[ABANDONED] Repeal "Microcredit and Microgrants"

[Refuge Isle]

Original text of GAR #94

Proposal, Draft 3:

General Assembly Resolution #94 "Microcredit and Microgrants" (Category: Free Trade; Strength: Mild) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

The World Assembly,

Reaffirming that poverty can be eliminated, and the World Assembly's guidance, resources, and good will can provide immeasurable benefit to this cause;

Grows concerned the General Assembly has created an organisation which provides risk-free, yet interest-bearing, loans that the World Assembly does not directly issue, through lenders that the World Assembly does not directly employ;

Wary of this program styling developing economies as profitable markets to private banking under the premise of humanitarian intentions;

Concerned that even ideal candidates for WMF programs may be vulnerable to accepting loans that do not have their best intentions at heart, and may force them to move from loan to loan in order to avoid financial hardship;

Believing that it is necessary to establish protocols for bankruptcy and borrow protection, whereas only protocols for delinquency and lender protection have been mentioned;

Disappointed that the General Assembly could have elected to create a program that issued loans to financially disadvantaged persons directly from the WMF at cost, but instead created one to subsidise private lenders to profit from the already impoverished;

Resolving that the World Assembly will continue its important work to address the needs of the poor without a program which undermines them;

Hereby repeals General Assembly Resolution #94 Microcredit and Microgrants.

General Assembly Resolution #94 "Microcredit and Microgrants" (Category: Free Trade; Strength: Mild) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

The World Assembly,

Reaffirming that poverty can and should be eliminated;

Believing that the international community has the capacity, resources, and good will to create programs and initiatives that provide an opportunity for economic prosperity;

Observing that the General Assembly has created a lending organisation which finances risk-free, interest-bearing loans that the World Assembly does not directly issue, through lenders that the World Assembly does not directly manage;

Troubled that the definition of a fair interest rate has not been defined or limited;

Concerned that borrowers who are ideal candidates for the WMF programs may be vulnerable to accepting loans that do not have their best intentions at heart, and may force the borrower to move from loan to loan in order to avoid financial hardship;

Believing that insufficient considerations have been made to properly define critical lending standards and regulatory oversight in the areas of consumer protection, predatory lending, and bankruptcy;

Disappointed that the General Assembly could have elected to sponsor an interest-free loan program, but instead created one where private lenders profit from the already impoverished.

Concluding that dissolving this program will protect vulnerable individuals from being entrapped within a cycle of debt;

Hereby repeals General Assembly Resolution #94 Microcredit and Microgrants.

Ruled to be Honest Mistake in "Troubled" and the second "Believing" sections.

General Assembly Resolution # 94 "Microcredit and Microgrants" (Category: Free Trade; Strength: Mild) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

The World Assembly,

Reaffirming that poverty can be eliminated through national and international initiatives and opportunities, targeted at economically underdeveloped and disadvantaged areas;

Believing that financial independence is a vital component to economic prosperity;

Concerned that the World Assembly has created a lending organisation to finance, through international contributions, riskless, interest-bearing loans that the World Assembly does not issue, through lenders that the World Assembly does not directly manage;

Concerned that microcredit lenders may justify exorbitant interest rates under the justification that loans to high-risk clients and impoverished areas have "increased costs" to lend;

Concerned that borrowers who are ideal candidates for the WMF programs may be vulnerable to accepting loans that do not have their best interests in mind, and may be forced to move from loan to loan in order to maintain their livelihood;

Believing that insufficient considerations have been made to properly define critical lending standards and regulatory oversight in the interests of consumer protections, predatory lending, and bankruptcy;

Concluding that dissolving this program will protect vulnerable individuals from being entrapped within a cycle of debt;

Hereby repeals General Assembly Resolution # 94 Microcredit and Microgrants

[Kenmoria]

“Though you have made some quite convincing points, your first few focus on national sovereignty, or at least appear to do so, which weakens your overall case. I recommend focusing on direct financial and social disadvantages of the proposal rather than attacking it ideologically. Overall, however, this is a strong repeal.”

[Refuge Isle]

I have no idea how it can be considered a national sovereignty argument solely by stating that national and international solutions can exist to tackle poverty.

[Imperium Anglorum]

The claim that lenders would impose risk premia doesn't stand under strutiny. The fact the loans are insured and the WA will guarantee them eliminates that uncertainty.

