What I wrote in 2006: "Global microfinance industry totters as Grameen Bank founder's career ends in disgrace" | Links International Journal of Socialist Renewal

By Patrick Bond

April 27, 2011 — Links International Journal of Socialist Renewal —

Grameen Banks Muhammad Yunus right with Bangladeshi women. The promised empowerment and poverty reduction failed to eventuate.

Grameen Banks Muhammad Yunus right with Bangladeshi women

Bangladesh's once-legendary banking environment is now fatally polluted. The rot is spreading so fast and far that the entire global microfinance industry is threatened. Controversy ranges far beyond poisonous local politics, the factor most often cited by those despondent about Grameen Bank's worsening crisis.

via Global microfinance industry totters as Grameen Bank founder's career ends in disgrace | Links International Journal of Socialist Renewal.



Microcredit has been trotted out as a compassionate and practical capitalistic approach to abject poverty. It is becoming a staple in so-called developing nations and even developed nations.

It is capitalism's last-ditch ruse to buy time. It is an evil temptation for the poorest of the poor who have been downtrodden by that very capitalism. It is the same Ponzi scheme that is all of capitalism: Depletion and fake, unsustainable, abundance.

The poor are given small loans at high interest but without any collateral requirements. They are also given equity in the micro-banks. These people are desperate. They will take the loans and will work themselves and their children to make these loans work as such within the capitalist system.

What this does is perpetuate capitalism that runs in the opposite direction from giving and sharing all freely and holding all things in common.

It is an attempted refinement of capitalism to silence and co-opt as much as possible the dissent against the capitalist spirit that runs on selfishness in the end and as its means.

Microcredit is not the gift economy. It is not the commons. It is not Christianity. It is at best a lesser of evils.

It threatens to turn many poor people into the bourgeoisie that will exacerbate the tendency to self-centeredness that is the root cause of all that ails humanity and its home planet.

One of microcredit's spokes persons, Susan Davis, chairwoman of the Grameen Foundation, said the following:

I think in this world, it's not rights deigned from on high. I think rights are only real when, in fact, people can exercise their rights.[119]

How wrong that is. It's an atheist's position.

There is the spirit of light and there is the spirit of darkness. There is up and there is down. One becomes enlightened and ascends or selfish and descends. These are contextual words. They work both figuratively and literally. The final result does justify the means and the right end can never be reached with selfish means no matter how relatively small. This truth comes from on high.

Grameen Bank is the one that pushed the microcredit concept into the public consciousness again. The founder, Muhammad Yunus, received the Nobel Peace Prize in economics for 2006.


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe

  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.