It is great what these people were doing in "Reluctant Entrepreneurs". They were giving these people that second chance, or actually, that one chance they needed to start their business. The system they created was very well thought out. They took the time to actually explain the concepts of loans, the very things they are giving away, which showed that they did know what they were doing. The results even show for themselves as people were actually gaining profits from what they have started/created from these loans, and of course the lenders are getting their cake and more.
"The Parable of the Black Sheep," does open a whole new perspective on those who are impoverished. It states of these people settling where they are. This whole idea of "people loving poverty" is something that I can't accept. It seems almost hypocritical at some point. If people are happy when they are poor, why is it that they always complaining when something inconvenient comes their way. And what is worse is that these people feel that they have become the victims of these situations they are currently in, which prevents them from really taking those next steps to get out of these situations. I feel as these people do not have the right to say that they are stuck in poverty, when it is definitely possible to get out. It may not be easy, but it is definitely possible.
What I can gather from these readings is how unfortunate it seems that these people feel like they cannot take the next steps to move forward. In the "Reluctant Entrepreneur" Sedan's main goal was not to have a successful business, but rather a business that was able to manage on. In the "Black Sheep" these people feel as if they cannot move out of their unfortunate situations. It seems to arbitrary.
“ In the course of history, there comes a time when humanity is called to shift to a new level of consciousness, to reach a higher moral ground. A time when we have to shed our fear and give hope to each other. That time is now.” - Wangari Maathai
I believe this quote by Maathai really captures Novogratz ideas for this new business model she is creating. Based on the current problems and views of philanthropy, Novogratz was able to create something positive out of a negative. The current views of philanthropy are fixated on the ideas of pleasing people rather than making their lives better. Basically people are utilizing a majority of the money without a real cause other than pleasing people.
I also agree to what Avery posted about how Novogratz acts as a “cushion” between the investors and the entreprises. Usually when investors give money to a certain company, the company’s main objective shifts from its company’s business plan to making the investor happy. In most cases it does feel that it feels more as if the investors are taking over rather that an investment on the company. And with this new business model it can make it easier on the companies to concentrate on their own purposes without worrying too much about the investors.
I also like that these business models are not about charities, but rather center around the idea of an investment. In a way to compare it charity is a fish, while the investing is the act of fishing (Give a man a fish, feed him for one day. Teach a man to fish and he will never go hungry again). Too many times I feel that we try to throw people a bone with charities and really what happens is that they will ask for more because they don’t know how to get more. With investments, it gives these people (who do need help) a chance to learn and also get what they need.
“Game Playing: Rethinking Power and Empowerment” is mainly about, you guessed it, the concepts of power. It was quite an interesting read and it definitely had a lot of material on how power plays a role in today’s world and how we might change it.
First I’d like to point out a quote that I liked that described what power is: “A has power over B to the extent that A can get B to do something that B would not otherwise do.” I like this quote out of all the other quotes, since it was the most simple definition of power. This definition can be applied to many corporations today, even the jobs we simply work at now incorporate this idea of power. Also wherever there is power there is resistance. We can kind of think of the resistance as those who try to expose the exploitation of certain companies; people who don’t agree with what the person in power is doing.
I also like the concepts of different types of powers to apply in this whole idea of Game Playing. There are 3 other types of power: Power with, power to, and power within. Power with is the concept of asking for others for help. Power to is to empower others along with yourself. Power within manifests as a form of internal strength. Using these three concepts people are able to create defiance, a psychology of defying social structures and institutional constraints. Defiance really plays an essential role when it comes to reforming social structures, whether we trying to “win over” those in power.
Also I would like the point out in the end of the article that they say it is not about “winning over” those in power of the traditional power circuits, but rather utilising these traditional powers in a way that can make a change.
Yes to the Root Capital's business model! William Foote and his team are providing a second chance to all those who are struggling and underprivileged. The whole beginning story was a great analogy to what they are doing with the company, and a great way to portray that all you need is a little push from a friend to go a long way.
What stuck out to me was the story about Quinacho, a cooperative of 550 cocoa farmers located in northern Peru. This area was known to be a bad area due to all the drug productions, but this wasn't the only main reason why local banks would not give them a loan. There were reasons such as no traditional collateral, the manager was under educated, and basically they told them it was too hard to trust them with a loan; too much risk. But I liked how Root Capital was willing to take the risk in order to help push Quinacho into great success. They moved from a 500,000$ revenue to $4 million revenue with an aid of the $50,000 loan which they got paid back $1 million.
