UPDATE: The criminals at Kiva have written an unofficial response to this entry. Their basic excuse is that there are inherent costs in the administration of small loans- as if that excuses their crimes, as well as the rest of the data discussed in this entry… Either way, we have the capitalist perspective on the subject now: it’s okay to charge as much as you want because lending money is very, very hard work.
***
If you’re thinking of spending a few dollars to help some people in the third-world this Christmas season, please do not support Kiva Microfunds (Kiva.org). All Anarchists need to be warned that Kiva is a loan shark operation, a fact which is advertised nowhere on their site for obvious reasons.
The way Kiva works is, they have contracts with “Field Partners,” that is to say loan shark operations, in various third-world areas and send them the money to be loaned. These operations then loan the money to destitute people for interest rates anywhere from 10% (!) to 40% (!!!), and in the past even 60% (!!!!!). According to the Kiva site (if you look carefully at the statistics page for each loan shark, there is a Kiva average shown for “average interest rate”), the average interest rate is 35.25%. The loan sharks then split these criminal profits with Kiva. So even if Kiva is technically doing nothing “wrong,” their profits come from criminal operations1.
Wikipedia lists their current “Field Partners” with their stated interest rates. The only outlier, REDC Bulgaria (with a stated 1% interest), has ceased their partnership in 2006. I will not speculate as to why.
Kiva’s goal is to “alleviate poverty.” And yet they and their “Field Partners” have made more than 17 million dollars so far, a figure calculated by “Portland,” an interested party who did some investigating. For “Portland,” the main issue here is not that Kiva is reaping profits on the backs of the destitute, but that Kiva presents a false front of being charitable while burying the interest rate data.
I have no such qualms. In my mind, what Kiva does is wrong on both counts. They are a fraud and a criminal enterprise, and perhaps more.
When I say “perhaps more,” it’s because of the self-reported figure of 98+% repayments. This figure worries me. With the criminal interest rates they impose on these poor people, one expects more defaulting. What do these unscrupulous loan sharks, with the law on their side, do to those who try to default? Since I have no evidence either way, I won’t make any positive statement, but there is definitely a danger here that anyone who participates to Kiva is encouraging violence as well.
This is my clarion call to all Anarchists and all people who have any compassion whatsoever: please do not support Kiva, expose them instead. Put your money where the heart is. And be wary of any “non-profit” which selflessly claims to help the poor. Check them out first.
***
1 Some people may argue with me that the laws in those “countries” are different, and that therefore what the “Field Partners” are doing is not criminal in nature. But this is addle-headed. If there was no law in a “country” against murder, and someone was going around killing people, I would still call it criminal. The principles of justice are innate, and does not depend on anyone writing it down or shooting people for it. What they are doing is criminal: I know it, you know it, and Kiva knows it.


![Validate my RSS feed [Valid RSS]](http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a339/Franc28/valid-rss.png)






It shows on a couple websites that the normal interest rate for local lenders is 60% to 800% on the wiki page, obviously it’s fraud to not put there interest rates on there page. But they seem like there just providing a service right? Granted they become more up front with there interest rates…Love the site btw and the book! Helped immensely in my life.
By: Th3_ACist on November 22 2009
at 14:50
Compared to the alternatives available to those people who wish to get a loan on those countries, Kiva is far better. As Acist said, when Kiva has a 30% interest, it’s guaranteed that the average local interest will be close to 80% and most likely more.
Obviously Kiva is not a long term solution but I do think it’s better than the available alternatives for those people such as charities or local loansharks.
By: db0 on November 22 2009
at 21:58
What? Db0, I am rather flabbergasted that you support these criminals. It doesn’t matter how high the other interest rates might be in that locality; slashing someone’s arm instead of cutting it off is still a crime.
By: Francois Tremblay on November 22 2009
at 22:01
Not only that, but it hasn’t been demonstrated the Kiva type programs significantly improve lifetime earnings.
