Here is the link. The second half of the article is more interesting than the first; here is one short bit:
Omidyar and his colleagues say that the biggest obstacle to
commercialization of the sector is philanthropic capital. They say that
it distorts the market–not only by filling channels that might
otherwise draw commercial investors but also by keeping unsustainable
programs alive.
I suspected as much about philanthropy.
Did anyone actually find Omidyar’s position appealing, based on the article? I’m sure one could have framed it in a way that would be more favorable to him, but based purely on that article, I found it hard to be sympathetic. The poverty-relief donors mentioned, for example, were hardly looking to dump money into programs that didn’t get results; the Gates money, as I recall, only got committed after a year of study and evaluation. Profit’s fine, but this guy struck me as Randroid in his zeal.
For Yunus, The Nobel Committee, and all donors to microcredit:
That use is not forbidden usury,
Which happies those that pay the willing loan;
—William Shakespeare
Then, beauteous miser, why dost thou abuse
The bounteous largess given thee to give?
Profitless usurer, why dost thou use
So great a sum of sums, yet canst not live?
For having traffic with thyself alone,
Thou of thyself thy sweet self dost deceive.
Then how, when nature calls thee to be gone,
What acceptable audit canst thou leave?
—William Shakespeare
Preved Medvedi!
thank you. Beatifull Archile !
sohbet – chat – sohpet – çet – muhabbet – sesli sohbet – sohbet – sohbet chat – sohbet kanallari – sohbet – sohbet – sohbet odalari – mirc – mirc indir – turkce mirc – yonja sohbet – sohbet – chat kanallari – bedava chat – sohpet – burc – burclar – gunluk burclar – dizi izle – sohbet sitesi sohbet odaları sohbet kanalları sohbet – sohbet sitesi seviyeli sohbet – Dizi izle – Müzik Dinle – mp3 Dinle – turk chat – seditio eklenti
Comments on this entry are closed.