Nobel Pundits Find World Poor Bankable By SB Kayser

I am always eager to hear about the Nobel Organization, especially when it has to do with economics. Though when the Bengalee Muhammad Yunus won the prize for helping the poor, I almost choked. Until then I wasn't really familiar with "his" concept but since I know a great deal about fiat banking I also know that nothing will go in favor of the little people until a monetary reform is implemented. Being used to read a lot about the vortex of debt, I thus sensed that this was about another loan shark tale immediately. I couldn't help myself and started laughing out of derision. It is what I generally do when anger inside me is brewing.

In an article released on forbes.com no more than 2 weeks ago, we could read the side-effects of microcredit injection in India and Bangladesh. It was kinda astonishing to learn that any study had proven the worthiness of microcredit theories until today. You see, the pundits argue that it would be an impossible task, hence time consuming and too costly. Despite this, they claim that the approved empirical Nobel theory has bettered the lives of 25% of the borrowers - but remain quite silent regarding the other 75%.

Economic Noble Enforcers, along with Yunus, didn't find anything wrong with this. They proudly assure us that their borrowers are very serious about paying back their loans and have no problem to cope with the (outrageous) interests which actually can go up to 40%! Gains that many of the heavily criticized payday lenders here in America would envy. Reading further, the surface begon to show more cracks. The fact is that 75% - after their microcredit adventure - end up sinking futher into poverty. As for the famed 25% it is also appalling to see that they are left with the bare minimum to live. Sure, they are no longer starving but just like us (in the so-called rich west) go from paycheck to paycheck. Sure again, among the beautiful 25% there is a small number of full success stories but which involve borrowers with a higher educational background than the rest. As you can see, it would be a mistake to give these few bankers' fairy tales some credit. Laughable!

It is easy to grasp why globalists from the right and from the left praise Yunus so much. They have found an innovative way to collude, their creativity doesn't know any boundaries, the sky is the limit!

In economics alas interference with the market can be very costly. There is no free lunch. But who wouldn't be interested in easy money those days? And when it comes out of altruism, all the better: it sells even more. In the meantime let's bear in mind that $9 trillion of social programs didn't end poverty in America, emphasizes Cato Institute in 2004 - and of course all this at the expense of the taxpayers.

Considering the global economy built on a swamp of debts, it is rather blatant that the prestigious Nobel Organization helps blow bubbles into the respective economies, a fictuous wealth moving all the way long up to the stock market - as always under the guise of charity. Now they claim that this new approach is better than lending corrupt governments money. Not quite so at all. Who is going to pay when the bubble pops? Because they all do eventually.. who do you think?

How stupid do they think we are?

Now money no longer disappears in the pockets of unscrupulous politicians but it is directly dissiminated in the market, morphing the microcredit theory into another macrowelfare fallacy. This is brilliantly explained by Jeffrey Tucker who rightfully calls this neferous endeavor "collectivist regimentation".