Canada & Conservatism

[Sid Belzberg]

What is "easy access to capital?" What is the source of this capital? Who decides which business start-ups qualify for easy access? Etc.?

Hi Peter,
Let me offer you this example.
Easy Access to Capital: The Grameen Bank Example

"Easy access to capital" refers to financial systems that provide funding to individuals or businesses with minimal barriers. A powerful example of this is the Grameen Bank, founded by Dr. Muhammad Yunus in Bangladesh. The Grameen Bank pioneered the concept of microfinance—small, collateral-free loans aimed at empowering the underprivileged, particularly women, to start or grow small businesses.

In Bangladesh during the 1970s, widespread poverty and limited access to formal banking systems left millions without the means to improve their livelihoods. Traditional banks viewed the poor as uncreditworthy, requiring collateral and extensive documentation that these individuals could not provide. Recognizing this gap, the Grameen Bank adopted an innovative approach by providing small loans directly to the poor, relying on trust and a group lending model where borrowers formed peer groups to encourage repayment.

This system revolutionized access to capital. Over time, borrowers—primarily women—used the loans to start businesses such as weaving, farming, or small trading ventures. The results were transformative: increased household incomes, improved education for children, and better health outcomes. In turn, this economic empowerment contributed to the broader recovery of Bangladesh's economy, helping to stabilize communities and foster sustainable development.

The Grameen Bank's model has been replicated globally, impacting millions in countries across Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Organizations like Kiva and BRAC have drawn inspiration from it, using microfinance to address poverty and inequality worldwide. Beyond economic benefits, this approach has demonstrated that investing in people’s potential, regardless of their financial status, yields immense social and economic returns.

[Pargat Perrer]

Hi Peter,
Let me offer you this example.
Easy Access to Capital: The Grameen Bank Example

"Easy access to capital" refers to financial systems that provide funding to individuals or businesses with minimal barriers. A powerful example of this is the Grameen Bank, founded by Dr. Muhammad Yunus in Bangladesh. The Grameen Bank pioneered the concept of microfinance—small, collateral-free loans aimed at empowering the underprivileged, particularly women, to start or grow small businesses.

In Bangladesh during the 1970s, widespread poverty and limited access to formal banking systems left millions without the means to improve their livelihoods. Traditional banks viewed the poor as uncreditworthy, requiring collateral and extensive documentation that these individuals could not provide. Recognizing this gap, the Grameen Bank adopted an innovative approach by providing small loans directly to the poor, relying on trust and a group lending model where borrowers formed peer groups to encourage repayment.

This system revolutionized access to capital. Over time, borrowers—primarily women—used the loans to start businesses such as weaving, farming, or small trading ventures. The results were transformative: increased household incomes, improved education for children, and better health outcomes. In turn, this economic empowerment contributed to the broader recovery of Bangladesh's economy, helping to stabilize communities and foster sustainable development.

The Grameen Bank's model has been replicated globally, impacting millions in countries across Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Organizations like Kiva and BRAC have drawn inspiration from it, using microfinance to address poverty and inequality worldwide. Beyond economic benefits, this approach has demonstrated that investing in people’s potential, regardless of their financial status, yields immense social and economic returns.

You keep bringing up this same example over and over again, from poverty-stricken Bangladesh. The USA and Canada are not Bangladesh!!!

You think Mark Cuban or Keven O'Leary are going to go onto Shark Tank and offer every prospective entrepreneur "easy access to capital"???

NOOOO!!! what they do is DEMAND proper VALUATION!!!! there is no easy access to capital outside of poverty-stricken nations.

GET REAL.

and the latest 1000-year flood in Bangladesh is sure to wipe out Grameen Bank because so much arable land was destroyed and can no longer grow crops. All those loans wiped out.... due to the effects of CLIMATE CHANGE which you deny because you can't see beyond the tip of your nose.

GET REAL

Peter, don't listen to the shit these guys spurt out their asses. Sid has to go all the way to Bangladesh to find an example of investors giving away money ... to people who have nothing left to lose. And now they've lost even that. "Microfinancing" is just a magical term for "giving money away for nothing". Don't invest in those idiots.

The 2000 dot com crash proved you can't just give away money to every hair-brained scheme. Learn from history.

[Sid Belzberg]

You keep bringing up this same example over and over again, from poverty-stricken Bangladesh. The USA and Canada are not Bangladesh!!!

You think Mark Cuban or Keven O'Leary are going to go onto Shark Tank and offer every prospective entrepreneur "easy access to capital"???

NOOOO!!! what they do is DEMAND proper VALUATION!!!! there is no easy access to capital outside of poverty-stricken nations.

GET REAL.

and the latest 1000-year flood in Bangladesh is sure to wipe out Grameen Bank because so much arable land was destroyed and can no longer grow crops. All those loans wiped out.... due to the effects of CLIMATE CHANGE which you deny because you can't see beyond the tip of your nose.

GET REAL

Peter, don't listen to the shit these guys spurt out their asses. Sid has to go all the way to Bangladesh to find an example of investors giving away money ... to people who have nothing left to lose. And now they've lost even that. "Microfinancing" is just a magical term for "giving money away for nothing". Don't invest in those idiots.

The 2000 dot com crash proved you can't just give away money to every hair-brained scheme. Learn from history.

Your outburst is as ill-informed as it is insulting, but let’s dissect your points with clarity and precision.

