We are searching data for your request:
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.
On June 11, 1782, John Adams secured a much needed loan for the new Republic from Holland. How exactly did this work in the days of strictly paper currency? What did it mean to loan internationally back then (and even today)? Did Holland send their own currency? Did they send it in the form of some standard, i.e gold bullion? How did the U.S. pay this back? In some other standard? I just have no concept of how an international power could lend anything other than goods in the 18th century.
It appears that the loan was issued in guilders and along the way was converted to dollars for transport to the US…
“Correspondence of the Late President Adams (Continued).” April 24, 1811. Excerpted from the Boston Patriot.
I then completed a new contract with the three houses, Wilhelm and Jean Willink, Nicholas and Jacob Vanstaphorst, and De La Lande and Fynjee. In the two former houses, the Willinks and Vanstaphorsts, I was not disappointed. De La Lande and Fynjee, in a few years failed [… .] The Willinks and Vanstaphorsts continue, for any thing I know, to this day, 1810, bankers of the United States. I found them men of honor, and they borrowed for me, before I left Europe, nine millions of guilders, which enabled me to send, through the house of Le Couteuæ in Paris, by the way of the Havana, very large sums in dollars, to Mr. Robert Morris, the financier of congress; which enabled me not only to maintain myself in Holland, France and England, but to maintain Dr Franklin and Mr Jefferson in France. Not a livre could Dr. Franklin obtain from the French court, not even for his daily bread, after it was known I had money in Holland. [… ] John Adams Quincy, September 24, 1810
Elsewhere in the correspondence Adams states that the Dutch expected to be repaid as trade with the US would flourish.
2 Year Employment History Mortgage Guidelines To Qualify
There are mandatory 2 Year Employment History Mortgage Guidelines required by all borrowers. To qualify for mortgage loans in the United States, lenders require a two year residential and 2 year employment history under 2 Year Employment History Mortgage Guidelines.
- Mortgage Borrowers do not have to have a 2 year employment history with the same job to qualify for mortgage
- Borrowers can also have gaps in employment as well as employment in different lines of work
- But all borrowers do need an overall 2 year employment history
For example, lets take a case scenario:
- if home buyer were employed as a cook from January 2016 until January 2017
- has been laid off until July 2017
- But started a new line of work in July 2017
- Is still currently employed with the job they started in July 2017
- This borrower will qualify for the 2 year employment history mandatory requirement even though they had a period of employment gap and have changed lines of work
- What lenders are looking for is two year overall employment history and NOT the past two years of straight employment
Besides a 2 year employment history, mortgage lenders require a two year residential history as well.
Origins of the Jews and Money Stereotype
Caricature of Jewish stock-exchange speculators, in the German satirical magazine Fliegende Blätter in 1851. (Wikimedia)
Jews have been associated with moneylending for at least a millennia. The most common explanation for this has been the exclusion of European Jews in the Middle Ages from various guilds, their confinement to ghettos and restrictions preventing them from owning land. Additionally, medieval Christian theology held that charging interest (known as usury) was sinful, which kept many Christians from becoming financiers. The field thus came to be dominated by Jews. The historian Howard Sachar has estimated that in the 18th century, &ldquoperhaps as many as three-fourths of the Jews in Central and Western Europe were limited to the precarious occupations of retail peddling, hawking, and &lsquostreet banking,&rsquo that is, moneylending.&rdquo The fact that Christians regarded such occupations as incompatible with their religious principles fed the notion that Jews were morally deficient, willing to engage in unethical business practices that decent people had rejected.
An alternative explanation holds that the Jewish penchant for finance is a result not of professional exclusion, but the Jewish emphasis on learning and literacy. A number of scholars have posited versions of this thesis. In their 2012 book The Chosen Few: How Education Shaped Jewish History, 70-1492, economists Maristella Botticini and Zvi Eckstein contended that, with the destruction of the ancient temples in Jerusalem and the beginning of the Jewish Diaspora, Jewish continuity suddenly became dependent on widespread religious literacy. Those who educated themselves remained Jews, whereas those who did not assimilated or converted to other faiths. Over time, the Jewish community evolved into a uniquely educated population, which in turn incentivized Jews to abandon farming in favor of better-paying professions and businesses.
How Did the Subprime Mortgage Crisis Start?
How did the U.S. economy get to a point where in 2007, a full-on housing crisis began?
It doesn&apost happen overnight. In the early-to-mid 2000s, interest rates on house payments were actually quite low. In what looked to be a solid economy after a brief early 2000s recession, more and more people with struggling credit were able to qualify for subprime mortgages with manageable rates, and happily acted on that.
