I resent having to click on the breast cancer site to provide mammograms to those who cannot afford it in the USA but I still do it as we, in Australia are so lucky to have free mammograms after we reach 50 years of age. I am new to Kiva and feel very confused by all the arguments by regular contributors.
Just so y'all know there is also a thread about this running at http://www.kivafriends.org/index.php/topic,3922.0.html . I know Kiva is monitoring that thread (and here) and taking it on board. But for the sake of consistency, I'll repost here a truncated version of what I've just added to that thread.
As I see it, Kiva continues to do the wonderful work it always has. If, like me, you don't want to lend to people in some geographical locations and prefer to give to an area you have an emotional or philosophical connection to, then fine. Don't give or do give as you see fit.
Kiva is a flexible vehicle rather than a didactic one - one that provides endless options to its users who come from all sorts of different philosophical, religious and cultural backgrounds. I am wary of attempts to privilege any of those paradigms over any other. Rather than worrying about whether the organization itself perfectly reflects one's personal views of what is ‘worthy’ (and again, the issue for me is 'who gets to define that on everybody's behalf?'), perhaps the solution here is to embrace the fact that Kiva enables each of us to focus on being true to our own personal ideals.
A few years ago, I had the good fortune to work with the UNHCR monitoring the impacts of microloans in Sri Lanka. And I was very blessed to spend some time with an ex high school teacher who had set up a NGO that was by then assisting communities in over ten thousand villages. We were talking about compassion fatigue in the west and so on, and I asked him, “There is so much that needs to be fixed in the world, how do we decide what is most important? What should we do?”
He said, “Something.”
And that’s just it, isn’t it? Let’s not knock people who are doing something, even if it isn’t in perfect alignment with our own somethings. As I see it, our options to behave as we like and to follow our own moral lights have not been in any way diminished by recent moves.
Ruling out any country as a whole seems dangerous to me. For me, a broader issue is at play - who gets to rule out which countries are worthy and which are not? That's a slippery precedent. Americans might see Iraq as unworthy. Israelis might see Palastine as unworthy. And so it goes. I'd be much less comfortable if cultural bias came into play than I am with the current situation where one judges individual projects on their own merits.
My personal concerns relate to the flight-of-capital arguments. I am glad that Kiva is directly monitoring this. One scenario is, of course, that people who would usually lend to other countries are now lending to the US. Another scenario is that people who come wanting to donate specifically to Americans might find that, after time, they support people elsewhere too. There is an argument to be made that the more vibrant the lending ecology, the better for all. Not to mention that Kiva itself will get additional operating funds from new lenders, making the organisation more robust and perhaps better able to help those in less developed nations. But it's too early to tell, and I trust that the proper analyses of the pilot will be both made and reported to us.
To conclude - I do hope that the community doesn’t become too divided over this. It has been so inspiring to me to see a group of people gathered together to participate in sharing their wealth with the less fortunate. When I look at an entrepreneur and see donations to them from the US, Australia, the UK, the Netherlands, Belgium, Thailand, and from families, students, philanthropic groups, children and so on it reminds me that forces for change are at work everywhere. Please let’s all remember that everyone’s intentions, on both sides of this debate, are noble. We want to see Kiva be the most effective force that it can. Please let’s all treat each other with respect in this debate. I for one have nothing less than respect for anyone who is passionate about helping Kiva be the best it can be.
Ryan - 16 years ago
I can't believe the type of discrimination I hear going on here. You ask what is wrong with Kiva? What is wrong with you? First off, none of the loans funded on Kiva are interest free to the lenders. Second, what good ever came from taking choices away from people. Do what you want with your own money. Don't go around trying to make decisions for other people. Everyone can go spouting off mean and hurtful things, such as raging against *hard working* people in the US, but what good will this do? Of course these loans take a lot more money, living here is a *lot* more expensive! Case in point, my adopted sister's mother died of pneumonia in California. From the sounds of some of you. you might refuse to believe that she died from a completely treatable illness, simply because she lived in one of the top GDP countries, and in one of the states with the most resources. She obviously wouldn't have met the "poverty" requirement that some of you have, but she sure as hell wasn't well off enough to afford the medication that would have saved her life. People everywhere need help, not simply the most civil war-torn, diseased, economically depressed countries.
Patricia Bair - 16 years ago
I support your decision to offer loans in the US however I think it should be on a limited basis so it doesn't effect loans to more impoverished countries.