First, the Grameen Bank is not "giving away money." It's providing loans, not handouts, to individuals who otherwise have no access to traditional banking systems. These loans come with repayment structures, and Grameen's repayment rates have consistently exceeded 98%—a statistic that puts many Western banks to shame. This model is not confined to "poverty-stricken Bangladesh"; it has inspired microfinance institutions worldwide, including in the U.S., where organizations like Kiva and Accion work to provide capital to underserved communities. So, the idea that "easy access to capital" only applies to poor nations is ignorant nonsense.

Second, Bangladesh’s flood-prone geography is not a recent revelation. The country has been adapting to seasonal floods for centuries. In fact, initiatives like the Grameen Bank and BRAC have enabled communities to recover faster and build resilience. Inhabiting a flood-prone region doesn’t erase decades of economic progress. Your cheap attempt to tie this to climate change fraud is both irrelevant and disingenuous.

Third, your grasp of Shark Tank economics is laughable. Yes, Mark Cuban and Kevin O’Leary demand valuations because they operate in a venture capitalist framework designed for developed markets. Microfinance and venture capitalism are two different systems addressing two different economic realities. Conflating the two only reveals your inability to engage with nuance.

Fourth, the 2000 dot-com crash? Really? Comparing speculative, overvalued tech stocks to the Grameen Bank model is so absurd it barely merits acknowledgment. Grameen’s success is grounded in sustainable, small-scale entrepreneurship, not speculative bubbles. It's a shame you can't grasp the difference. But let’s expand: taking risks on overvalued stocks during the dot-com boom may have led to losses for some investors, but it also triggered one of the most significant technological revolutions and economic booms in history. The same speculative environment birthed giants like Amazon, Google, and eBay, which now form the backbone of the global digital economy. Risk-taking, when guided by vision and innovation, can transform industries. Microfinance follows this principle by empowering individuals to take small, calculated risks, yielding high social and economic returns.

Finally, your crude remarks and personal attacks are emblematic of someone who has run out of valid arguments. Instead of spending years with your vile trolling of me replete with antisemitic bigotry, condemned uniformly by all, here including your former allies, it’s likely because substantive debate is beyond you. Rather than spewing vile, bigoted vitriol, perhaps try reading up on the Nobel Peace Prize-winning Grameen Bank, which has uplifted millions worldwide and proven that financial inclusion works.

Your inability to understand or accept these facts doesn’t make them any less true—it just makes you look increasingly ridiculous. Get educated before spewing more nonsense.

I have no problem seeing man as a cancer

[Dilip Panjwani]

What is "easy access to capital?" What is the source of this capital? Who decides which business start-ups qualify for easy access? Etc.?

Everyone qualifies. Businesses go bankrupt because the owners want some of them to (remember Trump saying he is a master of 'bankruptcy'?). Those who sincerely want to run a business do not go bankrupt, if there are no stupid government regulations to unnecessarily impede their business (which Musk and Ramaswamy are trying to rectify).
The whole idea behind easy access to capital is that those who are wealthy have the right to enjoy their wealth, but do not have the exclusive right to earn more wealth just because of the wealth they own. In the absence of the myriad of corruption-creating regulations holding back the smooth functioning of sincere businesses, easy access to capital would be a boon for society. The filthy rich multi-billionaires would be replaced by thousands of millionaires...

[Dilip Panjwani]

... how would you feel about your "free market" if a train derailed right in your neighborhood spewing toxious chemicals causing the whole town to be evacuated but too late to prevent many people from breathing in toxic fumes ... and you later found out the accident happened because the railroad was deregulated completely and was allowed to ship said chemicals at the lowest cost possible which meant bypassing any safety checks? Happens almost daily in "free market" USA.

When owners of businesses know that enforcement of the Natural Law would make them compensate those harmed fully, they would never risk such derailment...

[Tom O'Donnell]

I will be quite busy for the next few days, but wanted you to know I am not ignoring your points.

Agreed about "free markets". We don't have them. We don't have capitalism. We have crony capitalism.

To the point about price fixing / manipulation. My wife and I were two people who got some money from the Loblaws bread price fixing scandal. I guess there was some sort of class action lawsuit and since we buy some bread from Loblaws, we each applied for, and received, a $25 gift card. Multiplied by surely at least hundreds of thousands of people they took a pretty big hit. You might say this is not much punishment for a crime of this scope. I would tend to agree.

I would have no objection to the scope of a crime being a large factor in sentencing. Instead of a tax system that punishes people for excellence, the criminal justice system would punish people for the scope of their crimes. I wouldn't hold my breath, though. Example: Ghislaine Maxwell is in prison for grooming underage girls and pimping them out to ... will we ever know?

I have yet to meet a Libertarian who thinks government courts are a bad thing. I personally think it is one of the few necessary functions of federal government.

Lastly, you touch on the idea of negative externalities with your example of train crashes. Same as with price fixing, I have no problem with heads of large corporations going to prison for a long time if they knowingly created reasonable risks to third parties. I am sure there are plenty of "greedy" law firms that will represent damaged parties, for 1/3 of the spoils.

But there is a second way you can be left with no choice, and also a third way.

Second way: the well-financed business drives out the competition by temporarily lowering prices below levels that a smaller operator can compete with. Amazon has excelled at this business model. As soon as all the competition is bankrupted, the monopoly is in place and prices rise back up. Any new competition that tries to appear will see prices temporarily go down beyond what the new business can charge at a profit.

Third way: the thing that needs donw, whether it's a product or service, is not profitable under ANY business model. But it still needs getting done to meet the needs of some people, which could be you and your family. But since it can't be profitable, it is left undone and your needs go unmet. This is a BIG reason for government taxation, and in a perfect world, all the unmet needs would be filled under taxpayer-funded programs even if they all suffer a loss. Very specialized medical programs would be an example. If you have a child with Down's Syndrome, you need specialized services in your small town.