[Refuge Isle]

That's valid, I'll rewrite that section.

[Refuge Isle]

The draft has been revised with the feedback that I have received. I'm happy to hear additional comments and concerns.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Observing that the General Assembly has created a lending organisation which finances risk-free, interest-bearing loans that the World Assembly does not directly issue, through lenders that the World Assembly does not directly manage;

The World Assembly isn't a bank or a creditor. Instead of reinventing the wheel and demolishing all existing microcredit lenders (who are often operating not for profit), it is better both institutionally, culturally, and economically to utilize existing financial infrastructure. Furthermore, the claim that the World Assembly "does not directly manage" these lenders is false, possibly to the point of a credible rules challenge. The World Assembly, through the World Microcredit Foundation, creates lending binding lending standards and "routinely inspect[s] the practices and finances of authorized WMF lenders." That's more regulatory management than exists in most modern-day economies for their financial sectors.

Troubled that the definition of a fair interest rate has not been defined or limited;

That would be because "fair interest rate" would not be a static number and, like most financial figures, would fluctuate over time. Rather than non-expert legislators trying to pin down some specific static rate that will never change with the global economy, we create an agency that is filled with experts in the field who decide those rates as part of the lending standards. Due respect, but are you an expert who can conduct all the economic and financial research that would go into defining interest rates? And then are we going to repeal and replace this resolutions on a regular basis to update those rates?

Concerned that borrowers who are ideal candidates for the WMF programs may be vulnerable to accepting loans that do not have their best intentions at heart, and may force the borrower to move from loan to loan in order to avoid financial hardship;

This is quite literally already addressed in the resolution. Micro-finance is a high-risk activity, where we would naturally expect a higher rate of defaults and non-payment. If it wasn't, then it would be a much larger part of the financial sector without the need of government backing. That is why the WMF is specifically tasked to work with borrowers on repayment, and to directly pay off all defaulted loans.

Believing that insufficient considerations have been made to properly define critical lending standards and regulatory oversight in the areas of consumer protection, predatory lending, and bankruptcy;

Again, are you an expert in the field? Do you believe you can define all these things within 5,500 characters?

Disappointed that the General Assembly could have elected to sponsor an interest-free loan program, but instead created one where private lenders profit from the already impoverished.

We did one better. We created a grant foundation, where the WMF gives grants to entrepreneurs. They're not interest-free because they're not loans in the first place! In the meantime, you might to read up on the cultural aspects of micro-finance, and why many entrepreneurs in impoverished areas want to be treated as first-class humans, and how participating in a traditional lending program builds business confidence. The entire point of the WMF initiative is to foster home-grown economic development and show the world that it is okay to lend to people outside of first-rate economies. So not only is it important socially and culturally that borrowers feel like they're engaging in business, rather than charity, you have to understand that micro-finance is not a zero-cost industry. Lenders need to pay staff, they need to work with local banks and government regulations, and of course international clearinghouses when funds are actually disbursed.

Additionally, a key aspect of micro-finance is that we want those who have been successful in their community to become micro-lenders themselves. As explained above, lending is not a cost-free activity. If you disallow these people to charge interest, then they likely won't be able to become lenders themselves. Micro-finance initiatives seek to create a virtuous circle. The goal is to create local economies, and home-grown lenders are an important element to that.

Traditionally, people struggled to pay off their loans, and went to such efforts as decreasing their food intake to cut costs. That's why the World Assembly explicitly guarantees repayment out of the General Fund in the event of default or borrower insolvency. The downside of interest rates has been removed by that guarantee.

Concluding that dissolving this program will protect vulnerable individuals from being entrapped within a cycle of debt;

To the contrary, dissolving this program will remove the largest and most important inter-governmental effort to support micro-finance, promote local entrepreneurship, and grow local economies.

If you are concerned about global poverty -- and I do believe you are -- there are so many better ways to help than to demolish access to finance for those in poverty wanting to start their own local businesses.

[Imperium Anglorum]

The guarantee to me, simply eliminates the risk premium. It does not eliminate a lender's liquidity preference or make up for the origination costs.

[Refuge Isle]

Glen-Rhodes Thank you for taking the time to debate me on this issue. I've spent a significant amount of time to try and develop a repeal with quality content. Being the author, I'm sure it matters a great deal to you. Know that the language in the proposal is intended to persuade and not offend. Also, please pardon the formatting, or lack thereof, I'm at work and didn't want this to go unanswered.

