How Yunus got the Nobel peace prize without stopping a war -Awami League GS

[LaBong]

The more appropriate question should be. How the hell Obama won Noble peace prize by waging wars.

Or the environmentalist Al Gore with a carbon footprint of that of a small nation!

 

[TopCat]

Anyway all said and done, the truth is Grameen Bank didn't alleviate poverty from Bangladesh except for few exceptional and well advertised case. The only entity that made money in the end is, Grameen Bank itself. G'Night fellows, I'll bust some more myths tomorrow.

Grameen Bank is not owned by any individual neither Mr. Younus. 75% stake belongs to the borrower themselves and 25% belong to the Govt. As the borrower increased the current stake of govt probably reduced to 5%. So the money still remained with the poor. Nobody took it away.

 

[saleen_s7]

I know how Bank works but you clearly don't know what you are talking about.

First of all, we are not talking about just another Bank but and entity which won Nobel Peace prize for alleviating poverty. And the same Bank enjoys subsidy and various other benefit from Govt of BD because it's supposed to alleviate poverty.

But now you are saying that it's not a Bank's job to reduce poverty, but Banks are there to make money. I fully agree but normal Banks don't enjoy subsidies and flaunt Nobel prize, do they?

So here's the deal -

1. Grameen Bank enjoys subsidies from Govt, which necessarily means it runs on peoples' money.
2. It doesn't help in reducing poverty.
3. It gets rich.

Am I the only one who can see through this bluff!



LOL that will make BD's nascent manufacturing industry to go extinct.



That's vintage Stalinist method, we all know how it fared, in the end!

you have completely missed the point I was making and as usual taking the debate to somewhere else where it doesn't belong. The last two doctrines are socialist policies designed and my suggestion was intended for sarcasm, because the voice of the poor is not always reasonable or else read moast or far left political parties manifesto. I am agreeing that the banks job was to target a list of consumer who otherwise would go unnoticed and uncared for. Grameen bank won't hand out free loans to the poor and expect nothing in return. I have previously mentioned, it is a simple tool to alleviate poverty, at least it came out with credible results.
I am myself is hardcore believer in free market(chicago school of economics)- capitalism, and people and organization work together for their own benefit, and by default I am a fan of Yunus which made him reach the villages and find them more work. Grameen bank has caused more good than bad and everyone has agreed. Now the problem is, some people who cannot pay back the money conspire with the international right group who solely depend on their claim to prove a futile point. GRAMEEN BANK is a tool remove poverty, and itself cannot do it by itself.

 

[Zabaniyah]

Yunus got Nobel prize because of his connection with Telenor.

You know, I actually Google that part. And guess what? Your post shows up as the first result

Did you know that Dr. Yunus threatened to sue Telenor due to its failure to stamp out child labor used by its subcontractors?
http://www.thedailystar.net/newDesign/news-details.php?nid=57793

Apparently, Dr. Yunus had a Gentleman's Agreement where Telenor is to sell part of GP to Grameen Bank. It never happened.
Nobel Laureate Yunus says Telenor is*taking from poor - Dec. 5, 2006

So where is the favoritism as you claim in this pointless one-liner post of yours? Or perhaps immersing yourself in selective reasoning?

Please, don't speak nonsense.

I expected better from you Roy. Ah...pity

 

[Md Akmal]

@ You donnot know that !!! Younus got Novel Prize by taking White Wine, Chips and Sandwitch. (AL's theory as stated by the GS of AL)

 

[Zabaniyah]

@ You donnot know that !!! Younus got Novel Prize by taking White Wine, Chips and Sandwitch. (AL's theory as stated by the GS of AL)

Yeah...it's an awesomely entertaining theory

 

[Md Akmal]

Yeah...it's an awesomely entertaining theory

@ First remove your avatar than give your remarks ????

 

[LaBong]

you have completely missed the point I was making and as usual taking the debate to somewhere else where it doesn't belong. The last two doctrines are socialist policies designed and my suggestion was intended for sarcasm, because the voice of the poor is not always reasonable or else read moast or far left political parties manifesto. I am agreeing that the banks job was to target a list of consumer who otherwise would go unnoticed and uncared for. Grameen bank won't hand out free loans to the poor and expect nothing in return. I have previously mentioned, it is a simple tool to alleviate poverty, at least it came out with credible results.
I am myself is hardcore believer in free market(chicago school of economics)- capitalism, and people and organization work together for their own benefit, and by default I am a fan of Yunus which made him reach the villages and find them more work. Grameen bank has caused more good than bad and everyone has agreed. Now the problem is, some people who cannot pay back the money conspire with the international right group who solely depend on their claim to prove a futile point. GRAMEEN BANK is a tool remove poverty, and itself cannot do it by itself.

