta....
Aggiungerei una cosa: è una mia impressione o nelle definizioni viste di moneta non viene data solo una definizione descrittiva ma anche morale? (lo sfruttamento del lavoro, l'aggancio con l'oro perchè il valore deve essere fissato...moneta a debito con gli interessi quindi....).
ps: considerazioni in libera uscita dette da uno che ha intuito qualcosa, senza pretese néh...
Topic starter
23 Ottobre 2017 15:51
Deheb;235877 wrote: Riassunto delle puntate precedenti:
sei apparso chiedendomi, sempre su argomento monetario, cosa significasse per me “la carenza di moneta” o qualcosa di simile. Ti ho risposto in maniera ironica “quale moneta?” visto il contesto precedente che poi coincide con quello attuale: quella a debito, a credito, della banca ma centrale o periferica, o quella di stato……
Ogni problema sembra debba necessariamente passare per una soluzione monetaria, la famosa sovranità monetaria.
Intanto però non capiamo ancora bene cosa sia questa benedetta moneta....
Deheb, son “apparso” ? Tipo la Madonna di Fatima? 😀
Circa “la carenza di moneta” ammetto di non essermi speso nello studio della “moneta positiva” ma leggiucchiando un paio di suoi articoli ho notato che spesso e volentieri ritorna il concetto che essendoci “carenza di moneta”, parole sue, c’è bisogno di iniettarne di fresca. Non capendo e non volendo infastidire Conditi ho chiesto a te. Ora, la questione monetaria è enorme sotto più punti di vista. Possiamo però porvi rimedio? No. Decisamente no. Specie se abbiamo tutta quella confusione in testa. Io credo di essermi già espresso in proposito in una discussione aperta dall’utente Iacopo. Credo fosse “se non conosci la matematica non puoi capire l’economia” o qualche cosa di simile. Ci sono mille altre questioni da trattare, questioni che potrebbero risolverci un sacco di problemi nell’immediato e che credo (anzi son sicuro) siano fattibili, volontà politica permettendo. Di queste però non si parla. Perché? Boh.
Il fatto è che non me ne frega più niente, cioè, se uno parte con l’atteggiamento sbagliato poi è normale che finisca per essere intortato. Per dire. Ho iniziato a scrivere cirrca la discriminazione d'età per arrivare a parlare della quarta rivoluzione industriale. Volevo cioè discutere dei cambiamenti che l'evoluzione del sistema produttivo impone alla società ma come hai visto non interessa a nessuno. e quindi che scrivo a fare? Oramai qui sembra di essere su twitter. Apposto così.
23 Ottobre 2017 17:05
Nat;235879 wrote: ... Circa “la carenza di moneta” ammetto di non essermi speso nello studio della “moneta positiva” ma leggiucchiando un paio di suoi articoli ho notato che spesso e volentieri ritorna il concetto che essendoci “carenza di moneta”, parole sue, c’è bisogno di iniettarne di fresca. Non capendo e non volendo infastidire Conditi ho chiesto a te. Ora, la questione monetaria è enorme sotto più punti di vista. Possiamo però porvi rimedio? No. Decisamente no. Specie se abbiamo tutta quella confusione in testa. ...
Ci sono innumerevoli grafici che dimostrano che c'è "carenza di moneta", lo stesso Mario Draghi giustifica il Quantitative Easing con la necessità di far arrivare più denaro all'economia reale.
Solo che il QE aumenta la liquidità dei mercati finanziari, che non investono nell'economia reale, ma seguitano ad investire nelle speculazioni immobiliari e finanziarie. Quindi l'obiettivo di raggiungere una inflazione del 2% resta lontano!
Questo perchè l'unico modo di raggiungere questo obiettivo (art.127 del TFUE), insieme agli altri previsti dall'art.3 del TUE, cioè crescita economica equilibrata e piena occupazione, è quello di far arrivare denaro all'economia reale.
Ma l'unico modo per riuscirci è di farlo creare dallo Stato direttamente.
Solo che a quel punto come farebbero a giustificare le politiche di austerity ?
23 Ottobre 2017 17:58
Ma che c'entra Draghi?
Quella è la retorica a mezzo stampa di un banchiere centrale, cosa dovrebbe dire altrimenti? Per la gente va bene dire che il QE serve a far arrivare denaro all'economia reale (?). La realtà è un'altra ma mica può dirla.
Che poi aumenta la liquidità di 60 mld al mese ma la ritira anche mica va a sommarsi mese per mese, hanno delle scadenze. E hanno anche delle conseguenze.
Il Giappone son vent'anni e rotti che prova a rialzare l'inflazione con scarsi risultati. Eppure. O magari l'inflazione è uno degli obiettivi (dichiarati) ma c'è dell'altro, o magari che non è solo una questione monetaria.
Quale stato (volutamente minuscolo)? Questo?
Non sarebbe meglio essere realisti e partire dalle cose semplici? O quelle fattibili e praticabili, visto che il potere decisionale della gente è di circa lo 0,00000000000003%?
Pagina 1 / 2
Avanti