Also, small point but very important ... no such thing as "free market". If you are against lies spread by mainstream media, you should also hate this term.




When I brought up small local units (I mistakenly used the phrase "circles within circles" forgetting that was Dilip's term, and Bob A. uses the term "Local Political Units" which sounds like something the Coneheads would say ...
(nasal voice..."Our parental units are attending the meeting of the Local Political Unit at the local judicial offices in the central business area." LOL)
but in any event, I was referring to something Bob said about this, which is that communications pass up and down the chains from the local units to the bigger units to the ultimate biggest unit, and reputations of people (whether they are lazy or greedy or whatever) can be known. Of course, it is an idealized idea and would surely suffer from corruption because .... people are human.

Tom, how would you feel about your "free market" if a train derailed right in your neighborhood spewing toxious chemicals causing the whole town to be evacuated but too late to prevent many people from breathing in toxic fumes ... and you later found out the accident happened because the railroad was deregulated completely and was allowed to ship said chemicals at the lowest cost possible which meant bypassing any safety checks? Happens almost daily in "free market" USA.

[Pargat Perrer]

....
First, the Grameen Bank is not "giving away money." It's providing loans, not handouts, to individuals who otherwise have no access to traditional banking systems. These loans come with repayment structures, and Grameen's repayment rates have consistently exceeded 98%—a statistic that puts many Western banks to shame.

Then why the F**K aren't you running such a bank yourself? Why the F**K aren't you putting your money where your big mouth is? Why the F**K are you here on a chess forum telling lies instead of DOING THE VERY THING YOU WANT A LIBERTARIAN GOVERNMENT TO DO?

because you are a snake-oil salesman fraud with an extreme right-wing agenda, and you wouldn't run such a bank under ANY circumstances!

ACTIONS speak much louder than WORDS, you fraud!

This model is not confined to "poverty-stricken Bangladesh"; it has inspired microfinance institutions worldwide, including in the U.S., where organizations like Kiva and Accion work to provide capital to underserved communities. So, the idea that "easy access to capital" only applies to poor nations is ignorant nonsense.

Kiva and Accion .... ask for DONATIONS!!!!! They are simply a digital platform for channeling DONATIONS to people. They are not "banks" .... it is like donating to United Way .... what a lying shuckster you are .....

Second, Bangladesh’s flood-prone geography is not a recent revelation. The country has been adapting to seasonal floods for centuries. In fact, initiatives like the Grameen Bank and BRAC have enabled communities to recover faster and build resilience. Inhabiting a flood-prone region doesn’t erase decades of economic progress. Your cheap attempt to tie this to climate change fraud is both irrelevant and disingenuous.

Bangdalesh is a literally dirt-poor nation where you had to go after searching high and low for some example of "easy capital" .... the people are so poor, they can barely get minimum daily nutrition and this bank is probably just channeling donations like the above 2 companies. You can call them "loans" till the cows come home but this "model" cannot work outside such a poverty-stricken nation. It is CHARITY that is totally what it is.

Third, your grasp of Shark Tank economics is laughable. Yes, Mark Cuban and Kevin O’Leary demand valuations because they operate in a venture capitalist framework designed for developed markets. Microfinance and venture capitalism are two different systems addressing two different economic realities. Conflating the two only reveals your inability to engage with nuance.

Ha ha, yes indeed, "designed for developed markets". There it is in black and white. You say I am conflating the two things that are designed for two different economic realities. NO YOU STUPID SHIT, THAT IS MY POINT! THANK YOU FOR REINFORCING IT.

"easy capital" cannot work in developed markets .... PERIOD.

Fourth, the 2000 dot-com crash? Really? Comparing speculative, overvalued tech stocks to the Grameen Bank model is so absurd it barely merits acknowledgment. Grameen’s success is grounded in sustainable, small-scale entrepreneurship, not speculative bubbles. It's a shame you can't grasp the difference. But let’s expand: taking risks on overvalued stocks during the dot-com boom may have led to losses for some investors, but it also triggered one of the most significant technological revolutions and economic booms in history. The same speculative environment birthed giants like Amazon, Google, and eBay, which now form the backbone of the global digital economy. Risk-taking, when guided by vision and innovation, can transform industries. Microfinance follows this principle by empowering individuals to take small, calculated risks, yielding high social and economic returns.

I agree totally that comparing the two is absurd ... BUT IT IS YOU AND DILIP THAT CLAIM THE GRAMEEN BANK "DONATIONS" MODEL CAN WORK IN DEVELOPED MARKETS.

We already have United Way and other charities. The only way that giving "loans" to just anybody who walks in the door can work is when the money is DONATED and is not expected to be returned or to have any ROI.

You are so ready to jump on governments for wasteful spending .... you want to replace governments that require you to pay taxes with these "banks" that work only on donations. That frees you and Dilip up to keep your wealth and expect others to do the donating.

I see through your smokescreen, you and Dilip both.

Finally, your crude remarks and personal attacks are emblematic of someone who has run out of valid arguments. Instead of spending years with your vile trolling of me replete with antisemitic bigotry, condemned uniformly by all, here including your former allies, it’s likely because substantive debate is beyond you. Rather than spewing vile, bigoted vitriol, perhaps try reading up on the Nobel Peace Prize-winning Grameen Bank, which has uplifted millions worldwide and proven that financial inclusion works.

Your inability to understand or accept these facts doesn’t make them any less true—it just makes you look increasingly ridiculous. Get educated before spewing more nonsense.

