WEBVTT

NOTE Commentary

1
00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:10.000
Well, the majority of my comments are for Walter Block's paper, probably because his was the most provocative and gives me the most to maybe react to or against.

2
00:00:10.000 --> 00:00:19.000
I'm not necessarily a fan of microfinance. I think Jeffrey Tucker has done great work on Eunice and Grameen Brank, and Walter builds on that to his great credit in his paper.

3
00:00:19.000 --> 00:00:25.000
But there are some things about which I still have questions after reading the paper.

4
00:00:25.000 --> 00:00:30.000
Walter, he said this a little bit in his presentation and a lot in his paper,

5
00:00:30.000 --> 00:00:35.000
that it's a problem that Grameen gives money to women, especially.

6
00:00:35.000 --> 00:00:38.000
This is somehow untoward or sexist.

7
00:00:38.000 --> 00:00:42.000
Apparently, Walter objects to this in some way.

8
00:00:42.000 --> 00:00:45.000
But my gut reaction to that is, well, what's wrong with that?

9
00:00:45.000 --> 00:00:50.000
I mean, hasn't charity traditionally, historically been targeted to women for whatever reason,

10
00:00:50.000 --> 00:00:53.000
for perfectly legitimate reasons, we give money to widows and orphans

11
00:00:53.000 --> 00:01:23.000
with respect to the idea that there's maybe a socialist feminist agenda at work here, that may be true, I haven't read Eunice's writings in any detail, but I did come across an article by Ronald Bailey in Reason Magazine, and I certainly don't consider him to be a more credible source than Walter, but nonetheless he did listen to a speech by Eunice and did make this comment, he writes characterizing Grameen's reading,

12
00:01:23.000 --> 00:01:30.000
This strikes me, of course, as entirely plausible. I don't know much about Bangladesh, but I can imagine that perhaps the poor men in Bangladesh have very high time preferences and go out and do irresponsible things, and the women are the ones who stay home and who might be more reliable.

13
00:01:53.000 --> 00:02:03.000
It's not at all hard to imagine that young men in the inner city of the United States have very high time preferences.

14
00:02:03.000 --> 00:02:07.000
They're out getting put in prison and doing bad things and being wasteful.

15
00:02:07.000 --> 00:02:12.000
And who's left but the women to be responsible to lend the money to?

16
00:02:12.000 --> 00:02:16.000
Now, it's interesting that Walter objects not only to Grameen Bank,

17
00:02:16.000 --> 00:02:22.480
Now it's interesting that Walter objects not only to Grameen Bank, but also to hypothetical

18
00:02:22.480 --> 00:02:26.800
pure private microfinance, and I have a little trouble understanding that.

19
00:02:26.800 --> 00:02:31.480
One objection Walter has in his paper is that supposedly this crowds out legitimate lending

20
00:02:31.480 --> 00:02:33.380
to creditworthy people.

21
00:02:33.380 --> 00:02:37.440
But it seems to me that this money isn't money that would otherwise be lent to creditworthy

22
00:02:37.440 --> 00:02:38.440
people.

23
00:02:38.440 --> 00:02:42.160
It's money that would otherwise simply be given away as charity.

24
00:02:42.160 --> 00:02:46.760
And what's wrong with giving people a loan instead of giving people a handout?

25
00:02:46.760 --> 00:02:49.840
It seems if you give them a small loan with the expectation that they'll pay it back

26
00:02:49.840 --> 00:02:54.000
with some guidance, that they're going to invest this in some way, and not everyone's

27
00:02:54.000 --> 00:02:59.720
cut out to be an entrepreneur, but certainly people are cut out to be self-employed, or

28
00:02:59.720 --> 00:03:04.960
do small-scale things, running a food cart or whatever it is that you might do in some

29
00:03:04.960 --> 00:03:10.280
third world country, so I don't find this as outrageous or inappropriate.

30
00:03:10.280 --> 00:03:15.760
Walter did mention that we libertarians should urge sweatshops, not microfinance, and there

31
00:03:15.760 --> 00:03:20.600
may be some problems with sweatshops as far as how these things are set up, whether they're

32
00:03:20.600 --> 00:03:23.940
always fully compatible with property rights and the way that these companies come in and

33
00:03:23.940 --> 00:03:27.160
get to set things up.

34
00:03:27.160 --> 00:03:33.420
And I wonder why Walter didn't mention instead, of course, the approach of someone such as

35
00:03:33.420 --> 00:03:37.980
Hernando de Soto who says, no, let's libertarians go in and promote property rights.

36
00:03:37.980 --> 00:03:42.620
That seems to me to be the number one alternative to microfinance.

37
00:03:42.620 --> 00:03:44.820
So again, overall, I certainly agree with respect to Eunice.

38
00:03:44.820 --> 00:03:50.520
There's no question that he's tied in with some unsavory socialist characters and agenda,

39
00:03:50.520 --> 00:03:55.980
but I wonder if we can so easily condemn all of microfinance.

