Well, the Olympics are finally over. I can get some rest, and maybe even post a blog entry more than every 3 weeks!
I was really into the Olympics this year, mostly because they were in China. It was very cool for the world to get to know China from afar ... both the good and bad. In my opinion, it is the most exciting country in the world. The pace of change there is unprecedented, and it will be extremely interesting to watch what happens in the coming years. I just hope I get to visit again sometime.
On another note, I continue to be REALLY excited about what is going on with Onelife in India. Please pray for our leadership as they determine how many trips Westside will take next year, how we will start building the new orphanage buildings, how we will start the microfinance ministry (apparently thousands are interested!), and how we will help train pastors. I'm tentatively planning on returning to visit there in Jan/Feb. Please pray for this decision as well.
My thought for the day - I've been rediscovering how bad we are as humans at doing what we want to do. We often skip from the original idea or the 'want to' straight to the 'just do it' without considering the 'how'. We make it all about will power, and when we fail, we think, 'if I just try harder ...'. What if 'trying harder' isn't the answer? What if we're going about it the wrong way? What if instead of trying harder to pray more, we scheduled a meeting time in the middle of our day to actually do it? What if instead of just trying to spend less this month, we didn't buy that new pair of shoes? What if instead of just trying to spend more time with our family, we cancelled the cable TV? I think it would work. It would work a lot better than just trying harder!
Monday, August 25, 2008
Saturday, August 9, 2008
Wow! You go China!
I hope you all had a chance to catch the Olympic Opening Ceremonies last night. Even on TV they were unbelievably amazing. I found myself tearing up at the pride of the Chinese people. This was their moment and they nailed it! If you have not been there or lived there, you can not understand how proud of China and Chinese culture the Chinese people are. And they should be. It's not everywhere that the opening ceremony would trace THOUSANDS of years of history.
The ceremony captured China and all of it's paradoxes. You saw the coordinated force of thousands of people. The size and the detail. There were people everywhere on the stage working together. That is China at its best. Everyone, billions, working to protect and serve their country and culture. We in the west do not relate well to the idea of the whole being above the individual. For the Chinese, the accomplishment of China as a whole is greater than any individual accomplishment. You could see it in their eyes. They were unified and they were proud. It was awesome. I could picture my friends, their faces glowing, as they watch their TVs in their homes a half world away.
China gets a bad rap here so many times and they are certainly far from perfect. But the change since the late 70s is unmatched in history. They have transitioned from isolation and obscurity into the center of the world. They have done it without starvation, without war, and without revolution. They have not been perfect, but last night they showed the world how far they have come. To my Chinese friends out there. Congratulations! You were amazing. Even here in the USA, your passion and performance were unmatched. It was simply wonderful to see.
The ceremony captured China and all of it's paradoxes. You saw the coordinated force of thousands of people. The size and the detail. There were people everywhere on the stage working together. That is China at its best. Everyone, billions, working to protect and serve their country and culture. We in the west do not relate well to the idea of the whole being above the individual. For the Chinese, the accomplishment of China as a whole is greater than any individual accomplishment. You could see it in their eyes. They were unified and they were proud. It was awesome. I could picture my friends, their faces glowing, as they watch their TVs in their homes a half world away.
China gets a bad rap here so many times and they are certainly far from perfect. But the change since the late 70s is unmatched in history. They have transitioned from isolation and obscurity into the center of the world. They have done it without starvation, without war, and without revolution. They have not been perfect, but last night they showed the world how far they have come. To my Chinese friends out there. Congratulations! You were amazing. Even here in the USA, your passion and performance were unmatched. It was simply wonderful to see.
Friday, August 8, 2008
Creative Capitalism
Bill Gates wrote an interesting article in the latest issue of Time Magazine. It’s called ‘Making Capitalism More Creative’. Read it here. This is something I’ve been thinking a lot about lately as we explore expanding the Onelife India ministry into some sort of micro-financing. Micro-financing at its simplest is making capital (cash) available for small loans to the poor who normally would not have access to that type of financial service. The most famous example is Grameen bank in Bangladesh. One of the coolest examples is Kiva – which is not a microfinance institution itself, but instead connects those people with money and a desire to help with the microfinance institutions. Check it out!
The premise Gates is proposing is that we can increase our ability to help the poor if we take actions that create incentive for market driven, capitalistic investment to join in the task. The biggest example of this is the ‘Red’ campaign organized by Bono, and made popular mostly by Gap. Money is raised for the needy, Gap’s image is enhanced, and everyone thinks they are cool for wearing a ‘red’ shirt. Everyone wins, but mostly the poor that are being helped.
There is a key dilemma I continue to run into as I think about micro-financing. Do we raise a pile of money, charge just enough interest to cover admin, and then return the money back to the pile for reuse when it is repaid? This is the strictly charitable path. Or, do we create a structure designed to give a return on the investment, making money by charging higher but reasonable interest rates? In this case, raising the initial and ongoing capital funds becomes much easier, and we are still providing a great service to these individuals who would otherwise have no access to a loan.
It basically comes down to … is it reasonable to make a profit from the poor if it would sufficiently increase the capital available over time to help the poor? More people would join in if we created a 5% return, than if we were just taking donations. However, a donation would always be able to be re-used for another loan, while a person desiring a 5% return would at some point want to withdrawal his/her money. And if 5% is good, why not 8% to attract more investment ... at what point are you taking advantage of the people? And at what point is the return so low you might as well just ask for donations? Tough questions!
In the end, both structures are good. If you were designing a new micro-finance system, which would you choose, 'pure donation' or 'return on investment'?
The premise Gates is proposing is that we can increase our ability to help the poor if we take actions that create incentive for market driven, capitalistic investment to join in the task. The biggest example of this is the ‘Red’ campaign organized by Bono, and made popular mostly by Gap. Money is raised for the needy, Gap’s image is enhanced, and everyone thinks they are cool for wearing a ‘red’ shirt. Everyone wins, but mostly the poor that are being helped.
There is a key dilemma I continue to run into as I think about micro-financing. Do we raise a pile of money, charge just enough interest to cover admin, and then return the money back to the pile for reuse when it is repaid? This is the strictly charitable path. Or, do we create a structure designed to give a return on the investment, making money by charging higher but reasonable interest rates? In this case, raising the initial and ongoing capital funds becomes much easier, and we are still providing a great service to these individuals who would otherwise have no access to a loan.
It basically comes down to … is it reasonable to make a profit from the poor if it would sufficiently increase the capital available over time to help the poor? More people would join in if we created a 5% return, than if we were just taking donations. However, a donation would always be able to be re-used for another loan, while a person desiring a 5% return would at some point want to withdrawal his/her money. And if 5% is good, why not 8% to attract more investment ... at what point are you taking advantage of the people? And at what point is the return so low you might as well just ask for donations? Tough questions!
In the end, both structures are good. If you were designing a new micro-finance system, which would you choose, 'pure donation' or 'return on investment'?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
