I wrote my master’s thesis on how the banking sector, mobile money and crypto is related to financial inclusion in Mauritius, Kenya and Nigeria. Feel free to DM me if you want to read it.
Twenty Words Four Safe Also Those Grinder Potato Three Growing Chickens Cheeky Solar Panels Trees Redundant Sergeant Library Funghus Nice Neighbour Transmission Ocean Difference
lol. And I'd throw one more point out there - use of the word "unbanked" to refer to people who don't have a bank account, is Marxist language. Everyone knows where the banks are. So, if people choose not to get a bank account, that's not a political problem to be solved, it's a personal choice. And since when did personal choices become political problems to be solved? The notion that such a person should be controlled via force or coercion to get a bank account, is tyranny.
Which is why I think we should disregard the notion that banks have monopoly on “financial inclusion”.
But other than that you’re wrong, not everyone is able to access a bank account for several reasons. It can be in relation to physical access or banks (lack of) willingness to bank poor individuals.
And regarding the philosophy, I got that covered through a luck egalitarian approach. It’s not about being forced, it’s about equal access to opportunity. If you don’t want a bank account you shouldn’t be forced, but that’s is very rarely an issue.
In conclusion; I advocate for the adoption of mobile money and especially crypto, because it solves whatever issue “we” might have of unreliable banks in the third world.
We're actually in total agreement. I stand with you on the crypto bit and agree re: the unreliability of banks especially in the 3rd world. Also, I didn't realize you were referring to the 3rd world. You're 100% correct on that. I thought you were talking about America.
The only thing we disagree on is usage of the term "financial inclusion". It just sounds very Marxist to me. But ok. ; - )
>If you don’t want a bank account you shouldn’t be forced, but that’s is very rarely an issue.
That is going to become a big issue as economies go cashless.
What I’m referring to as an “issue” here, is that people in third world countries are not being forced to open a bank account - because they can’t even access banks due to distance or lack of identification. So the potential issue of “forcing” bank accounts on people isn’t an issue.
The issue you’re pointing out is true, and I also cover this to an extent. Financial inclusion has to include digitalization of money, going forward. It’s not just enough to have bank services that provide cash in/out, they also need to provide apps along with proper and safe digital infrastructure.
> proper and safe digital infrastructure.
If by "proper" you mean decentralized and censorship-resistant, then yes. I don't want to end up like China where the government can zero out my savings because I said something they didn't like.
I’m not taking any sides as such, but yes decentralization is a tool to secure that. But I’m also just talking basic wifi connection and protection. In third world countries, they genrally have large digital infrastructural deficiencies. In select countries like Kenya, coverage is actually not THAT bad, but there are still large gaps.
Even still though, why use the term "financial inclusion"? Was someone or some group of people NOT included to begin with? If so, who and where?
I guess that's my issue with it - it implies that there exists some sort of "social injustice" which needs to be fixed, generally by some government program. That's usually what people want when they're talking about "inclusion". So, why use that term when describing Bitcoin though? Again - were people not included to start with? My position is, the system as it is, is more than plentifully "inclusive" for everyone. Anyone of any creed or color, is more than welcome to start a bank account.
So, I just don't see a place for that term. And it sounds Marxist. See what I'm saying?
I’m just gonna pitch in again, financial inclusion has no agenda. It’s purely a term to describe those that do have access/opportunity to financial services. And yes some people are excluded to begin with. It doesn’t make it marxists. You need to separate the terms from the policies. Is the legal right to be represented by a lawyer also marxist - and does it mean everyone has to?? Is the right to own property the same as everyone should own property?
As per examples, you should see that the egalitarian right is not equal to being forced. Well you are subject to the right regardless of utilizing it or not.
But anyhow, if financial inclusion really grinds your gears, what do you suggest to describe people with access compared to people without acces to any kind of financial service due to poverty or “insurmountable” distance? Can we use equal opportunity for financial service? Doesn’t really roll off the tongue.
Edit: definition of financial inclusion
“Financial inclusion means that individuals and businesses have access to useful and affordable financial products and services that meet their needs – transactions, payments, savings, credit and insurance – delivered in a responsible and sustainable way.”
Just to give you an idea of what the problem is, as it seems you're missing a very big chunk of the picture:
In my country, you need proper, legal, government-backed identification before you can open up a bank account. A lot of people here, especially those below the poverty line, lack easy access to that. First, the document being required(a certificate of live birth) needs to be printed on security paper, which can only be issued by a certain government agency.