Dagfinn - 16 years ago
I applaude Kiva for doing this; poverty is relative and to say that a person without access to financing in a dveloped country is less deserving than a person from a developing country worries me big time.
We cannot help all but we can do some and the very fact that Kiva do not impose any policy on me except that to provide funding to the working poor is what makes them strong. I make my choices based on my criteria, I listen to advice and opinion to other on KivaFriends and learn more, placing funds other places - I live richer!
Brad - 16 years ago
Giving interest-free loans without due diligence to entrepreneurs in a capitalist country is frankly immoral, disgusting, and wrong. It goes against absolutely everything capitalism stand for. People here have options if they look around. If they do not get funded, that's for a reason. Maybe they are not trying hard enough in a society of abundance.
It is one think to make the rules more flexible for the truly poor so they can get a leg up and get started in this world, but to give money from this country to entrepreneurs from the richest darn country in the world because they can't get funding is revolting. How freaking often are the U.S. shafting other nations just because they can ? Now I should go and help their people get an interest free loan on my back ? Learn capitalism people, whatever you are practicing here is just evil.
Carol - 16 years ago
I am AMAZED that people are upset about loans in the U.S. - if a person doesn't want to loan in the U.S., they shouldn't. But it's obnoxious that a person would want to prevent someone else from doing so by trying to stop KIVA from making the option available.
How incredibly offensive that one person thinks they have the right to impose their own personal belief system upon another....
Dean - 16 years ago
I think it is great having the option of entrepreneur's from all countries being represented on Kiva. At this time I am not planning on lending to first world countries but it is nice the option exists. If opening first world countries like the USA brings more working capital to Kiva and does not reduce the amount to third world countries, this would be perfect.
Jen - 16 years ago
Each loan to a US person could be used for several people in less developed countries to do much more with. Poor people in the US with the stability to pass the partner loan requirements aren't actually poor.
If Kiva is going to do this, at least make it easy to filter these loans out. Typically, I lend to groups and the easiest way to find them is to look for larger amounts requested, which is now messed up with US loans.
Leigh Newton - 16 years ago
Alternative Proposal!!
Kiva's role has become confused. Is it a micro-loan coordinating agency or an alternative to less than ethical first world banks?
While no-one disuptes the needs of the American poor, the issue for me is that Kiva is not the Kiva it built its reputation on. US loans don't sit easily with the other loans and am inclined to find other worthy sources for my future loans/donations. I can no longer enthusiastically promote Kiva.
A suggestion: Kiva splits off their US loans and builds a following for a new company name that loans to individuals from developed countries. Certainly banks have turned into an enemy of their customers and such an initiative would be one good force to keep banks accountable to their customers rather than just to their share-holders. While this is a minimal step in administration it would protect Kiva from the backlash that is only in its seminal stages now. (Without quick action I foresee that Kiva's reputation will be setback several years. The next few weeks will tell.)
If Kiva continues to use its name for the new venture they will have stymied its own future. The internet market can be very clear about some things. Just ask Facebook.
Scott - 16 years ago
I'm 100% in favor! If you don't like the US loans don't lend to them!
Tom, Seattle - 16 years ago
I must add however that even CEO Matt Flannery is missing the point. He states that "The Field Partners we are working with in the U.S. target low-income entrepreneurs" and that is the problem Matt. "Low income" is not "poverty". Kiva's mission seeks to "alleviate poverty", and poverty is defined as 'having little of no money, and few or no possessions."
Matt you have changed the mission of Kiva from one WE ALL agreed on when we joined, to one that adds a totally new dimension, stress on resources and competition between the loans of the 'poverty' borrowers and the 'low income' ones. Our hearts break for anyone in either situation, but Kiva chose to start with a model that addressed 'poverty' and until that is whipped, Matt, Kiva ought to stick to that. THAT is what we are angry about. You are changing the fundamental soul and magic of a marvelous idea.
Edgar - 16 years ago
I have no problem with Kiva offering the choice, nonetheless I will mostly choose not to loan to the U.S. simply for its low 'bang for the buck' factor. $500 will take you much further in the third world than nearly anywhere in the U.S. Further, the locations that your U.S. field partners seem to serve provide probably the lowest bang-for-the-buck inside the U.S. itself.