Foam at the mouth all you want, I put the TRUTH to your bs!

[Pargat Perrer]

Everyone qualifies. Businesses go bankrupt because the owners want it to (remember Trump saying he is a master of 'bankruptcy'?). Those who sincerely want to run a business do not go bankrupt, if there are no stupid government regulations to unnecessarily impede their business (which Musk and Ramaswamy are trying to rectify).
The whole idea behind easy access to capital is that those who are wealthy have the right to enjoy their wealth, but do not have the exclusive right to earn more wealth just because of the wealth they own. In the absence of the myriad of corruption-creating regulations holding back the smooth functioning of sincere businesses, easy access to capital would be a boon for society. The filthy rich multi-billionaires would be replaced by thousands of millionaires...

HAHAHAHAHA EVERYBODY QUALIFIES .....

"Those who sincerely want to run a business ...." is about 5% of the population in developed countries. Most people are happier being an employee, where they can hope to have work / life balance.

[Sid Belzberg]

Then why the F**K aren't you running such a bank yourself? Why the F**K aren't you putting your money where your big mouth is? Why the F**K are you here on a chess forum telling lies instead of DOING THE VERY THING YOU WANT A LIBERTARIAN GOVERNMENT TO DO?

because you are a snake-oil salesman fraud with an extreme right-wing agenda, and you wouldn't run such a bank under ANY circumstances!

ACTIONS speak much louder than WORDS, you fraud!





Kiva and Accion .... ask for DONATIONS!!!!! They are simply a digital platform for channeling DONATIONS to people. They are not "banks" .... it is like donating to United Way .... what a lying shuckster you are .....






Bangdalesh is a literally dirt-poor nation where you had to go after searching high and low for some example of "easy capital" .... the people are so poor, they can barely get minimum daily nutrition and this bank is probably just channeling donations like the above 2 companies. You can call them "loans" till the cows come home but this "model" cannot work outside such a poverty-stricken nation. It is CHARITY that is totally what it is.





Ha ha, yes indeed, "designed for developed markets". There it is in black and white. You say I am conflating the two things that are designed for two different economic realities. NO YOU STUPID SHIT, THAT IS MY POINT! THANK YOU FOR REINFORCING IT.

"easy capital" cannot work in developed markets .... PERIOD.





I agree totally that comparing the two is absurd ... BUT IT IS YOU AND DILIP THAT CLAIM THE GRAMEEN BANK "DONATIONS" MODEL CAN WORK IN DEVELOPED MARKETS.

We already have United Way and other charities. The only way that giving "loans" to just anybody who walks in the door can work is when the money is DONATED and is not expected to be returned or to have any ROI.

You are so ready to jump on governments for wasteful spending .... you want to replace governments that require you to pay taxes with these "banks" that work only on donations. That frees you and Dilip up to keep your wealth and expect others to do the donating.

I see through your smokescreen, you and Dilip both.




Foam at the mouth all you want, I put the TRUTH to your bs!

Once again, your reply is a tirade of inaccuracies, projections, and outright misrepresentations. Let’s take apart your “arguments” piece by piece and expose the lack of logic and coherence within them.

Why aren’t you running such a bank?


The fact that I advocate for a model like the Grameen Bank does not mean I need to personally start one to validate its success. By your logic, anyone who supports modern medicine must be a doctor, and anyone who advocates for infrastructure development must be a civil engineer. It’s an absurd standard. My role is to engage in discussion, highlight successful models, and advocate for policies that replicate them where appropriate. Your attempt to twist this into some kind of “gotcha” moment is laughable at best.

Kiva and Accion “ask for donations”?


Wrong. Both organizations operate on principles of micro-lending, where funds are loaned, not donated, to entrepreneurs. Kiva uses a crowdsourced funding model that allows lenders to reinvest repayments, creating a sustainable cycle of economic empowerment. These are not “charities” in the way you dismissively suggest. Your inability—or refusal—to grasp the mechanics of microfinance reveals your ignorance, not mine.

. Bangladesh is “dirt poor” and this is charity?


Yes, Bangladesh faces economic challenges, but labeling its citizens and systems as incapable of progress without “charity” is not only inaccurate but also deeply disrespectful. Grameen Bank loans are repaid, and its success is built on trust and accountability, not on handouts. By conflating microfinance with charity, you show a complete lack of understanding of how the model works.

If you think microfinance is “just charity,” explain its replication in developed countries like the U.S., where it provides loans to small businesses, immigrant entrepreneurs, and underserved communities.

Easy access to capital cannot work in developed markets”?


This claim is demonstrably false. In the U.S., programs like SBA loans, CDFIs (Community Development Financial Institutions), and microfinance institutions have enabled countless small businesses to start and thrive. Grameen America, the U.S. branch of Grameen Bank, has already lent over $3 billion, primarily to low-income women entrepreneurs, with repayment rates exceeding 99%. So yes, microfinance does work in developed markets—your denial of reality doesn’t change the facts.

“The dot-com crash proves you can’t just give away money.”


You agreed that comparing the Grameen Bank to speculative tech bubbles is absurd—yet you persist in misrepresenting it. The dot-com boom led to transformative companies like Amazon and Google because risk-taking drives innovation and growth. Microfinance works on the same principle: calculated, small-scale risks, not reckless speculation. Your argument against “giving loans to just anybody” ignores the evidence that microfinance focuses on high-potential, undercapitalized individuals—not “anybody.”

Replacing government spending with banks that work on donations.”