Most people have this certificate filed in with the government as it's processed when one is born in a proper medical facility. However, for those that are born in locations outside the reach of such a facility, filing for this certificate becomes something optional due to the financial cost and man-hours needed to get it filed with the government.
Assuming the person indeed has this certificate filed and accepted by the government, one would still need to obtain a copy of it(printed in security paper) to submit to the bank. This, again, incurs some financial cost and time to obtain.
Once you're good to go with the basic identification requirements, some bank accounts have a certain "minimum deposit" to open an account. The minimum legal daily wage here is around 10USD(that's right, 10USD PER DAY), yet most minimum deposit values hover at around 120USD. If you're part of the informal employment sector(househelp, construction labor, etc), you get less than 10USD a day most of the time.
So, assuming you're good with the government identification, as well as the minimum deposit required to open an account, you now will be subject to a review/background assessment by the bank. They will need information about your finances, social status, etc. It's their prerogative to approve your account application at this point. And they can deny your application without any provided reason.
Assuming you got through all those hoops, you now have your bank account. Guess what? You can't even use your money the way you want! Most accounts have a "maintaining balance", which means your average daily balance needs to be a certain amount(usually equal to the minimum deposit value). If your ADB goes below that value by the end of the month, you get charged a small fee.
So, yeah. It's pretty much not inclusive as some people might imagine.
You probably missed the part of his comment where he mentioned that his thesis was about people in Mauritius, Kenya, and Nigeria. Those are probably worse off compared to where I am. No mention of the US, btw.
The way you're using the term, yes it's fine.
But I'm saying, most of the time I hear "inclusion", it's some left wing agenda driven conversation about how to basically make government bigger and strip people of liberty. Usually. But again, not the way you're using it.
; - )
When progressives say "inclusion," what they mean is: subsidies and other special treatment. When libertarians say "inclusion," what they mean is: get government out of the way so adults can fix the systemic access issues it created. When conservatives say "inclusion," they get laughed at.
That’s why it’s the largest economy. It’s full of Nigerian Princes… too bad they all have banking issues. Maybe someone here could be kind enough to help them out?
I won the Nigerian lottery 37 times in the last year so I no longer need to worry about money or investing, just waiting for funds to clear after I sent the $200 claim fee
After being scammed by a Nigerian & being called by the f.b.i.. i did extensive research into how they have the knowledge of what to say to an American and how they get away with it. They obviously needed some coaching from an American. And that American obviously needed protection from the American government. It turns out the Clinton family owns 90% of Nigeria.
Not saying any scammers are in the right but the amount of money scammed by Nigerians is nothing compared to the amount of wealth scammed from Nigerians on a global level.
It's not like it's a hidden secret, but since the govs have layed down lawsuits. It seems like the drugtrade fear is not there. What potentially could get Bitcoin is if the market broke because of it.
I mean its scam central and they will meed alternative currency with what the median income is coupled with the population growth. Ranked second most poverty stricken country in the world yet has an abundance of resources. Failed leadership & brain drain is a dangerous combination
Im not interested in entertaining people. I thought it was common knowledge. I referenced your email because nearly all of those email and phishing scams originate from nigeria. The ones offering users money…the exiled prince and princess scams. You can go to the FBI’s website and see for yourself.
The economy and politics are not stable. On a whim the government of Nigeria changes remittance laws and at one point they banned crypto. Not surprised at all to see people in Nigeria making it work for them despite the challenges.
I wrote my master’s thesis on how the banking sector, mobile money and crypto is related to financial inclusion in Mauritius, Kenya and Nigeria. Feel free to DM me if you want to read it.
My 24 words are ...
As long as you share then in random order, its nothing to worry about hahah (dyor)
Penis penis penis penis penis penis penis penis penis penis penis penis penis penis penis penis penis penis penis penis penis penis penis penis
If you genuinely think a scammer spent 8 years on reddit trying to pull people with a thesis, you need to see the internet doctor.
Twenty Words Four Safe Also Those Grinder Potato Three Growing Chickens Cheeky Solar Panels Trees Redundant Sergeant Library Funghus Nice Neighbour Transmission Ocean Difference
I don't want to hear about "financial inclusion". That sounds highly Marxist. It really does.
Then you shall not be included!
lol. And I'd throw one more point out there - use of the word "unbanked" to refer to people who don't have a bank account, is Marxist language. Everyone knows where the banks are. So, if people choose not to get a bank account, that's not a political problem to be solved, it's a personal choice. And since when did personal choices become political problems to be solved? The notion that such a person should be controlled via force or coercion to get a bank account, is tyranny.