When I hear "microloans," basically two ideas immediately spring to mind. The first is payday lenders who charge some three to four *hundred* percent to deliver your paycheck early and other businesses of that nature. The second is organisations like Kiva, which use crowd funding to back third party loans in developing economies. Your resolution is styled as the latter.
Clarification: I am introducing the issue. I am not saying this resolution is payday lending, thanks.

This legislation obviously does not cause the WA to issue loans directly. There's no indication that it would in the opening text, which establishes the foundation, and the following statement which clarifies it causes me to believe that you take a bit of pride in that fact. The angle of my criticism, however, is that situation may actually be a bad thing. Both Kiva and the World Assembly identify as non-profits interested in the common good, but their proxies in the field are private businesses in the banking sector and seek to make an income for themselves. Consequently, the WA is insuring private business' lending while those businesses receive profits from doing so. And this is obviously not something that's illegal or intrinsically reprehensible, but it's something that I don't believe helps as much as it styles itself to do. It's a subsidy to private banking that seems a bridge too far for the interests of the WA, at large.

But the meat of my argument is the question "why are we viewing people in underdeveloped economies as a source of profit" and that's basically what's implied when you put a regular interest rate over loans aimed at them. At that point, it's less in the category of international aid and more like a business opportunity for the lender.

It would be perfect acceptable to charge an interest rate "not to exceed the percent of inflation of the currency in which the loan is issued," the idea there being that you can borrow this sum as an opportunity, but you need to pay it back with the amount that was lost while it was in your possession in order to pay it forward to the next recipient. That did not occur because it doesn't make financial sense with the private business component. So why is there a private business component which, in Kiva's case, averages some 30% interest when we could be doing this directly at cost?

When I mention this in the repeal, you say that it's fine, there's a microgrant program, too. Fantastic, I have zero complaints with that program. However, that argument is a red herring because it doesn't change the fact that the microlending program exists with the problems I feel it has.

[Giant Bats]

"We do not even use currency and I am still quite certain that nothing near, not to mention over hundred percent interest rate can in any reading be considered fair or reasonable," Kistiri huffed. He was starting to get hungry and dealing with silly alien concepts of finances was starting to get on his nerves. The spines on his upper back raised a little.

- Kistiri Tikilikrr, Assistant to the Head of Diplomatic Wing, 10th generation male

[Glen-Rhodes]

When I hear "microloans," basically two ideas immediately spring to mind. The first is payday lenders who charge some three to four *hundred* percent to deliver your paycheck early and other businesses of that nature. The second is organisations like Kiva, which use crowd funding to back third party loans in developing economies. Your resolution is styled as the latter.

That payday lending is the first thing that comes to mind shows a clear lack of knowledge or research into micro-finance. The two aren’t anything alike, the most obvious reason being that microcredit isn’t based off of income because the borrowers don’t usually have steady income upon which a principle balance can be based.

Kiva is indeed a microcredit lender, but also not the only example out there. It’s a crowdsource lender, rather than a financial institution itself. While a Kiva-like organization can become a WMF-accredited participant, it’s not the sole successful model of micro lending in the world.

Both Kiva and the World Assembly identify as non-profits interested in the common good, but their proxies in the field are private businesses in the banking sector and seek to make an income for themselves. Consequently, the WA is insuring private business' lending while those businesses receive profits from doing so.

Even Kiva loans charge interest rates for the exact reasons I mentioned. Kiva as a non-profit doesn’t attach an interest rate, and neither do the crowdsourced lenders. But the actual people and institutions disbursing the loans (called “field partners”) do charge an interest rate. There are transaction costs associated with lending, whether that lending is heavily subsidized or not. If interest is outlawed, then lending will not exist, and you’ll be cutting off any access to capital (and thus markets) that borrowers have. And in the place of WA-regulated lenders, you’ll get exactly the kind of predatory lending (eg organized crime) your mind first goes to when thinking about microcredit.

It's a subsidy to private banking that seems a bridge too far for the interests of the WA, at large.