This is a strawman of epic proportions. No one is suggesting that microfinance replaces all government spending or relies on “donations.” The Grameen model and its derivatives demonstrate that self-sustaining financial systems can complement traditional economies by empowering individuals to create wealth themselves, reducing dependency on welfare systems over time. Your caricature of libertarian principles is as dishonest as it is shallow.

I see through your smokescreen.”


Your rant is nothing but a hollow echo chamber of ignorance and bile. Microfinance works because it leverages human potential, even in the face of systemic challenges. The Nobel Peace Prize awarded to the Grameen Bank is a testament to its global impact—not to “charity” or “donations,” but to a revolution in financial inclusion. The only thing you’ve demonstrated here is your stunning inability to comprehend even the most basic principles of economics, finance, or human dignity.

Your pathetic attempt to dismiss microfinance as “charity” and your baseless attacks on me are nothing more than the tantrum of a bitter, unaccomplished troll. You wouldn’t recognize a constructive idea if it slapped you in the face. Instead, you wallow in the comfort of your own mediocrity, projecting your failures and insecurities onto anyone who dares to think beyond your narrow worldview.

Let me be perfectly clear: your arrogance isn’t intellectual superiority; it’s ignorance wrapped in bravado. Your crude insults, laughable strawman arguments, and baseless accusations only serve to highlight your complete irrelevance. You are nothing more than a self-aggrandizing parasite, desperate for attention but utterly incapable of contributing anything meaningful.

Until you can engage in a substantive discussion without resorting to childish name-calling and misrepresentations, spare us all your unhinged tirades. Your “truth” is not truth—it’s the deranged ramblings of someone who has spent too much time shouting into the void and mistaking the echo for applause.

I have no problem seeing man as a cancer

[Peter McKillop]

....

Hi Sid. This is off topic but I didn't want to start a new thread just for this. Three or four years ago there was some discussion about failing memory and how one might attempt to arrest or reverse the decline. You recommended a book, which I read and enjoyed, so I thought you might be interested in this: a New Zealander who doesn't know any Spanish recently won the Spanish world Scrabble championship by memorizing the complete Spanish Scrabble word list over the course of one year. Phew!

https://apnews.com/article/spanish-s...dec1f59121aa50

[Sid Belzberg]

Hi Sid. This is off topic but I didn't want to start a new thread just for this. Three or four years ago there was some discussion about failing memory and how one might attempt to arrest or reverse the decline. You recommended a book, which I read and enjoyed, so I thought you might be interested in this: a New Zealander who doesn't know any Spanish recently won the Spanish world Scrabble championship by memorizing the complete Spanish Scrabble word list over the course of one year. Phew!

https://apnews.com/article/spanish-s...dec1f59121aa50

Hi Peter,
That is remarkable, thanks for sharing! Here is the original post https://forum.chesstalk.com/forum/ch...699#post213699

[Pargat Perrer]

Once again, your reply is a tirade of inaccuracies, projections, and outright misrepresentations. (followed by a tirade of inaccuracies, projections, and outright misrepresentations) ....

I am seeing the pattern now. I am understanding it more each day and it is frighteningly simple.

Sid has just made the point that yes, we went through the year 2000 dot-com crash ... but without that, we would not have the internet as it is today, with all its online shopping, social media, etc.

Firstly let's point the utter ridiculousness of this claim. Millions of investors had to lose their shirts before we could have today's internet? The dot-com crash triggered massive technological developments?

GUFFAW! So laughable ... but hey, if you're playing poker and you aren't watching the dealing of the cards, you might get taken by those who know how to manipulate the deck.

But the general concept ... that there must be a "disaster" before we get a burst of progress ... I will come back to that. It is part and parcel of what Sad Ballsbag, Dollop Panhandler, and other right-wing Libertarians believe, as I will show.

(Hey, they keep changing my name, I might as well change theirs!)

Let me just finish that segment by asking ... did we need World War II to get nuclear power? Before the effort to make the atom bomb, there were already theories about uranium isotopes and chain reactions ... theories only. WWII did speed things up in that it spurred the experiments that allowed the bomb to be created, and that practical application proved the theories. But the theories could have and WOULD HAVE been proven without all the casualties of WWII, so we should NOT glorify WWII for being "necessary" for nuclear power development.

And as long as you make Stockholm Syndrome-like arguments, Sid, then let's consider that maybe we needed a Covid pandemic to spur us on to new mRNA technologies that are going to cause a boom in disease cures in the future ... I bet you LOVE that idea!!! LOL

Maybe we need a "climate change crisis" to spur us on to develop nuclear fusion power, hmmmm? How about that?


Now ... getting to the Grameen Bank stuff ... because it is all related ... the model is called "microfinancing". It means you loan small micro amounts to people who cannot qualify for regular financing because THEY HAVE NOTHING in terms of assets. They do have something, it might be a skill for farming in flood-prone areas, it might be a skill for making crafts that some people will want ... but they need small amounts of capital to get started, emphasis on SMALL. Sid is promoting this model as the means by which Libertarianism can achieve the "easy access to capital" that Dollop chants like a religious mantra (he probably repeats it in his sleep).

Sid has pointed out Grameen America. It is a crowdfunding platform ... here are the details from their Donate web page...

"Grameen America is dedicated to empowering low-income women entrepreneurs to build businesses by providing access to affordable capital, financial education, credit- and asset-building, and peer networking.

Your gift will help meet the urgent need for affordable capital and the demand for Grameen America’s program across existing and new cities."

(my emphasis added to show that Sad's claim of it not being based on donations is OUTRIGHT FALSE).