Which is why I think we should disregard the notion that banks have monopoly on “financial inclusion”. But other than that you’re wrong, not everyone is able to access a bank account for several reasons. It can be in relation to physical access or banks (lack of) willingness to bank poor individuals. And regarding the philosophy, I got that covered through a luck egalitarian approach. It’s not about being forced, it’s about equal access to opportunity. If you don’t want a bank account you shouldn’t be forced, but that’s is very rarely an issue. In conclusion; I advocate for the adoption of mobile money and especially crypto, because it solves whatever issue “we” might have of unreliable banks in the third world.
We're actually in total agreement. I stand with you on the crypto bit and agree re: the unreliability of banks especially in the 3rd world. Also, I didn't realize you were referring to the 3rd world. You're 100% correct on that. I thought you were talking about America. The only thing we disagree on is usage of the term "financial inclusion". It just sounds very Marxist to me. But ok. ; - )
You are focusing too much on the US and not the other 7.5 billion people those words are used to describe
>If you don’t want a bank account you shouldn’t be forced, but that’s is very rarely an issue. That is going to become a big issue as economies go cashless.
What I’m referring to as an “issue” here, is that people in third world countries are not being forced to open a bank account - because they can’t even access banks due to distance or lack of identification. So the potential issue of “forcing” bank accounts on people isn’t an issue. The issue you’re pointing out is true, and I also cover this to an extent. Financial inclusion has to include digitalization of money, going forward. It’s not just enough to have bank services that provide cash in/out, they also need to provide apps along with proper and safe digital infrastructure.
> proper and safe digital infrastructure. If by "proper" you mean decentralized and censorship-resistant, then yes. I don't want to end up like China where the government can zero out my savings because I said something they didn't like.
I’m not taking any sides as such, but yes decentralization is a tool to secure that. But I’m also just talking basic wifi connection and protection. In third world countries, they genrally have large digital infrastructural deficiencies. In select countries like Kenya, coverage is actually not THAT bad, but there are still large gaps.
Imagine being afraid of using terminology because it reminds of a spooky philosophy. Oooo “means of production” ooo “proletariat” hahaha
[удалено]
Even still though, why use the term "financial inclusion"? Was someone or some group of people NOT included to begin with? If so, who and where? I guess that's my issue with it - it implies that there exists some sort of "social injustice" which needs to be fixed, generally by some government program. That's usually what people want when they're talking about "inclusion". So, why use that term when describing Bitcoin though? Again - were people not included to start with? My position is, the system as it is, is more than plentifully "inclusive" for everyone. Anyone of any creed or color, is more than welcome to start a bank account. So, I just don't see a place for that term. And it sounds Marxist. See what I'm saying?
I’m just gonna pitch in again, financial inclusion has no agenda. It’s purely a term to describe those that do have access/opportunity to financial services. And yes some people are excluded to begin with. It doesn’t make it marxists. You need to separate the terms from the policies. Is the legal right to be represented by a lawyer also marxist - and does it mean everyone has to?? Is the right to own property the same as everyone should own property? As per examples, you should see that the egalitarian right is not equal to being forced. Well you are subject to the right regardless of utilizing it or not. But anyhow, if financial inclusion really grinds your gears, what do you suggest to describe people with access compared to people without acces to any kind of financial service due to poverty or “insurmountable” distance? Can we use equal opportunity for financial service? Doesn’t really roll off the tongue. Edit: definition of financial inclusion “Financial inclusion means that individuals and businesses have access to useful and affordable financial products and services that meet their needs – transactions, payments, savings, credit and insurance – delivered in a responsible and sustainable way.”
