well because I would like OI to engage in a transparent debate as to whether it is anything to do with how to plant a bank in a community; I believe its "entrepreneurial investment bank in SME " model is potentially great in investing in individual entrepreneurs who scale up something truly purposeful - ie spinning as much social good as business good - but that it does not flow http://flowidealism.org with seeing whole communities as its number 1 perforamnce metric.

It is open replication of community-up models of integrating local into global that my father as 40 year veteran microeconomist at The Economist argued back in 1984 http://www.normanmacrae.com/netf uture.html would ultimately determine whether we (the one human generation 1984-2024) all network a a globalisation that is sustainable or not; the more connected peoples' livelihoods are the more community contexts need to be anchored truly before you listen to global image-led branding or other big powers (that however free and happy they were decared to be when oridinally decaring their independence are perpetiaully at risk to being taken over by very small groups at the top -the orwellian scenario of where globalsiation will be pied pipered if you like)

To the extent that I am correct in my belief it muddles the discussion on what microfinance is (ie tyhe microfinace that has achieved the 7 year goal of giving 100 million families access to ending poverty), and because OI is probably more well resourced as a advocacy channel in the USA than the original Bangladeshi microcredit models it confuses all of usa peoples who want to action ending of poverty (as a failed system).

I know I am different from many people here but as a mathematician I actually dislike noisy confusion between 2 good but opposite models as much as the confusion that is caused by eg when a big non-mfi banker pretends to be until it has got the community by the balls and then reverts to its old ways which the 20th century's mass media age has proved to use image-making to primarily trap in debt (excfess consumption and bubble like investments - junk bonds, dotcoms, housing being the last 3 bubbles banks have not only led people into but randomly gambled on tehmselves) rather than invest in peoples sustainable productivity (oddly this was the origin of entrepreneur and the transparency of the community was the original systems at the core of free market models as proposed by scot adam smith in late 1700s), and to extract wealth out of a community rather than to invest it back within that community

so there are many levels of compound risk and opportunity to map naround what is OI, who are its neighbours (google.org? acumen? myc4? ...) as a type of "giving", is it ultimately at risk to the same failings as globa-down NGO models or is it communally local and diverse enough to make minifinance as powerful a mdoel for ending poverty as microfinance; but be quite clear mistaken economics if it is designed into what globalisation we (this generation perpetrate) will be just as much the compound cause of ending human sustainability as any other cause you might name- so somewhere this debate ought to be had...and actually since USA has been led by the most non-trasprenmat professions these last 8 years, somehow you ought to quiz potential candidates for presidency to see if they get this. very specificailly I interviewed the chailrlady of a year 2000 report of 50 experts on market's unseen compound truths in spring 2001; she had juts presented to the bush adminsistration the compound risks that would spiral if correct maths of community-up organsiational models was not chosen- she got removed from her DC jobs for her courage. Unfortinatley this post has gone upo to grade 40, I will try and bring my next post back to grade 3-5 again.

May I make a suggestion that if we want to go to gade 40 stuff of which leaders seem to be engaging in the trasparency of this debate we might click to the maps at http://www.ned.com/group/microfi nance/news/4/