40
00:03:55.980 --> 00:03:59.060
With Mr. Payne's paper, I liked it.

41
00:03:59.060 --> 00:04:03.500
It was well-researched, well-documented, and I certainly recommend the written paper to

42
00:04:04.500 --> 00:04:07.220
I mean, everybody here wrote a great paper.

43
00:04:07.220 --> 00:04:10.820
But what struck me about his is something that other academic writers, not necessarily

44
00:04:10.820 --> 00:04:14.700
on this panel, but in general, could learn from, and that is, it reads very smoothly,

45
00:04:14.700 --> 00:04:18.060
it reads like a magazine article, it's something you can sit down and read, and the footnotes

46
00:04:18.060 --> 00:04:22.660
are all there, it's all well documented, but it tells a good story at the same time.

47
00:04:22.660 --> 00:04:26.740
I had some sort of critiques of the paper, but he kind of corrected them in a presentation.

48
00:04:26.740 --> 00:04:32.460
The paper just kind of lists all the poor planning and so forth that was done by this

49
00:04:32.460 --> 00:04:36.500
Wilbur Smith and Associates, and as I was reading this it occurred to me, well, if some bureaucrat

50
00:04:36.500 --> 00:04:37.500
looks at this.

51
00:04:37.500 --> 00:04:41.660
If some ordinary person looks at this, they're going to think, gee, remind me not to hire

52
00:04:41.660 --> 00:04:44.860
Wilbur Smith and Associates when I want to do my central planning.

53
00:04:44.860 --> 00:04:50.260
But of course, the problem isn't Wilbur Smith and Associates, it's the very idea of central

54
00:04:50.260 --> 00:04:51.260
planning.

55
00:04:51.260 --> 00:04:54.220
And you hit that as soon as you start in this presentation, I think in the final written

56
00:04:54.220 --> 00:04:57.900
product it would be helpful to have that come out even more and bring out even more the

57
00:04:57.900 --> 00:05:05.580
points that you brought out in your presentation about how these programs, they're so destructive

58
00:05:05.580 --> 00:05:09.340
and tearing up all this existing stuff then building new roads and you didn't say this

59
00:05:09.340 --> 00:05:13.540
in the paper but you did say it in your presentation then of course we have the environmentalists

60
00:05:13.540 --> 00:05:17.420
and whoever coming on again to say no let's build the tracks all over again and as long

61
00:05:17.420 --> 00:05:20.780
as you have central planning you'll have all sorts of arbitrary decisions and crazy back

62
00:05:20.780 --> 00:05:25.420
and forth and so if this paper could really hammer home in the end the idea that look

63
00:05:25.420 --> 00:05:29.340
it's not St. Louis it's not the interstates it's any time government tries to decide this

64
00:05:29.340 --> 00:05:32.820
stuff because government can't decide this stuff I think would make a really powerful

65
00:05:32.820 --> 00:05:39.820
Well, of course libertarians have known for a long time that many intellectuals are bought

66
00:05:43.320 --> 00:05:48.380
and paid for by the state. The reason why there aren't more libertarians and Austrians

67
00:05:48.380 --> 00:05:53.180
at top universities probably isn't because we don't do great work. I would say the evidence

68
00:05:53.180 --> 00:05:58.380
here suggests that we do great work. The problem is that the intellectuals of the major universities

69
00:05:58.380 --> 00:06:02.460
are unpaid for by the state and of course this paper

70
00:06:02.460 --> 00:06:05.740
illustrates that point, it uses kind of a powerful new

71
00:06:05.740 --> 00:06:09.660
analogy or evolutionary approach to show how the state

72
00:06:09.660 --> 00:06:13.980
infects the intellectual world and how the state continues to enjoy

73
00:06:13.980 --> 00:06:17.100
legitimacy even though it

74
00:06:17.100 --> 00:06:20.220
it seems obvious to us that it should have no legitimacy.

75
00:06:20.220 --> 00:06:24.580
The question that the paper raises for me is of course what is the next step, how

76
00:06:24.580 --> 00:06:25.940
do we take advantage

77
00:06:25.940 --> 00:06:30.820
of our knowledge of the way the state infects the intellectual climate in order to advance

78
00:06:30.820 --> 00:06:32.820
our own ideas.

79
00:06:32.820 --> 00:06:35.700
I don't have much to add regarding Mr. Luzardo's presentation.

80
00:06:35.700 --> 00:06:40.580
Obviously, he's on solid ground relying on Mises, Hayek and Rothbard.

81
00:06:40.580 --> 00:06:45.300
I'm struck by, he mentions Henry George, of course, and you know, I get tired of hearing

82
00:06:45.300 --> 00:06:49.480
about Henry George sometimes because I feel like it was refuted so well so long ago by

83
00:06:49.480 --> 00:06:54.540
Murray Rothbard, but of course there are always people trying to bring George back and push

84
00:06:54.540 --> 00:07:19.540
So that's all I have.