I think very carefully about the multiplying effect of each of my loans, i will normally choose something that is more labor-intensive, that requires on the job training of the work force, or that fosters other community services to develop around it; over something that mostly benefits one person. In that regard loans inside big U.S. communities offer even less bang for the buck for me.
With the offering of U.S. loans, I am even more concerned about the long-term stability of Kiva. You have now entered in direct competition with P2P sites such as Prosper.com which do turn a profit and, from the U.S. offerings that I have seen, can potentially serve the same markets. Unless your U.S. focus is properly shifted, your sole reliance on donations to service the Kiva infrastructure is now in peril. And that is where I plan to vote, there will be no further donations from me unless you enter a more sustainable path.
I consider that the first world poor can help subsidize the infrastructure needed to keep the third world poor offerings. A simple scheme such as a graded interest 'tax' relative to loan amount (per person) can provide such feedback (with loans at or below the average amount requiring no interest, or even providing incentives!). it would force field partners in more affluent nations to ponder their alternatives with respect to the best interest rates in the market and would foster the creation of field partners in the most impoverished areas of the world. Doing otherwise it would become more 'profitable' for Kiva and its current, and future, field partners to service the first world instead of the countries that most need the development dollars.
Nonny from Ventura - 16 years ago
People, please refrain from attacking the US borrowers listed on the Kiva site. They are innocent bystanders in all this upheaval, and don't deserve this vitriol and anger directed at them.
I am fine with US loans on the site at this point. I admit I am eager to see loans to those in poorer areas of the US, rather than what has been posted so far.
james - 16 years ago
Dear Kiva
I appreciate all that you are doing for those in the developing world and those who are in newly industrialized countries. I really do. However, there is now a remarkable lack of consistency between your mission statement and what path you have now directed your organization into.
Having now reviewed a good deal of the new borrowers from WITHIN the United States, I am truly disappointed in you.
Not only are these people not in poverty, they are living in a country that has the highest living standard in history. Has the highest GDP in history, multiples larger than the closest developed nation, and there are already means for people in the states to get ahead. This isn't POVERTY. What's more is that these aren't micro-loans! A good amount of them are between US$5k and US$10k!! I realize the people lending them are lending in small amounts but these are in the league of car loans. What exactly do you mean by Micro? In what quantifiable context is 'micro'?
On both ends? or just on the part of the lender. These people aren't in NEED of Kiva. Photography equipment? a storage shed for 'Silvia' when *sigh* she has to pay a whole US$200 a month now? and she lives in the SF BAY AREA? Where the median income is well above the national average of the RICHEST COUNTRY THAT HAS EVER EXISTED?! REALLY? FOR SOMETHING SHE DOESN'T NEED?! THAT IS PATHETIC.
In the end, people are allowed to lend money to whomever they want, and I have no qualms with that whatsoever. My PROBLEM is one of consistency. YOU are being inconsistent with the principles of your mission statement which means you are being inconsistent with ME. Since you are a non-profit organization who expects people to lend money based on your merit, your mission statement, and your TRANSPARENCY I strongly urge you to do one the following: DROP American borrowers from your site, create a site that is for borrowers/lenders of DEVELOPED countries OR CHANGE YOUR 'ABOUT' Page to reflect what your new so-called direction is - and it is a direction a good number of us do not find so appealing so I would NOT recommend the 3rd option.
Good day.
Thomas James Slater
Jill - 16 years ago
If Kiva would post entrepreneurs in the U.S. for whom loans might provide an opportunity to escape from real poverty, I might be okay with Kiva’s including the U.S. as one of its areas of concentration. The type of entrepreneurs included in the first U.S. group, however, even though some had moving stories, didn’t even approach the kind of people I’d once thought Kiva had been started to try to reach.
For that matter, as Kiva has severed its relations, for a variety of reasons, with some of its original, smaller, more grass roots-type, community-grown field partners, I’ve noticed with increasing dismay and sorrow that fewer and fewer of the loans that currently are being posted on Kiva’s pages, even if from the developing countries, bear much of a resemblance to the poverty-stricken but still striving entrepreneur I once had been so pleased and truly dedicated to try to help.
Not every Kiva entrepreneur will be a stone cracker from Ghana or a lady in Cambodia who had to clean public restrooms all day to be able to provide sustenance for her family. But that sort of struggling but still determined individual whom I used to see, quite regularly, on Kiva’s pages was just exactly the type of individual for whom I’d thought that Kiva and we lenders had come together and had committed ourselves to try to elevate.