Not only is Root Capital helping people start and maintain their businesses in these developing countries, but they're helping to give these people a happier life. A life where these people don't have to worry about sending their kids to work, but rather worried how well they are doing in school. A life where they don't have to worry about being hungry. A life where they are just a bit more free.
Reading this segment on how Fair Trade has evolved over time and how far has come since its beginnings, I find myself caught up in the first couple pages. The segment "A Brilliant Idea" first establish some positive facts about how far Fair Trade how come: fairtrade product sales at £800 million as of 2009 and benefiting 7 million people in developing countries. With such great numbers it easy to think that these corporations have done much for the world, but my favorite part about this reading was the fact about how real they were with their current situation and aware at the fact how bad the world's situation is. 1.4 billion people (or 1/5 of the world's population) live below or at $1.25 a day. 40 percent (or 2.6 billion people) live less than $2 a day. We live in a world where the poorest 40 percent of the world's population owns 5 percent of the world’s income, while the richest 20% owns more than three-quarters of it. I mean that’s a colossal difference in both people and income.
What really stuck out to me in this reading was the whole idea of who is concerned about these issues. In the UK 5% take these ethical issues seriously and 20% feel empathy towards these issues; in other words roughly 25% really care about Fair Trade and their mission for the world. This wasn’t too surprising to me and I wouldn’t be surprised if that percent was much lower in the United States. We do live in this “me” period, where the majority is only concerned on how to “better” themselves. I’ll admit that I’m even part of this majority (Hell, even our school part of the majority). It’s sad because I believe deep down, in the backs of everyone’s head, that people who purchase certain items do know how these are made and how unfair these people are treated for their services. I feel like people aren’t willing to acknowledge these unfair practices, just because it would be too difficult to take responsibility for these actions (Buying is voting). They just want to buy what they want without thinking; they don’t want to add more stress into their days.
I’m trying to put down FAIRTRADE MARK’s efforts as merely hopeless. They have done a great deal in this fight for more ethical work practices. They created Fair Trade Towns worldwide, and they even worked with environmental organizations in order not to tackle unethical work practice, but also keeping the environment alive. I really do hope we see a difference in the near future. I hope the world can figure out a way to make ethical practices a normal way of life.
Hello everyone! I'm Samuel Lee and I too am a student of Kate's Fair Trade course held in Fordham University. I'm very new to the world of Fair Trade and I guess the documentary "The Dark Side of Chocolate" was a great way to really introduce the problems the world faces with Fair Trade laws and regulations.
The first thing that caught my attention was the Harkin-Engel Protocol. The Protocol was signed in 2001 by major chocolate manufacturing factories and stated that "child labor and the trafficking of children are prohibited in the cocoa industry after 2008." For seven more years after the the major cocoa industries signed the Protocol child labor and child trafficking was legal. I'm a bit confused to why the protocol allowed these companies to allow child labor for seven more years after they signed it in 2001. I understand that these companies need to "adjust" to the new changes, but seven years seem far too long. It upsets me to know that even after these companies decided to "end" child labor and the trafficking of children, they still needed that "last smoke" in order to quit.
What upset me more was who was denying the facts about the trafficking of children the cocoa industry. Ali Lakiss, the owner and CEO of SAF-CACAO, and the Ivorian President's right hand man, who is also in charge of fight against child trafficking, were both denying the reality of child trafficking in the industry to a certain extent. Lakiss assured that there were no children working on the plantations he gathers cocoa from. Proof was later shown to him that his statement was false and there were children working. The Ivorian President's right man hand is well aware of the fact that child trafficking does exist, but he tries to assure the people that he does have it under control. He states the the cocoa plantations only operate after September and end before July and any child found on these buses during those times are in no danger of being trafficking into work. Unfortunately that is not true since children were found working on these plantations all year around. And also does it not concern them that these children were going on these buses during these times by themselves? I mean that itself seems to be a problem.
There were many things that really upset me about the reality of child trafficking for the cocoa industry, realities such as the fact that the government has very little power over or effect on child labor and trafficking. The documentary portrayed how difficult it was to prove certain plantations did have child laborers since they would hide them once the police showed up. But I am happy with the fact that there are people out there who are truly fighting against child labor. The end of the documentary was my favorite part as they put their documentary on the big screen in front of Nestle, on of the major companies accused of child labor.
Tue Nov 19, 2013 4:28 am
Visitors
Board Statistics