So you see, it is money DONATED that gets channeled into helping low-income women build businesses. What is missing from all this is a simple graphic showing WHERE THE MONEY COMES FROM AND WHERE IT GOES. They are known for charging very high interest rates -- upwards of 21%. They are worse than the credit cards in this regard. And they need to do that because they want to show a high percentage of loans as paid back, so I believe they use creative accounting to hide the fact that loans that get marked as "paid" are actually paid out of the high interest rates from other borrowers who are making payments. You take the interest money, apply it to the principal of OTHER loans, mark those loans as paid, and viola, you have a "high loan repayment rate" to report to the media. I have absolutely no doubts this is what is going on. But on the Grameen Bank website (this is the Bangladesh bank), in their financial report there is a glaring fact: almost 20% of outstanding loans are from 5 to 10 months in arrears. It was 18.9% reported for 2022. SO how are 95% or so of loans reported as being paid back? From the high interest rates that paying borrowers are forking up. There is no other possibility, unless donations are used for that purpose.


I don't criticize anything Grameen Bank or Grameen America are doing, more power to them for the clientele they have. It beats the mafia ...

I do criticize those saying this is the model for Libertarianism "easy access to capital". I have figured out why they want this model to expand to become the de facto method of financing ALL businesses throughout the world.

But what about that fact that only low-income women get these small loans in America? Rather sexist, isn't it? Men don't qualify? Once again, direct quote from the Grameen America web site ... https://www.grameenamerica.org/program

"Our target population is women living in underserved communities, for whom the mainstream financial system is currently out of reach. Our members are women who previously had few options for accessing capital and most lacked bank accounts and credit scores."

Do you see the commonality with the Bangladesh Grameen Bank? In both cases, it is people who have zero assets who qualify for the loans (I suppose men in America must tend to have assets and not qualify for these loans.)

SO .... if this is supposed to be the model for "easy access to capital" ... and if Sid already believes that disasters must happen for progress to be made, as he states in his praise of the dot-com crash of 2000 ... what can we expect if a Libertarian government ever receives the reins of power in North America?

DISASTER. If you guessed it before seeing it, you win the prize, a free "EASY ACCESS TO CAPITAL" pin.

We must ALL be brought to the level of the farmers in Bangladesh ... of the unemployed women in America without bank accounts and credit scores ... of the investor losers in the dot-com crash ...

Then and only then do we get the "easy access to capital" that Dollop and Sad proclaim again and again.

Sad has posted on this forum against Klaus Schwab and the WEF and their motto that "You will own nothing ... and be happy." Yet it seems like Sid actually BELIEVES this principle.

I have it figured out ... they want this model because it means that financing of all business actitivies can be achieved from DONATIONS and not GOVERNMENT TAXATION ... which means Sad and Dollop don't have to pay any taxes, and can leave the donations part up to the lower classes along with the high interest rates on their loans as well. THIS IS WHY THEY CALL TAXATION STEALING. They want to RETAIN every single penny of their incomes while the lower classes fight amongst themselves for the microfinancing crumbs.

Now ... if Sad Ballsbag and Dollop Panhandler protest and say no, we aren't at all for that WEF principle or the model of having disaster happen to everyone not in the top 5% income bracket... then they MUST EXPLAIN and GIVE EXAMPLES of a model of easy access to capital that is NOT a bank for those who have no assets!!!!!

[Dilip Panjwani]

Sid has just made the point that yes, we went through the year 2000 dot-com crash ... but without that, we would not have the internet as it is today, with all its online shopping, social media, etc.

PeePee tried very hard and long to find a fault with Sid's post, and when he couldn't, he resorted to a LIE.
All Sid said was that from the drive to start internet based companies, arose Amazon and Google. The stock market bust had nothing to do with it, as it was old-style rotten capitalism, in which companies could be created only to scam unsuspecting investors in the stock market. As Bob A. happily celebrated in one of his posts here, stock markets are not essential in Libertarianism, where the key to economic growth is 'easy access to capital' via enforcement of repayment of loans plus interest, not gambling in the stock-market...

[Sid Belzberg]

I am seeing the pattern now. I am understanding it more each day and it is frighteningly simple.

Sid has just made the point that yes, we went through the year 2000 dot-com crash ... but without that, we would not have the internet as it is today, with all its online shopping, social media, etc.

Firstly let's point the utter ridiculousness of this claim. Millions of investors had to lose their shirts before we could have today's internet? The dot-com crash triggered massive technological developments?

GUFFAW! So laughable ... but hey, if you're playing poker and you aren't watching the dealing of the cards, you might get taken by those who know how to manipulate the deck.

But the general concept ... that there must be a "disaster" before we get a burst of progress ... I will come back to that. It is part and parcel of what Sad Ballsbag, Dollop Panhandler, and other right-wing Libertarians believe, as I will show.

(Hey, they keep changing my name, I might as well change theirs!)

Let me just finish that segment by asking ... did we need World War II to get nuclear power? Before the effort to make the atom bomb, there were already theories about uranium isotopes and chain reactions ... theories only. WWII did speed things up in that it spurred the experiments that allowed the bomb to be created, and that practical application proved the theories. But the theories could have and WOULD HAVE been proven without all the casualties of WWII, so we should NOT glorify WWII for being "necessary" for nuclear power development.

And as long as you make Stockholm Syndrome-like arguments, Sid, then let's consider that maybe we needed a Covid pandemic to spur us on to new mRNA technologies that are going to cause a boom in disease cures in the future ... I bet you LOVE that idea!!! LOL

Maybe we need a "climate change crisis" to spur us on to develop nuclear fusion power, hmmmm? How about that?