Anna - 16 years ago
This debate confounds me! If you don't like the idea of your money going to Americans, then simply don't donate money to them! It's that easy. Why deprive those of us who do? There plenty of other micro-finance organizations out there that only provide loans to those in foreign lands. Just saying...
Marilee - 16 years ago
I was hesitant about US loans until I saw the storm of people who were angry about it, and the "us and them" attitude of many of the people complaining now. We needed a wake-up call.
Yes, I still hope they will be cautious about how much of their bandwidth they allocate to the US, so it doesn't slow worldwide expansion and support of developing countries. Yes, the standard of living is much higher here. Yes, I'll wait to personally loan to the US until they find some US partners that deal with extremely impoverished areas, where children are pressured out of school and in some cases where electricity and running water aren't taken for granted yet (yes, they exist).
But no, it was time to make people look at the fact that Kiva is a platform that supports lending to people along a wide *spectrum* of poverty, from someone buying one pig to someone with two employees in a relatively prosperous country. Moldova loans look almost like US loans. It's not all or nothing, and it's not the high and mighty rich helping the humble and destitute poor. It's people who can't get credit from banks, for whatever reason, and want a chance to prove they can succeed. It's me with a decent income helping someone else who's having a harder time right now.
As Premal the founder says on his lender page, "I loan because: there is no them."
Dave - 16 years ago
Every country has people who want to make their dreams come true and have their own business.
I think people should vote with their wallets.
If someone prefers to fund someone in the US that is their choice.
Democracy is a good thing!
TC - 16 years ago
I must admit I'm torn.
I'd hate to see loans in the U.S. take away from funding of loans in places that are much poorer. But that doesn't seem to be happening. There still seems to be plenty of funding for all loans so far.
However, since I can choose which loans I help to fund, I can and will choose not to participate in U.S. loans, or for that matter, ANY loans where the borrower doesn't seem to be what I would consider poor.
All in all, I would rather see more of Kiva's effort being put toward helping people in really poor places like Haiti.
Susan - 16 years ago
There are lots of poor people in the United States as well as around the world. I am glad to support them.
I believe if you want to help the world, you need to help those in your backyard first. If we all did this, the world would be a much better place. The beauty of kiva is that it is free choice... you don't have to lend to those you don't feel deserve it, but there are still plenty out there that can benefit from a hand up.
REBECCA - 16 years ago
I am so diappointed you offer US loans. I think it dilutes the thoughts of you helping the really poor.
I resent having to click on the breast cancer site to provide mammograms to those who cannot afford it in the USA but I still do it as we, in Australia are so lucky to have free mammograms after we reach 50 years of age. I am new to Kiva and feel very confused by all the arguments by regular contributors.
Oh - and I had no idea para breaks are ignored here. So sorry for the inelegant formatting!
Just so y'all know there is also a thread about this running at http://www.kivafriends.org/index.php/topic,3922.0.html . I know Kiva is monitoring that thread (and here) and taking it on board. But for the sake of consistency, I'll repost here a truncated version of what I've just added to that thread.
As I see it, Kiva continues to do the wonderful work it always has. If, like me, you don't want to lend to people in some geographical locations and prefer to give to an area you have an emotional or philosophical connection to, then fine. Don't give or do give as you see fit.
Kiva is a flexible vehicle rather than a didactic one - one that provides endless options to its users who come from all sorts of different philosophical, religious and cultural backgrounds. I am wary of attempts to privilege any of those paradigms over any other. Rather than worrying about whether the organization itself perfectly reflects one's personal views of what is ‘worthy’ (and again, the issue for me is 'who gets to define that on everybody's behalf?'), perhaps the solution here is to embrace the fact that Kiva enables each of us to focus on being true to our own personal ideals.
A few years ago, I had the good fortune to work with the UNHCR monitoring the impacts of microloans in Sri Lanka. And I was very blessed to spend some time with an ex high school teacher who had set up a NGO that was by then assisting communities in over ten thousand villages. We were talking about compassion fatigue in the west and so on, and I asked him, “There is so much that needs to be fixed in the world, how do we decide what is most important? What should we do?”
He said, “Something.”
And that’s just it, isn’t it? Let’s not knock people who are doing something, even if it isn’t in perfect alignment with our own somethings. As I see it, our options to behave as we like and to follow our own moral lights have not been in any way diminished by recent moves.