By: WorBlux on November 23 2009
at 5:13
The solution is not to rail about Kiva, the solution is for the people to redesign their society so that they do not need it anymore. But you cannot force that, and taking away such small improvements is not going to help or make any allies.
You have to ask yourself, if one of those people taking the money from Kiva was to see their lowest interest rate lender stop because it’s not perfect, forcing them to turn to the local loansharks, would they be then positive to the actions of those who stopped it?
It’s good and easy to rail against imperfect solutions from the privilege of our first world lives but it doesn’t help anyone. Kiva is at least a way for some people to at least dip their toes into direct action and mutual aid. If we can show them that it’s ultimately not enough to make a difference, perhaps then we can suggest our own alternatives. But just condemning is short-sighted destructive criticism.
By: Db0 on November 23 2009
at 9:28
I see. So we should go around slashing people’s arms because it’s better than cutting their arms off. Thank you for the ethics lesson db0.
By: Francois Tremblay on November 23 2009
at 16:41
If you were to actually read kiva’s website, you would realize that kiva obtains none of its funding from the loans that pass through it. It operates 100% on donations and grants from other charitable institutions.
But it’s clear to me that you have no interest in facts, only in making outrageous claims. Have fun with that!
P.S.: I’m an anarchist too, justt not the jackass kind that tries to get others to do what I want them too :)
By: Anonymous on November 23 2009
at 21:09
What a bizarre insult. Please do tell me, anonymous coward, what exactly is it that I am trying to get you to do. I have not given any orders to anyone, or threatened anyone. I also have not insulted anyone, which is more than I can say for you.
Also please name my “outrageous claims.”
Yea, I think it’s pretty clear where YOU come from.
By: Francois Tremblay on November 24 2009
at 4:10
You make a weak analogy fallacy Francois.
By: db0 on November 24 2009
at 5:14
What do you mean? How is it a weak analogy? It’s a perfect analogy for this situation. You’re saying that hurting people less than others hurt them is justified.
By: Francois Tremblay on November 24 2009
at 5:29
I’ve disabled anonymous comments due to a heckler on this thread.
By: Francois Tremblay on November 24 2009
at 15:34
“What do you mean? How is it a weak analogy? It’s a perfect analogy for this situation. You’re saying that hurting people less than others hurt them is justified.”
I think he means if 80% interest or greater is cutting someones arm off and a 30% rate is slashing their arm, then it would follow that any interest rate above 0% is therefore violent and unacceptable. I imagine if someone could do it cheaper they would undercut kiva and gain market share.
By: Th3_ACist on November 24 2009
at 17:32
“it would follow that any interest rate above 0% is therefore violent and unacceptable”
… of course it is.
By: Francois Tremblay on November 24 2009
at 17:33
Aren’t the people free to not take the loans if it is detrimental to them? I just feel like Kiva is a voluntary enterprise, barring any info on the 98% repayment being violent in nature. Although I am interested as to how you get repayment from a poor person with no house…anyone looked into that?
By: Th3_ACist on November 24 2009
at 19:25
Although upon thinking further this could be considered an investment fund, when people donate does it just go into one of the “Field Partners” banks then the partner loans it out for profit? Meanwhile the person who donated is left out of the loop? Wild stuff here…
By: Th3_ACist on November 24 2009
at 19:31
You may not have noticed, but this is an Anarchist blog. Not a voluntaryist blog.
By: Francois Tremblay on November 25 2009
at 4:06
Db0, I don’t understand why Kiva is a good thing for you. Kiva is way worse than even voluntaryists organisations!
By: David Gendron on November 25 2009
at 15:15
Francois I’m not saying that at all. This is why it’s a weak analogy.
Going by weak analogies I could use fluffy pillows and degrees of fluffiness to argue my point. It’s all nonsense and irrelevant. This is nothing like deliberately harming people because we’re not the ones who put them into that situation. On the contrary we’re discussing what possibilities for help we can offer.
At the moment you’re not suggesting anything practical, just saying that people should not be using Kiva even though it provides a tangible improvement over their current conditions. This is destructive, not constructive. You should know better by now to assume either a perfect solution or nothing at all.