Now ... getting to the Grameen Bank stuff ... because it is all related ... the model is called "microfinancing". It means you loan small micro amounts to people who cannot qualify for regular financing because THEY HAVE NOTHING in terms of assets. They do have something, it might be a skill for farming in flood-prone areas, it might be a skill for making crafts that some people will want ... but they need small amounts of capital to get started, emphasis on SMALL. Sid is promoting this model as the means by which Libertarianism can achieve the "easy access to capital" that Dollop chants like a religious mantra (he probably repeats it in his sleep).

Sid has pointed out Grameen America. It is a crowdfunding platform ... here are the details from their Donate web page...

"Grameen America is dedicated to empowering low-income women entrepreneurs to build businesses by providing access to affordable capital, financial education, credit- and asset-building, and peer networking.

Your gift will help meet the urgent need for affordable capital and the demand for Grameen America’s program across existing and new cities."

(my emphasis added to show that Sad's claim of it not being based on donations is OUTRIGHT FALSE).

So you see, it is money DONATED that gets channeled into helping low-income women build businesses. What is missing from all this is a simple graphic showing WHERE THE MONEY COMES FROM AND WHERE IT GOES. They are known for charging very high interest rates -- upwards of 21%. They are worse than the credit cards in this regard. And they need to do that because they want to show a high percentage of loans as paid back, so I believe they use creative accounting to hide the fact that loans that get marked as "paid" are actually paid out of the high interest rates from other borrowers who are making payments. You take the interest money, apply it to the principal of OTHER loans, mark those loans as paid, and viola, you have a "high loan repayment rate" to report to the media. I have absolutely no doubts this is what is going on. But on the Grameen Bank website (this is the Bangladesh bank), in their financial report there is a glaring fact: almost 20% of outstanding loans are from 5 to 10 months in arrears. It was 18.9% reported for 2022. SO how are 95% or so of loans reported as being paid back? From the high interest rates that paying borrowers are forking up. There is no other possibility, unless donations are used for that purpose.


I don't criticize anything Grameen Bank or Grameen America are doing, more power to them for the clientele they have. It beats the mafia ...

I do criticize those saying this is the model for Libertarianism "easy access to capital". I have figured out why they want this model to expand to become the de facto method of financing ALL businesses throughout the world.

But what about that fact that only low-income women get these small loans in America? Rather sexist, isn't it? Men don't qualify? Once again, direct quote from the Grameen America web site ... https://www.grameenamerica.org/program

"Our target population is women living in underserved communities, for whom the mainstream financial system is currently out of reach. Our members are women who previously had few options for accessing capital and most lacked bank accounts and credit scores."

Do you see the commonality with the Bangladesh Grameen Bank? In both cases, it is people who have zero assets who qualify for the loans (I suppose men in America must tend to have assets and not qualify for these loans.)

SO .... if this is supposed to be the model for "easy access to capital" ... and if Sid already believes that disasters must happen for progress to be made, as he states in his praise of the dot-com crash of 2000 ... what can we expect if a Libertarian government ever receives the reins of power in North America?

DISASTER. If you guessed it before seeing it, you win the prize, a free "EASY ACCESS TO CAPITAL" pin.

We must ALL be brought to the level of the farmers in Bangladesh ... of the unemployed women in America without bank accounts and credit scores ... of the investor losers in the dot-com crash ...

Then and only then do we get the "easy access to capital" that Dollop and Sad proclaim again and again.

Sad has posted on this forum against Klaus Schwab and the WEF and their motto that "You will own nothing ... and be happy." Yet it seems like Sid actually BELIEVES this principle.

I have it figured out ... they want this model because it means that financing of all business actitivies can be achieved from DONATIONS and not GOVERNMENT TAXATION ... which means Sad and Dollop don't have to pay any taxes, and can leave the donations part up to the lower classes along with the high interest rates on their loans as well. THIS IS WHY THEY CALL TAXATION STEALING. They want to RETAIN every single penny of their incomes while the lower classes fight amongst themselves for the microfinancing crumbs.

Now ... if Sad Ballsbag and Dollop Panhandler protest and say no, we aren't at all for that WEF principle or the model of having disaster happen to everyone not in the top 5% income bracket... then they MUST EXPLAIN and GIVE EXAMPLES of a model of easy access to capital that is NOT a bank for those who have no assets!!!!!

Your unhinged and self-contradictory rant is nothing more than a desperate attempt to distort every point I’ve made while burying any semblance of rational debate under layers of strawmen, falsehoods, and juvenile name-calling. Let’s address your incoherent arguments one by one.

1. "Millions had to lose their shirts before we could have today’s internet?"


Yes, risk-taking drives progress—this is a basic economic truth, not the cartoonish “disaster fetish” you’ve concocted. The dot-com bubble wasn’t a disaster; it was an overinvestment period that ultimately paved the way for foundational infrastructure, innovation, and companies like Amazon, Google, and eBay. It is the very nature of market evolution: some ventures succeed spectacularly, others fail, but collectively they propel progress. Pretending this is somehow equivalent to glorifying human suffering, as in WWII or the COVID pandemic, is a grotesque misrepresentation. Stick to economics, not melodramatic conflations.

2. “Grameen America is based on donations.”


Wrong again. Yes, Grameen America solicits donations to expand its programs, but the core of its operations is microloans, funded through repayments and reinvestments, not endless handouts. The organization’s ability to sustain operations and expand is proof of its efficacy, not evidence of fraud as you baselessly imply. Your conspiracy theory about creative accounting and interest payments funding other loans is as absurd as it is unfounded. If you have evidence, present it—otherwise, spare us the amateur auditing.