Ruling out any country as a whole seems dangerous to me. For me, a broader issue is at play - who gets to rule out which countries are worthy and which are not? That's a slippery precedent. Americans might see Iraq as unworthy. Israelis might see Palastine as unworthy. And so it goes. I'd be much less comfortable if cultural bias came into play than I am with the current situation where one judges individual projects on their own merits.
My personal concerns relate to the flight-of-capital arguments. I am glad that Kiva is directly monitoring this. One scenario is, of course, that people who would usually lend to other countries are now lending to the US. Another scenario is that people who come wanting to donate specifically to Americans might find that, after time, they support people elsewhere too. There is an argument to be made that the more vibrant the lending ecology, the better for all. Not to mention that Kiva itself will get additional operating funds from new lenders, making the organisation more robust and perhaps better able to help those in less developed nations. But it's too early to tell, and I trust that the proper analyses of the pilot will be both made and reported to us.
To conclude - I do hope that the community doesn’t become too divided over this. It has been so inspiring to me to see a group of people gathered together to participate in sharing their wealth with the less fortunate. When I look at an entrepreneur and see donations to them from the US, Australia, the UK, the Netherlands, Belgium, Thailand, and from families, students, philanthropic groups, children and so on it reminds me that forces for change are at work everywhere. Please let’s all remember that everyone’s intentions, on both sides of this debate, are noble. We want to see Kiva be the most effective force that it can. Please let’s all treat each other with respect in this debate. I for one have nothing less than respect for anyone who is passionate about helping Kiva be the best it can be.
I can't believe the type of discrimination I hear going on here. You ask what is wrong with Kiva? What is wrong with you? First off, none of the loans funded on Kiva are interest free to the lenders. Second, what good ever came from taking choices away from people. Do what you want with your own money. Don't go around trying to make decisions for other people. Everyone can go spouting off mean and hurtful things, such as raging against *hard working* people in the US, but what good will this do? Of course these loans take a lot more money, living here is a *lot* more expensive! Case in point, my adopted sister's mother died of pneumonia in California. From the sounds of some of you. you might refuse to believe that she died from a completely treatable illness, simply because she lived in one of the top GDP countries, and in one of the states with the most resources. She obviously wouldn't have met the "poverty" requirement that some of you have, but she sure as hell wasn't well off enough to afford the medication that would have saved her life. People everywhere need help, not simply the most civil war-torn, diseased, economically depressed countries.
I support your decision to offer loans in the US however I think it should be on a limited basis so it doesn't effect loans to more impoverished countries.
I applaude Kiva for doing this; poverty is relative and to say that a person without access to financing in a dveloped country is less deserving than a person from a developing country worries me big time.
We cannot help all but we can do some and the very fact that Kiva do not impose any policy on me except that to provide funding to the working poor is what makes them strong. I make my choices based on my criteria, I listen to advice and opinion to other on KivaFriends and learn more, placing funds other places - I live richer!
Giving interest-free loans without due diligence to entrepreneurs in a capitalist country is frankly immoral, disgusting, and wrong. It goes against absolutely everything capitalism stand for. People here have options if they look around. If they do not get funded, that's for a reason. Maybe they are not trying hard enough in a society of abundance.
It is one think to make the rules more flexible for the truly poor so they can get a leg up and get started in this world, but to give money from this country to entrepreneurs from the richest darn country in the world because they can't get funding is revolting. How freaking often are the U.S. shafting other nations just because they can ? Now I should go and help their people get an interest free loan on my back ? Learn capitalism people, whatever you are practicing here is just evil.
I am AMAZED that people are upset about loans in the U.S. - if a person doesn't want to loan in the U.S., they shouldn't. But it's obnoxious that a person would want to prevent someone else from doing so by trying to stop KIVA from making the option available.
How incredibly offensive that one person thinks they have the right to impose their own personal belief system upon another....
I think it is great having the option of entrepreneur's from all countries being represented on Kiva. At this time I am not planning on lending to first world countries but it is nice the option exists. If opening first world countries like the USA brings more working capital to Kiva and does not reduce the amount to third world countries, this would be perfect.
Each loan to a US person could be used for several people in less developed countries to do much more with. Poor people in the US with the stability to pass the partner loan requirements aren't actually poor.
If Kiva is going to do this, at least make it easy to filter these loans out. Typically, I lend to groups and the easiest way to find them is to look for larger amounts requested, which is now messed up with US loans.