@David: Kiva is good for you when the better alternatives do not exist or are not feasible. It’s also good because it allows people to try and help without using charity and the domination it implies.
By: db0 on November 27 2009
at 4:52
“Going by weak analogies I could use fluffy pillows and degrees of fluffiness to argue my point. It’s all nonsense and irrelevant.”
I’m not following you. Usury is harmful. Pillows are not. What point are you trying to make with this nonsense?
(yes, I do agree that “it’s all nonsense and irrelevant”: at least, what you just said is)
“This is nothing like deliberately harming people because we’re not the ones who put them into that situation.”
So, because you are not responsible for the pre-existing situation, you’re not responsible for the harm caused by Kiva and their partners if you participate? I’d say you definitely are part of it.
“At the moment you’re not suggesting anything practical, just saying that people should not be using Kiva even though it provides a tangible improvement over their current conditions. This is destructive, not constructive.”
What a ridiculously arrogant statement. Is it “destructive, not constructive” to tell someone to get out of the way of harming others? I am helping people fulfill their values a little better by telling them about a fraud and a lie being perpetrated. And you call that destructive?
Here’s an alternative: get involved in… ANARCHIST groups and causes. Don’t get involved with capitalist usury. Get involved with good causes, not frauds.
Your attitude seems to be “speak no evil.” That is a very unethical position to hold.
“You should know better by now to assume either a perfect solution or nothing at all.”
Do not pretend to be teaching me lessons.
By: Francois Tremblay on November 27 2009
at 5:08
@Francois: the point of a micro-loan scheme is to have an elaborate field programme, instead of just handing out cash and then turning the other way. These field programmes take incredibly more work per dollar loaned than what your average western commercial bank does. Hence those high interest rates in all microfinance operations. The high repayment rate (althoguh 98%+ sounds a little extreme) is due to the small scale of each individual loan and the practical support in whatever that loan is used for. E.g. when you lend money to a mid-sized firm, they are going to use it for bigger investments (let’s say a new product line), which pay of only in the long-term and are risky. But a farmer who buys 2 cows from his micro-loan in a programme that has been calculated and well thought through will be able two pay you back + interest simply because you know 100% that cow is gonna give milk. That’s the beauty of micro-finance, that maybe only 100$ are needed to kick off a profitable operation and real improvement. (This whole argument goes completely independent of whether or not microfinance increases lifetime income etc.) Of course I’m not 100% sure about this argument, but you didn’t mention any of this. Thank you.
By: muz on November 28 2009
at 14:13
Thanks for the lesson, but it doesn’t really have anything to do with what I talked about…
By: Francois Tremblay on November 28 2009
at 16:05
Gah you’re a frustration to talk to Francois. Whatever. You’re not worth the effort.
By: Db0 on December 2 2009
at 2:09
You seem to be repeating this pattern over and over. FYI, other people have no problem understanding me, even if they disagree. The problem is probably with you, not me.
You don’t seem to be really interested in discussing this issue. If you ever are, then please post again. If you’re only going to display more arrogance, then forget it.
By: Francois Tremblay on December 2 2009
at 2:13
I understand you just fine, I just don’t care to put up with your arrogant attitude in order to explain such thing. You act like a goddamn impetuous child every time someone disagrees with you and it’s frustrating.
It’s not that I’m not interested in discussing this issue, it’s that I’m not interested in getting in a shouting match with you, because that’s all you seem to be capable of.
By: Db0 on December 2 2009
at 2:17
How am I engaged in a shouting match? I pointed out the arrogance of your comments and argued my position. To reiterate it again: usury is harmful. It doesn’t matter how much you do it (although Kiva does take it to rather dizzying heights). A system where there is no usury is better than one where there is none, even charity. I’d rather give to charity than to loan sharks.
How is my position “arrogant” and “impetuous”? Can you point out your rationale for any of these attacks, or are you just pouting in the corner?
By: Francois Tremblay on December 2 2009
at 2:19