It’s a subsidy to impoverished entrepreneurs, who get the dignity of participating in a real financial market, rather than relying on charity and welfare. You can cut as many tax-financed checks to these entrepreneurs as you want, but you will never change the world’s mind about their ability to start and run a successful small business in their country or locality if all the world sees is that tax-and-spend welfare is the only thing propping them up.

But the meat of my argument is the question "why are we viewing people in underdeveloped economies as a source of profit" and that's basically what's implied when you put a regular interest rate over loans aimed at them. At that point, it's less in the category of international aid and more like a business opportunity for the lender.

To the contrary, I think you have a view that greatly undermines and undervalues the potential of and work of these entrepreneurs. You would deny them access to capital markets because of a patriarchal view that they must be protected from their own ability to make financial decisions.

It would be perfect acceptable to charge an interest rate "not to exceed the percent of inflation of the currency in which the loan is issued,"

You do realize, given the countries we’re discussing here, this would often mean the incredibly high interest rates you’re imagining as an already existing problem, and possibly even triple-digit rates at times? This highlights why committees are created and filled with experts. Because you are not an expert, and neither is any other legislator or diplomat here!

When I mention this in the repeal, you say that it's fine, there's a microgrant program, too. Fantastic, I have zero complaints with that program. However, that argument is a red herring because it doesn't change the fact that the microlending program exists with the problems I feel it has.

If you feel like the better idea is direct tax-financed welfare, there is nothing in this resolution stopping you from writing the one you want. Why not go do something productive, instead of destructive, with your time?

[Imperium Anglorum]

Ara: Nominal interest rates routinely rise over 100 pc in inflationary environments above 100 pc inflation. Why? Because you get less money back than you lent if lending at a rate below inflation. See Fisher 1922.

OP: Originations are not costless. Who would lend if there is a price ceiling preventing them from making any money doing so? See Bryan Caplan, "Anti-market bias" in The Myth of the Rational Voter.

Moreover, at a more fundamental level, I'm very curious why you believe in these monopoly theories of price which seem to imply there exists an amount of borrowing from this market which must be taken and for which lenders are total price setters. Lenders charging exorbitant interest rates will not get borrowers. See generally, Id. Microcredit is intended not as a personal unsecured loan, but rather, as a small business loan taken for entrepreneurial reasons. These are very different things with very different demand functions.

[Araraukar]

OOC at IA: If you want the Tikrr to react to you, you'll have to present your arguments in IC.

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC at IA: If you want the Tikrr to react to you, you'll have to present your arguments in IC.

I didn't present argument. I presented a fact claim. Nor did I direct it to your bats, I directed it to you. You are not an IC figment. If you want to engage with that fact claim, do so. I'm not in the business of entertaining your bats' poor understanding of credit markets.

[Araraukar]

I'm not in the business of entertaining your bats' poor understanding of credit markets.

OOC: Then ignored you shall remain.

[Refuge Isle]

[Due respect, but are you an expert who can conduct all the economic and financial research that would go into defining interest rates? And then are we going to repeal and replace this resolutions on a regular basis to update those rates?
...
Again, are you an expert in the field?

This highlights why committees are created and filled with experts. Because you are not an expert, and neither is any other legislator or diplomat here!

Thanks, I'm highly aware of this debate strategy by now, and I find it pointless. I'm not an expert in this field, and not having a relevant diploma in order to debate the merit of your resolution is absolutely fine and an unreasonable demand. I understand that you have a character limit within which you need to establish your program and define the limits and boundaries of it while also maintaining people's interest, but I don't think that's a free pass when I'm bringing up concerns that could be at least recognised within a few sentences. For example, in your resolution, you write:

- Working with borrowers to ensure the repayment of loans;
- Reimbursing lenders the balance of the principle investment in cases of defaulted loans and borrower insolvency;

Fantastic, you have guaranteed the safety and profit of the lender. Where is your bankruptcy definition? What are conditions in which the borrower is protected from extenuating circumstances? If the lender doesn't comply with the rules that they are "bound" by, what are the consequences of that? Being booted out of the program? What happens to the borrower and their loans for lenders that don't comply with the rules? This doesn't require a 3,000 word entry, it requires 2-3 sentences that at least see it as a possibility. To imply that it can't be done because there isn't room for it is the strangest defense I've ever heard.

That payday lending is the first thing that comes to mind shows a clear lack of knowledge or research into micro-finance.