Alternative Proposal!!
Kiva's role has become confused. Is it a micro-loan coordinating agency or an alternative to less than ethical first world banks?
While no-one disuptes the needs of the American poor, the issue for me is that Kiva is not the Kiva it built its reputation on. US loans don't sit easily with the other loans and am inclined to find other worthy sources for my future loans/donations. I can no longer enthusiastically promote Kiva.
A suggestion: Kiva splits off their US loans and builds a following for a new company name that loans to individuals from developed countries. Certainly banks have turned into an enemy of their customers and such an initiative would be one good force to keep banks accountable to their customers rather than just to their share-holders. While this is a minimal step in administration it would protect Kiva from the backlash that is only in its seminal stages now. (Without quick action I foresee that Kiva's reputation will be setback several years. The next few weeks will tell.)
If Kiva continues to use its name for the new venture they will have stymied its own future. The internet market can be very clear about some things. Just ask Facebook.
I'm 100% in favor! If you don't like the US loans don't lend to them!
I must add however that even CEO Matt Flannery is missing the point. He states that "The Field Partners we are working with in the U.S. target low-income entrepreneurs" and that is the problem Matt. "Low income" is not "poverty". Kiva's mission seeks to "alleviate poverty", and poverty is defined as 'having little of no money, and few or no possessions."
Matt you have changed the mission of Kiva from one WE ALL agreed on when we joined, to one that adds a totally new dimension, stress on resources and competition between the loans of the 'poverty' borrowers and the 'low income' ones. Our hearts break for anyone in either situation, but Kiva chose to start with a model that addressed 'poverty' and until that is whipped, Matt, Kiva ought to stick to that. THAT is what we are angry about. You are changing the fundamental soul and magic of a marvelous idea.
I have no problem with Kiva offering the choice, nonetheless I will mostly choose not to loan to the U.S. simply for its low 'bang for the buck' factor. $500 will take you much further in the third world than nearly anywhere in the U.S. Further, the locations that your U.S. field partners seem to serve provide probably the lowest bang-for-the-buck inside the U.S. itself.
I think very carefully about the multiplying effect of each of my loans, i will normally choose something that is more labor-intensive, that requires on the job training of the work force, or that fosters other community services to develop around it; over something that mostly benefits one person. In that regard loans inside big U.S. communities offer even less bang for the buck for me.
With the offering of U.S. loans, I am even more concerned about the long-term stability of Kiva. You have now entered in direct competition with P2P sites such as Prosper.com which do turn a profit and, from the U.S. offerings that I have seen, can potentially serve the same markets. Unless your U.S. focus is properly shifted, your sole reliance on donations to service the Kiva infrastructure is now in peril. And that is where I plan to vote, there will be no further donations from me unless you enter a more sustainable path.
I consider that the first world poor can help subsidize the infrastructure needed to keep the third world poor offerings. A simple scheme such as a graded interest 'tax' relative to loan amount (per person) can provide such feedback (with loans at or below the average amount requiring no interest, or even providing incentives!). it would force field partners in more affluent nations to ponder their alternatives with respect to the best interest rates in the market and would foster the creation of field partners in the most impoverished areas of the world. Doing otherwise it would become more 'profitable' for Kiva and its current, and future, field partners to service the first world instead of the countries that most need the development dollars.
People, please refrain from attacking the US borrowers listed on the Kiva site. They are innocent bystanders in all this upheaval, and don't deserve this vitriol and anger directed at them.
I am fine with US loans on the site at this point. I admit I am eager to see loans to those in poorer areas of the US, rather than what has been posted so far.
Dear Kiva
I appreciate all that you are doing for those in the developing world and those who are in newly industrialized countries. I really do. However, there is now a remarkable lack of consistency between your mission statement and what path you have now directed your organization into.
Having now reviewed a good deal of the new borrowers from WITHIN the United States, I am truly disappointed in you.
Not only are these people not in poverty, they are living in a country that has the highest living standard in history. Has the highest GDP in history, multiples larger than the closest developed nation, and there are already means for people in the states to get ahead. This isn't POVERTY. What's more is that these aren't micro-loans! A good amount of them are between US$5k and US$10k!! I realize the people lending them are lending in small amounts but these are in the league of car loans. What exactly do you mean by Micro? In what quantifiable context is 'micro'?