I have previously mentioned, it is a simple tool to alleviate poverty, at least it came out with credible results.

As usual you got defeated in logic, and now basing your argument on a falsified statement. No you never previously have said that Grameen alleviates poverty nor can you prove that Grameen alleviates poverty. Let me help you to recap.

Grameen by itself won't automatically alleviate poverty and it is foolish for you to even suggest that

Keep on shifting your goalpost.

Grameen didn't and doesn't alleviate poverty, and it operates on Govt subsidy. Period. No Grameen supporter can disapprove that.

I am agreeing that the banks job was to target a list of consumer who otherwise would go unnoticed and uncared for.

So you are agreeing that Grameen is just another profit making Bank(at the same time working on subsidy) and thus conforming to everything I have said so far and contradicting whatever you're trying to conjure up as Grameen's trait.

I am myself is hardcore believer in free market(chicago school of economics)- capitalism

Why do Bangladeshis, whenever getting defeated with argument, come up with this ad hominem of dropping their grad school name?

 

[livingdead]

@ First remove your avatar than give your remarks ????

Yeah, it is causing headache for me.

 

[TopCat]

Grameen didn't and doesn't alleviate poverty, and it operates on Govt subsidy. Period. No Grameen supporter can disapprove that.

Heard of Social Business? All grameen ventures are profitable organization owned by the consumer themselves. That is the core of Younus theory and was proved successful in Capitalist concept.

And what Govt subsidy you talking about? All NGO's are exempted from Corporate taxes so did Grameen Bank. There is no other subsidy I am aware of.

 

[LaBong]

Heard of Social Business? All grameen ventures are profitable organization owned by the consumer themselves. That is the core of Younus theory and was proved successful in Capitalist concept.

And what Govt subsidy you talking about? All NGO's are exempted from Corporate taxes so did Grameen Bank. There is no other subsidy I am aware of.

Depend on what you define as success. If the criteria of getting successful is making profit, then indeed Grameen is successful.

If success means reaching out to people, then Grameen Phone is successful. But then so were Vodafone, Airtel, BSNL in India, some of them are more user friendly than Telenor run Grameen Phone.

All NGO's are exempted from Corporate taxes so did Grameen Bank

But NGO's are not profit making institutions collaborating with companies like Telenor, Danone etc whose main objective is maximizing the profit.

Social Business is just a fancy term to describe normal Corporates, some of the rules of this so called social business are more ruthless than normal corporates.

Here's the first principle of social business which Grameen violates :

Business objective will be to overcome poverty, or one or more problems (such as education, health, technology access, and environment) which threaten people and society; not profit maximization

Grameen Bank is not owned by any individual neither Mr. Younus. 75% stake belongs to the borrower themselves and 25% belong to the Govt. As the borrower increased the current stake of govt probably reduced to 5%. So the money still remained with the poor. Nobody took it away.

Only in your social business, if the borrower chooses to withdraw, he will only get the investment money back, not the dividend or profit. Although he had to pay the high rate of interest all along. Once he borrowed money from Grameen, he is forever stuck.

Investors get back their investment amount only; no dividend is given beyond investment money
When investment amount is paid back, company profit stays with the company for expansion and improvement

 

[TopCat]

Depend on what you define as success. If the criteria of getting successful is making profit, then indeed Grameen is successful.

Grameen is successful in sustaining being a social business. In capitalism theory, it can not be sustained which proved wrong.

If success means reaching out to people, then Grameen Phone is successful. But then so were Vodafone, Airtel, BSNL in India, some of them are more user friendly than Telenor run Grameen Phone.

Grameen Phone is not a social business which suppose to be by the initial contract. After certain period Telenor suppose to relinquish majority shares but Telenor did not (there was a arbitration and Telenor won). So it remained a capitalist organization.

But NGO's are not profit making institutions collaborating with companies like Telenor, Danone etc whose main objective is maximizing the profit.

I already explained Telenor case previously.

Social Business is just a fancy term to describe normal Corporates, some of the rules of this so called social business are more ruthless than normal corporates.

Its no more a fancy terms. More and more companies are coming forward seeing its success.

Here's the first principle of social business which Grameen violates :
Business objective will be to overcome poverty, or one or more problems (such as education, health, technology access, and environment) which threaten people and society; not profit maximization [/B]

The main concept of the social business is not minimizing profit but reinvesting the profit in more business or social services.