Another jab without any reason. The point of my sentence of "these are things that come to mine" is literally "this is a thing that people associate with short term loans" it's not to say you have a payday lending program, it's not to say you are charging three hundred percent interest and it doesn't imply that either because I outright compare it to Kiva. That kind of comparison is necessary because I don't have the ability to pull years of studies about how this resolution has impacted people in developing economies, because it doesn't exist. The best I can do is say "well, here's a program that functions like yours and I disagree with it, which is entirely valid to do.

You would deny them access to capital markets because of a patriarchal view that they must be protected from their own ability to make financial decisions.

I've never actually had a patriarchy argument used on me before, but it seems like it's a reasonably straw man argument, because what I'm saying is that we can make those loans directly at cost or even at a loss, not prevent people from taking loans ever. Consumer protections *existing* and limits on what can be considered abuse of a system isn't an overbearing nanny state that's suppressing free will, it's a defining of the bounds of that system to let people do what they're doing while being mindful of the usury that can occur.

You do realize, given the countries we’re discussing here, this would often mean the incredibly high interest rates you’re imagining as an already existing problem, and possibly even triple-digit rates at times? This highlights why committees are created and filled with experts. Because you are not an expert, and neither is any other legislator or diplomat here!

This is another bizarre defense. Do you mean to tell me that the field lenders that exist right now charge an interest rate that's designed, even with successful repayment, to leave them with a loss? If you define the lending foundation to issue loans at cost, I'm not buying that it would end up being *more* expensive than by using private lenders who want to keep their business afloat.

Why not go do something productive, instead of destructive, with your time?

This is a topic I wanted to debate and I'm having a great time doing it.

OP: Originations are not costless. Who would lend if there is a price ceiling preventing them from making any money doing so? See Bryan Caplan, "Anti-market bias" in The Myth of the Rational Voter.

My argument is that "if the WA makes these loans, even if they are lent at a loss, it's fine because the World Assembly isn't out to make a profit for itself." If there's a cost to be lost in administration, that's the cost of carrying a program that is designed to have humanitarian intention. Surely the WA is already shouldering some of that overhead by the fact that the WMF has already been established and runs its own staff.

---

Edit: As Draft 3 was ruled illegal due to Honest Mistake in two sections, I've retracted that proposal. I agree with the ruling and am grateful for its constructive feedback. I've spent the morning redrafting my argument and I've edited it into the OP. I'll come back to this tomorrow and see if I feel differently about it then or have though of any better way to state my argument.

[Imperium Anglorum]

My argument is that "if the WA makes these loans, even if they are lent at a loss, it's fine because the World Assembly isn't out to make a profit for itself." If there's a cost to be lost in administration, that's the cost of carrying a program that is designed to have humanitarian intention. Surely the WA is already shouldering some of that overhead by the fact that the WMF has already been established and runs its own staff.

Lending at a rate lower than that dictated by liquidity preference, completely ignoring risk premia, means that these WA subsidised loans are always cheaper than those provided by anyone else, driving other lenders out of business. That's part, I believe, of why the Assembly set up the costing structure in the way it did.

But at a second level: Why do you believe the real interest rate on these loans will necessarily be high?

[Refuge Isle]

Lending at a rate lower than that dictated by liquidity preference, completely ignoring risk premia, means that these WA subsidised loans are always cheaper than those provided by anyone else, driving other lenders out of business. That's part, I believe, of why the Assembly set up the costing structure in the way it did.

It's reasonable to assume that loans to people who aren't poor wouldn't be the candidates for WA microloans and regular lending could still take place at their usual bank of choice. That is to say you can have rents for the poor with a government subsidy and simultaneously have a robust private housing market because not everyone qualifies for the subsidy or needs it.

But at a second level: Why do you believe the real interest rate on these loans will necessarily be high?

Probably because they do so when they are left to their own devices. Trending to higher interest rates is the nature of their business. And, sure, you can argue that the WMF "routinely inspecting the practices [of field lenders]" but, in real life, you can still have this set up and get lenders who charge 50% rates, regardless. And while there's a lengthy argument to be made about how that can be justified, it doesn't make much sense to me to use this third party set-up when it would be more charitable and efficient to not be concerned with someone else's corporate profits.

[Imperium Anglorum]

But at a second level: Why do you believe the real interest rate on these loans will necessarily be high?

