On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 22:53:29 -0700, rurpy wrote: > On 10/21/2009 03:13 PM, Lie Ryan wrote: >> > ru...@yahoo.com wrote: >>> >> On 10/21/2009 01:40 AM, Lie Ryan wrote: > [...] >>>> >>> As a metaphor, which one do you think is better in the long term: >>>> >>> charities or microcredits? >>> >> >>> >> Both of course. Why on earth would anyone think there is a simple, >>> >> single, best answer for complex problems? >> > >> > Nope, read again. On the *long term* (as I have stated in the >> > question), microcredits is proven to be much more effective to >> > solving poverty. In the short term, charities will have much quicker >> > effect but not one that is lasting and in fact too much charities >> > makes a lot more problems. > > Uh, let's see, charity is no longer needed since micro- credits have > been *proven* to eliminate their need.
Lie did not say that. Rurpy, how stupid do you take us for, leaving Lie's direct quote there in your email and then outrageously misrepresenting him like that? What Lie actually said, rather than your fantasy interpretation, is not only intuitively obvious, but also supported by the evidence: * charities can have a good effect very quickly; * but reliance on charity in the long-term breeds dependency and encourages corruption; * long term solutions for solving poverty require empowering individuals; * micro-credits are often a good way to empower individuals with little risk to the lender. The motto about giving a man a fish to feed him for a day, versus teaching him to fish to feed him for life, applies here. Why you think any of this is controversial is beyond me. Of course, micro-credits aren't a panacea -- the Wikipedia article discusses some of the limits and problems with them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microcredit -- Steven -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