Only in your social business, if the borrower chooses to withdraw, he will only get the investment money back, not the dividend or profit. Although he had to pay the high rate of interest all along. Once he borrowed money from Grameen, he is forever stuck.

Investors get back their investment amount only; no dividend is given beyond investment money
When investment amount is paid back, company profit stays with the company for expansion and improvement

You are wrong again. Social business theory tells you not to withdraw any profit but the profit should remain within the company. You can only draw benefit as a consumer not as an investor. Besides the consumer are not investing so there is no question in withdrawing any profit.

 

[Zabaniyah]

Depend on what you define as success. If the criteria of getting successful is making profit, then indeed Grameen is successful.

GB =/= GP.

If success means reaching out to people, then Grameen Phone is successful. But then so were Vodafone, Airtel, BSNL in India, some of them are more user friendly than Telenor run Grameen Phone.

GP has the largest market share in Bangladesh. And it is the only profitable telecom operator in Bangladesh. The rest of them are all operating in loss. Yes, including Airtel

But NGO's are not profit making institutions collaborating with companies like Telenor, Danone etc whose main objective is maximizing the profit.

Social Business is just a fancy term to describe normal Corporates, some of the rules of this so called social business are more ruthless than normal corporates.

Here's the first principle of social business which Grameen violates :

Business objective will be to overcome poverty, or one or more problems (such as education, health, technology access, and environment) which threaten people and society; not profit maximization



Only in your social business, if the borrower chooses to withdraw, he will only get the investment money back, not the dividend or profit. Although he had to pay the high rate of interest all along. Once he borrowed money from Grameen, he is forever stuck.

Investors get back their investment amount only; no dividend is given beyond investment money
When investment amount is paid back, company profit stays with the company for expansion and improvement

You are confusing the effects of micro credit on India to Bangladesh. Whatever happened in India had absolutely nothing to do with Dr. Yunus or Grameen Bank. They are two completely different cases.

Read this NYT issue by Dr. Yunus himself:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/15/opinion/15yunus.html

The one thing Dr. Yunus is wrong about is that micro-credit alone would send poverty into museums. Of-course, many other things come into play when it comes to alleviating poverty. And micro-credit alone isn't enough.

 

[LaBong]

Grameen is successful in sustaining being a social business. In capitalism theory, it can not be sustained which proved wrong.

It sustained by being a profit making company(and helping western companies to make profit) and enjoying subsidy. Nothing extra ordinary. Grameen model isn't reproducible, heck after initial success, it can't even replicate it in Bangladesh!

Grameen Phone is not a social business which suppose to be by the initial contract. After certain period Telenor suppose to relinquish majority shares but Telenor did not (there was a arbitration and Telenor won). So it remained a capitalist organization.

There was no arbitration, Grameen voluntarily let Tenelor to operate Grameen Phone. Other Grameen franchises operate in the same way that Telenor does.

I already explained Telenor case previously.

What about Danone, or the french software company, or the western Energy corp?

Its no more a fancy terms. More and more companies are coming forward seeing its success.

Which are these mythical companies?

The main concept of the social business is not minimizing profit but reinvesting the profit in more business or social services.

And Grameen is doing exactly the opposite as this model is not sustainable.

You are wrong again. Social business theory tells you not to withdraw any profit but the profit should remain within the company. You can only draw benefit as a consumer not as an investor. Besides the consumer are not investing so there is no question in withdrawing any profit.

Hey you are saying the same thing as I have said with different wording and proving me wrong!

Just answer me this simple question, who is an investor in Grameen and who is a consumer?

GB =/= GP.



GP has the largest market share in Bangladesh. And it is the only profitable telecom operator in Bangladesh. The rest of them are all operating in loss. Yes, including Airtel



You are confusing the effects of micro credit on India to Bangladesh. Whatever happened in India had absolutely nothing to do with Dr. Yunus or Grameen Bank. They are two completely different cases.

Read this NYT issue by Dr. Yunus himself:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/15/opinion/15yunus.html

The one thing Dr. Yunus is wrong about is that micro-credit alone would send poverty into museums. Of-course, many other things come into play when it comes to alleviating poverty. And micro-credit alone isn't enough.

Dude don't talk about stuffs you don't have any idea of, let the elders to sort it out. I'm strictly basing my argument on Grameen Bank and Social Business concept conjured up by Yunus.

 

[Zabaniyah]

Dude don't talk about stuffs you don't have any idea of, let the elders to sort it out. I'm strictly basing my argument on Grameen Bank and Social Business concept conjured up by Yunus.

The results speak for themselves.