Probably because they do so when they are left to their own devices. Trending to higher interest rates is the nature of their business. And, sure, you can argue that the WMF "routinely inspecting the practices [of field lenders]" but, in real life, you can still have this set up and get lenders who charge 50% rates, regardless. And while there's a lengthy argument to be made about how that can be justified, it doesn't make much sense to me to use this third party set-up when it would be more charitable and efficient to not be concerned with someone else's corporate profits.

The links you give. Are these loans guaranteed such that there is no risk premium?

In our context, here in the World Assembly, what do you believe are the determinants of the price offered? Is this a supply-inadequacy issue? A demand-push story? Or is there something more fundamental at the heart of why interest rates are high? Asymmetric information? Origination costs? Saying that something is simply the case based on real world empirics, when the structure adopted by the World Assembly deviates substantially from those empirics, is not compelling. (Note that I am not here arguing that the best thing to do is to make everything up and abandon everything we know about reality. I firmly believe that how we look at policies in the WA should be highly informed by the real world, but the places where policies substantively differ matter and ought be taken into account.)

[Refuge Isle]

The links you give. Are these loans guaranteed such that there is no risk premium?

In the first pair, no. Those links are meant to indicate "this is where things drift on their own." That place is 75.5% and 75.6% in this case. And it's due diligence to reference them because earlier I was criticised for not referencing other styles of microlending and the companies that provide it. So that's out of the way.

In the trio from Kiva, they *are* guaranteed and you can *still* end up with lenders, the likes which I linked, that charge an average of fifty percent interest and have a twenty percent profit margin, which is basically commercial banking, while still claiming to be based on anti-poverty. Naturally, not every lender is going to be like that, but it's still allowed to exist within that system and there's a rather lengthy treatise from Kiva on why this is so and why they consider it acceptable. That argument is mostly centred around administrative costs like staff wages and corporate fees. But it doesn't change the fact that people can be forced into making additional loans to maintain their living situation and the very same level of interest that's argued as being necessary and fair can drive people to suicide when it didn't turn out to be a good decision to take it.

Saying that something is simply the case based on real world empirics, when the structure adopted by the World Assembly deviates substantially from those empirics, is not compelling.

That's the thing, I'm not convinced that it's substantially different. The reason Kiva is a convenient example for me is because it so closely mirrors this resolution.

Both avoid interacting with loan issuing directly and rely on private field lenders.
Both are proud that they don't take a cut.
Both insure loans to decrease risk and reimburse the lender in case of default.
Both claim to inspect the practices of their field partners to make sure the lending is fair.

Now, again, I can't reference a study on how much a WMF loan typically costs the borrower per year, but if these are the things that are the same, I'm going to use that as my basis of argument that we should have done something else for legislation aimed at anti-poverty, because nothing in the resolution causes me to believe the loans would turn out differently.

This could have been solely a micro-grant program or it could have been more directly worked, but my suspicion is that it was written at a time (2010) when microlending was popular and in the news. And that was obviously the goal: to have a microlending program because it was a good charitable thing to do. That's a fair situation, too. I sponsored microloans from 2012-2015 but my opinion on them changed when I started looking into the lending practices, so I'm making this argument in case the WA can reach a similar evolution.

[Glen-Rhodes]

It's sad to see that you're still more interested in tearing down this program than being productive and writing your own resolution that does what you want. But alas, non-productive destruction has always been the General Assembly's terminal illness.

Thanks, I'm highly aware of this debate strategy by now, and I find it pointless. I'm not an expert in this field, and not having a relevant diploma in order to debate the merit of your resolution is absolutely fine and an unreasonable demand. I understand that you have a character limit within which you need to establish your program and define the limits and boundaries of it while also maintaining people's interest, but I don't think that's a free pass when I'm bringing up concerns that could be at least recognised within a few sentences.

Well, no, you can't make the arguments you are making and then turn around and say you're not an expert and don't need to be. Your entire criticism of this resolution is that it's not a 50 page central bank study on interest rates, and that apparently I didn't write a bankruptcy code into it. So you are saying I did a poor job writing the resolution because I wasn't expert enough in the subject matter, while you yourself are actually wholly unable to articulate exactly what it is you demand to see in the resolution. It's easy to write "the resolution doesn't say what the interest rates are." Evidence by the fact you've yet to produce a precise response, however, it's apparently a bit harder to deliver what you demand.