On both ends? or just on the part of the lender. These people aren't in NEED of Kiva. Photography equipment? a storage shed for 'Silvia' when *sigh* she has to pay a whole US$200 a month now? and she lives in the SF BAY AREA? Where the median income is well above the national average of the RICHEST COUNTRY THAT HAS EVER EXISTED?! REALLY? FOR SOMETHING SHE DOESN'T NEED?! THAT IS PATHETIC.
In the end, people are allowed to lend money to whomever they want, and I have no qualms with that whatsoever. My PROBLEM is one of consistency. YOU are being inconsistent with the principles of your mission statement which means you are being inconsistent with ME. Since you are a non-profit organization who expects people to lend money based on your merit, your mission statement, and your TRANSPARENCY I strongly urge you to do one the following: DROP American borrowers from your site, create a site that is for borrowers/lenders of DEVELOPED countries OR CHANGE YOUR 'ABOUT' Page to reflect what your new so-called direction is - and it is a direction a good number of us do not find so appealing so I would NOT recommend the 3rd option.
Good day.
Thomas James Slater
If Kiva would post entrepreneurs in the U.S. for whom loans might provide an opportunity to escape from real poverty, I might be okay with Kiva’s including the U.S. as one of its areas of concentration. The type of entrepreneurs included in the first U.S. group, however, even though some had moving stories, didn’t even approach the kind of people I’d once thought Kiva had been started to try to reach.
For that matter, as Kiva has severed its relations, for a variety of reasons, with some of its original, smaller, more grass roots-type, community-grown field partners, I’ve noticed with increasing dismay and sorrow that fewer and fewer of the loans that currently are being posted on Kiva’s pages, even if from the developing countries, bear much of a resemblance to the poverty-stricken but still striving entrepreneur I once had been so pleased and truly dedicated to try to help.
Not every Kiva entrepreneur will be a stone cracker from Ghana or a lady in Cambodia who had to clean public restrooms all day to be able to provide sustenance for her family. But that sort of struggling but still determined individual whom I used to see, quite regularly, on Kiva’s pages was just exactly the type of individual for whom I’d thought that Kiva and we lenders had come together and had committed ourselves to try to elevate.
This debate confounds me! If you don't like the idea of your money going to Americans, then simply don't donate money to them! It's that easy. Why deprive those of us who do? There plenty of other micro-finance organizations out there that only provide loans to those in foreign lands. Just saying...
I was hesitant about US loans until I saw the storm of people who were angry about it, and the "us and them" attitude of many of the people complaining now. We needed a wake-up call.
Yes, I still hope they will be cautious about how much of their bandwidth they allocate to the US, so it doesn't slow worldwide expansion and support of developing countries. Yes, the standard of living is much higher here. Yes, I'll wait to personally loan to the US until they find some US partners that deal with extremely impoverished areas, where children are pressured out of school and in some cases where electricity and running water aren't taken for granted yet (yes, they exist).
But no, it was time to make people look at the fact that Kiva is a platform that supports lending to people along a wide *spectrum* of poverty, from someone buying one pig to someone with two employees in a relatively prosperous country. Moldova loans look almost like US loans. It's not all or nothing, and it's not the high and mighty rich helping the humble and destitute poor. It's people who can't get credit from banks, for whatever reason, and want a chance to prove they can succeed. It's me with a decent income helping someone else who's having a harder time right now.
As Premal the founder says on his lender page, "I loan because: there is no them."
Every country has people who want to make their dreams come true and have their own business.
I think people should vote with their wallets.
If someone prefers to fund someone in the US that is their choice.
Democracy is a good thing!
I must admit I'm torn.
I'd hate to see loans in the U.S. take away from funding of loans in places that are much poorer. But that doesn't seem to be happening. There still seems to be plenty of funding for all loans so far.
However, since I can choose which loans I help to fund, I can and will choose not to participate in U.S. loans, or for that matter, ANY loans where the borrower doesn't seem to be what I would consider poor.
All in all, I would rather see more of Kiva's effort being put toward helping people in really poor places like Haiti.
There are lots of poor people in the United States as well as around the world. I am glad to support them.
I believe if you want to help the world, you need to help those in your backyard first. If we all did this, the world would be a much better place. The beauty of kiva is that it is free choice... you don't have to lend to those you don't feel deserve it, but there are still plenty out there that can benefit from a hand up.
I am so diappointed you offer US loans. I think it dilutes the thoughts of you helping the really poor.