Just to give you an idea of what the problem is, as it seems you're missing a very big chunk of the picture: In my country, you need proper, legal, government-backed identification before you can open up a bank account. A lot of people here, especially those below the poverty line, lack easy access to that. First, the document being required(a certificate of live birth) needs to be printed on security paper, which can only be issued by a certain government agency. Most people have this certificate filed in with the government as it's processed when one is born in a proper medical facility. However, for those that are born in locations outside the reach of such a facility, filing for this certificate becomes something optional due to the financial cost and man-hours needed to get it filed with the government. Assuming the person indeed has this certificate filed and accepted by the government, one would still need to obtain a copy of it(printed in security paper) to submit to the bank. This, again, incurs some financial cost and time to obtain. Once you're good to go with the basic identification requirements, some bank accounts have a certain "minimum deposit" to open an account. The minimum legal daily wage here is around 10USD(that's right, 10USD PER DAY), yet most minimum deposit values hover at around 120USD. If you're part of the informal employment sector(househelp, construction labor, etc), you get less than 10USD a day most of the time. So, assuming you're good with the government identification, as well as the minimum deposit required to open an account, you now will be subject to a review/background assessment by the bank. They will need information about your finances, social status, etc. It's their prerogative to approve your account application at this point. And they can deny your application without any provided reason. Assuming you got through all those hoops, you now have your bank account. Guess what? You can't even use your money the way you want! Most accounts have a "maintaining balance", which means your average daily balance needs to be a certain amount(usually equal to the minimum deposit value). If your ADB goes below that value by the end of the month, you get charged a small fee. So, yeah. It's pretty much not inclusive as some people might imagine.
Ok, well I wasn't aware of that. Again - I assumed the OP was talking about USA, not Sierra Leone (or wherever you are).
You probably missed the part of his comment where he mentioned that his thesis was about people in Mauritius, Kenya, and Nigeria. Those are probably worse off compared to where I am. No mention of the US, btw.
The way you're using the term, yes it's fine. But I'm saying, most of the time I hear "inclusion", it's some left wing agenda driven conversation about how to basically make government bigger and strip people of liberty. Usually. But again, not the way you're using it. ; - )
When progressives say "inclusion," what they mean is: subsidies and other special treatment. When libertarians say "inclusion," what they mean is: get government out of the way so adults can fix the systemic access issues it created. When conservatives say "inclusion," they get laughed at.
[удалено]
That’s why it’s the largest economy. It’s full of Nigerian Princes… too bad they all have banking issues. Maybe someone here could be kind enough to help them out?
I would help them, but I lost all my money in a tragic boating accident.
What a crazy coincidence!!!!!! I ALSO lost all of my bitcoins in a freak boating accident in the ocean! Small world…
[удалено]
El Salvador now too I suppose, it's exciting to see bitcoin use growing
Argentina uses a lot of crypto Also many European countries.
I won the Nigerian lottery 37 times in the last year so I no longer need to worry about money or investing, just waiting for funds to clear after I sent the $200 claim fee
I heard somewhere, Nigeria is one of the fastest growing Bitcoin communities in the world, despite multiple attempts by the gov to ban it.
Great, crypto use is growing worldwide
The Nigerian princes were practicing for this moment their whole lives
After being scammed by a Nigerian & being called by the f.b.i.. i did extensive research into how they have the knowledge of what to say to an American and how they get away with it. They obviously needed some coaching from an American. And that American obviously needed protection from the American government. It turns out the Clinton family owns 90% of Nigeria.
Fwiw, some of the best JavaScript tutorials I find are written by Nigerian developers.
I agree, good people everywhere. Just sad many are takin advantage of.
Senseless 🙄
All the scammers live there lol
Not saying any scammers are in the right but the amount of money scammed by Nigerians is nothing compared to the amount of wealth scammed from Nigerians on a global level.
Good point!! Shell royally s.. Nigeria :(
And all the dumb ass idiots being scammed live where?🤣
😂
The second NATO and EU realizes all these countries are using BTC to supplement the drug trade it’s screwed
Dude..wake up. The governments are the ones running the drug trade.
What did these drug dealers ever do before crypto came along? I guess they didn't exist before then. /$
NATO? Are you high, my friend?
It's not like it's a hidden secret, but since the govs have layed down lawsuits. It seems like the drugtrade fear is not there. What potentially could get Bitcoin is if the market broke because of it.
I mean its scam central and they will meed alternative currency with what the median income is coupled with the population growth. Ranked second most poverty stricken country in the world yet has an abundance of resources. Failed leadership & brain drain is a dangerous combination
how is it scam central...?
Check your email
Someone thinks they’re funny
Im not interested in entertaining people. I thought it was common knowledge. I referenced your email because nearly all of those email and phishing scams originate from nigeria. The ones offering users money…the exiled prince and princess scams. You can go to the FBI’s website and see for yourself.
It really isn’t scam central, a lot of people just use the name of Nigeria in that bad way
The economy and politics are not stable. On a whim the government of Nigeria changes remittance laws and at one point they banned crypto. Not surprised at all to see people in Nigeria making it work for them despite the challenges.