3. "Grameen Bank’s high-interest rates are exploitative."


Microloans inherently carry higher interest rates because the administrative costs for small loans are disproportionately large. The difference is that these loans empower borrowers to generate sustainable income, unlike predatory payday loans or credit cards. Borrowers are not coerced; they opt in because they see value in the opportunity. If you genuinely cared about exploitation, you’d focus on predatory practices in developed nations, not organizations lifting millions out of poverty

.4. "Microfinance is sexist because it targets women."


This argument is as shallow as it is disingenuous. Microfinance institutions target women because studies show they are more likely to repay loans and invest in their families and communities, generating long-term social and economic benefits. Men are not excluded from microfinance globally—Grameen Bank and others have male borrowers—but the emphasis on women addresses systemic inequities in access to capital. Branding this as “sexist” ignores the evidence and reeks of bad-faith contrarianism.

5. “Libertarians want to destroy the world to enable microfinance.”


The absurdity of this claim speaks for itself. Libertarianism advocates free-market solutions, reduced government interference, and decentralization of economic power. Microfinance fits this model by enabling individuals to access capital without reliance on bloated bureaucracies. The suggestion that libertarians want to create disasters to justify microfinance is pure fantasy—akin to a conspiracy theorist’s fever dream. If you’re going to argue against libertarianism, at least engage with its principles honestly.

6. "Taxation is stealing because libertarians want to hoard wealth."


Ah, the old trope. Libertarians argue that voluntary exchange is more efficient and ethical than coercive systems like taxation. Microfinance aligns with this philosophy because it decentralizes capital allocation, bypassing government inefficiency. Claiming libertarians want to starve public services while hoarding wealth is a lazy caricature, not a serious argument. The Grameen model shows how private systems can achieve public good—something your statist worldview refuses to acknowledge.

7. "Provide an example of easy access to capital not for the asset-less."


Done. In developed markets, Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFIs) and Small Business Administration (SBA) loans provide accessible capital to entrepreneurs with limited collateral. Additionally, venture capital, angel investing, and crowdfunding platforms enable startups to raise funds without requiring traditional assets. The Grameen model is one example among many—none of which require the apocalyptic scenarios you invent.


Your rant is the pathetic whimper of a small mind drowning in its own ignorance. You have proven, beyond any doubt, that you are utterly incapable of contributing anything meaningful to this discussion—or likely any discussion. Your reliance on insults, misrepresentations, and fabricated conspiracies isn’t debate; it’s the sad flailing of someone too insecure to admit they don’t know what they’re talking about.

You’re not a critic or a thinker—you’re a parasite. You latch onto conversations with the sole purpose of spreading your toxic bile, hoping the sheer volume of your nonsense will mask your lack of coherence. It doesn’t. Every word you spew drips with desperation, a desperate attempt to feel relevant in a world that has long since passed you by.

Your obsession with twisting my words into some grotesque parody of your own making reveals the depth of your intellectual bankruptcy. You aren’t here to understand or engage; you’re here to attack because that’s all you know how to do. It’s painfully obvious that you don’t even believe half the garbage you’re spewing—you’re just scrambling for attention like a child throwing a tantrum when they realize no one is watching.

Here’s the harsh truth: you are irrelevant. Your opinions don’t matter because they are not grounded in reality. Your arguments are not taken seriously because they are not arguments—they are the incoherent ravings of someone who thrives on antagonism and nothing else. You’re not challenging ideas; you’re embarrassing yourself.

Do yourself a favor: stop typing, step away from the keyboard, and take a long, hard look in the mirror. The person staring back at you is not the intellectual warrior you imagine—it’s a bitter, insignificant troll whose only claim to fame is their ability to waste the time of people far more informed and capable than you could ever hope to be. You’re not a voice in the debate—you’re the static no one listens to.

I have no problem seeing man as a cancer

It’s remarkable, really, that someone who sees humanity as a 'cancer' has so thoroughly lived up to their own metaphor—parasitic, toxic, and contributing nothing of value. If you genuinely believe that mankind is a cancer, then it’s no surprise you dedicate yourself to being the most malignant example possible. After all, you’re not here to build, create, or inspire; you’re here to corrode and tear down.

But here's the irony you can never escape: people like you—pessimists, nihilists, and self-styled misanthropes—are the very thing humanity consistently overcomes. While you wallow in your cynical little bubble, others innovate, collaborate, and improve the world despite voices like yours screaming into the void. You’ve made yourself the living embodiment of stagnation, while the rest of us move forward.

So go ahead—cling to your 'cancer' analogy. All it does is expose the fact that you’ve chosen to be the disease, while others strive to be the cure."

[Bob Armstrong]

Polievre as Mini-Trump

The Conservative Leader has long been a student of the anti-establishment currents that swept Trump into office in the first place.

It could be that their similar voter coalition, a shared anti-conventional approach to politics, and individual promises to put their respective countries first in any global dialogue might rekindle the flames of the old “bromances” between Canadian prime ministers and U.S. presidents past.

The value of friendships in politics, after all, is not to be understated. The Liberals used a “Team Canada” approach to the last Trump presidency, leveraging personal contacts and hustling hard to build more. Poilievre’s Tories already have a big one built in: Conservative MP Jamil Jivani’s relationship with Trump’s vice-president-elect, JD Vance. https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#in...xTbJZspWFrgMJC Any CT'er thoughts on this comparison? Bob A (Democratic Marxist)