You blithely claim that all I needed to do what write a "few sentences" to address your qualms. But the sections you've singled out already clearly address your issues. If the WMF is working with borrowers to ensure the repayment of loans, then that obviously means they are working with them regarding extenuating circumstances. If the WMF is reimbursing lenders on defaulted loans and borrower insolvency, then that very obviously addresses your baseless grievance about bankruptcy. Hint: if lenders are reimbursed by the government, then bankruptcy is irrelevant. (The whole point of bankruptcy is for a borrower to restructure debt to make it easier to pay back.)

If those aren't good enough for you, then a couple extra words aren't going to be good enough either. Because what's happening here is that you have a problem with real-life microcredit, you're partly confusing it for payday lending, you're then conflating it with large investment banks and subprime mortgage mills, and then trying to build a case by both misrepresenting what the resolution says and ignoring the parts that undercut your arguments. It's a very classic debate move in this forum.

I've never actually had a patriarchy argument used on me before, but it seems like it's a reasonably straw man argument, because what I'm saying is that we can make those loans directly at cost or even at a loss, not prevent people from taking loans ever.

Congratulations, you've basically destroyed the entire microfinance industry by ensuring there won't be any lenders at all. If you want to write a resolution that just hands out charity, then go do so. This resolution isn't stopping you from creating a global universal basic income program. This resolution isn't The One And Only Resolution Allowed On Poverty, but you are definitely treating it as such.

[Refuge Isle]

Well, no, you can't make the arguments you are making and then turn around and say you're not an expert and don't need to be. Your entire criticism of this resolution is that it's not a 50 page central bank study on interest rates, and that apparently I didn't write a bankruptcy code into it.

You make an excellent campaign for an argument I'm not making. Please stop repeating this weird interpretation that I've asked for the the Lord of the Rings trilogy in bankruptcy law to exist within this provision. It's *literally* one "believing" clause that notes a conspicuous absence of statements that protect the borrower from eg being locked up in prison due to inability to pay, yet you took the time to mention that the lender is protected and reimbursed. Now, this is a valid complaint because you could have spent as much time on that topic as you spent marketing the program to member states afterwards, but it seems to be absent entirely. And reimbursement of the loan for the lender obviously doesn't help the borrower if their home country finds being in default to be a crime.

And, again, this was one sentence of my repeal.

Evidence by the fact you've yet to produce a precise response, however, it's apparently a bit harder to deliver what you demand.

Are you asking me to write replacement legislation for you or else the flaws in this one are beyond reproach?

If those aren't good enough for you, then a couple extra words aren't going to be good enough either. Because what's happening here is that you have a problem with real-life microcredit, you're partly confusing it for payday lending, you're then conflating it with large investment banks and subprime mortgage mills, and then trying to build a case by both misrepresenting what the resolution says and ignoring the parts that undercut your arguments. It's a very classic debate move in this forum.

No kidding, for example, I mention payday lending *once*, not even in the context of saying that #94 *is* that, and you carry on as if that's the foundation of my case. I very clearly referenced sources of microloans, in my response to IA, with secured and unsecured loans and how that difference affects their interest rate and how the WA isn't much different in how it handles the secured loans. It *is* a case against microloans, how I don't feel they work and I don't feel the WA gets anything out of them in terms of poverty improvement. That case is argued within the confines of what is legal within the repeal text because I don't have a ten year study from the World Assembly on how it's made things worse. That case is also not diminished by there being other resolutions on the books that deal with poverty.

Congratulations, you've basically destroyed the entire microfinance industry by ensuring there won't be any lenders at all. If you want to write a resolution that just hands out charity, then go do so. This resolution isn't stopping you from creating a global universal basic income program. This resolution isn't The One And Only Resolution Allowed On Poverty, but you are definitely treating it as such.

Yes, I've gathered that you certainly don't *like* my proposal, but that doesn't mean the arguments I raise aren't valid, in spite of your weird hostility.

[East Meranopirus]

OP, you might want to change the the [PROPOSAL] in the subject line to [QUEUE] since it's reached quorum and will be up for vote next. That said, I'm going to predict that it will fail miserably at vote.

[Marxist Germany]

OOC:Your debate with glen isn't over, why did you submit?

[Tibbsia]

Is there a replacement in the works? Refuge Isle