This sudden increase in subprime mortgages was due in part to the Federal Reserve&aposs decision to significantly lower the Federal funds rate to spur growth. People who couldn&apost afford homes or get approved for loans were suddenly qualifying for subprime loans and choosing to buy, and American home ownership rose exponentially.
Real estate purchases rose not only for subprime borrowers, but for well-off Americans as well. As prices rose and people expected a continuation of that, investors who got burned by the dot com bubble of the early 2000s and needed a replacement in their portfolio started investing in real estate.
Housing prices were rising rapidly, and the number of subprime mortgages given out was rising even more. By 2005, some began to fear that this was a housing bubble. From 2004-2006, the Federal Reserve raised the interest rate over a dozen times in an attempt to slow this down and avoid serious inflation. By the end of 2004, the interest rate was 2.25% by mid-2006 it was 5.25%.
This was unable to stop the inevitable. The bubble burst. 2005 and 2006 see the housing market crash back down to earth. Subprime mortgage lenders begin laying thousands of employees off, if not filing for bankruptcy or shutting down entirely.
An innovative initiative provides mobile childcare units that accompany working mothers from one site to another, allowing them to work undisturbed while their children are cared for nearby.
As the pandemic sweeps the globe, nurses are on the front lines of the response and are going above and beyond to keep health systems functional.
Using lessons from the Ebola outbreak in 2014, African countries prepare to mitigate the impact of COVID-19 (coronavirus).
How NAFTA Failed Mexico
During the 1993 battle over the North American Free Trade Agreement, the proposal's promoters' most politically effective argument was that NAFTA would keep Mexicans out of the United States. As political writer Elizabeth Drew later observed, "Anti-immigration was a sub-theme used, usually sotto voce, by the treaty's supporters."
The voce was not always sotto. "We don't want a huge flow of illegal immigrants into the United States from Mexico," said former President Gerald Ford, speaking at one of then-President Bill Clinton's pro-NAFTA rallies. "If you defeat NAFTA, you have to share the responsibility for increased immigration into the United States, where they want jobs that are presently being held by Americans."
Leaving aside the xenophobia, Ford's argument made economic sense: If NAFTA were to create more jobs in Mexico, fewer Mexican workers would leave. When people can earn a decent living in their own country, they would generally rather stay put.
Thus although workers in the poorer European countries can get jobs anywhere in the common market, few have moved across national borders because jobs in their own countries are expanding. Growth in the European Union periphery was largely stimulated by so-called cohesion funds, provided by richer nations for public investment. The program was so successful that, after centuries of exporting people to the rest of the world, Ireland in 1996 became a net importer of migrants.
NAFTA proponents, on the other hand, claimed that merely opening Mexico to free trade and unregulated foreign investment would produce the job growth and rising incomes needed to create a stay-at-home middle class. It was the capstone on an effort begun in the early 1980s by a group of U.S.-educated economists and businesspeople who took over the ruling Partido Revolucionario Institucional (PRI) in order to build a privatized, deregulated and globalized Mexican economy. Among their chief objectives was tearing up the old corporatist social contract in which the benefits of growth were shared with workers, farmers and small-business people through an elaborate set of institutions connected to the PRI.
NAFTA provided no social contract. It offered neither aid for Mexico nor labor, health or environmental standards. The agreement protected corporate investors everyone else was on his or her own. Indeed, NAFTA is the nation-building template imposed on developing countries by recent corporate-dominated U.S. administrations and their client international finance agencies. It is the model for the proposed Free Trade Agreement of the Americas, as well as for the Bush administration's development plans for Iraq.
Americans' understanding of NAFTA's impact on the Mexican people is obscured in part by the gap between what Mexican elites tell U.S. elites and what Mexicans tell one another. Last December former Mexican President Carlos Salinas, who negotiated NAFTA, told a Washington conference of applauding corporate lobbyists, government officials and free-market think tankers that NAFTA was a great success. "The level of trade and type of products that cross the borders," he said, "silenced even the most ardent critics."
The next day, in Mexico City, a large group of very ardent Mexican farmers broke down the door of the lower house of the Mexican Congress to denounce NAFTA and demand that it be renegotiated. Similar demonstrations -- joined by teachers, utility workers and others -- have erupted throughout the country, closing bridges and highways and taking over government offices. Polls show that most Mexicans think NAFTA was bad for Mexico. Largely because of the agreement, Salinas is the most unpopular ex-president in modern Mexican history.
NAFTA's critics did not doubt that it would stimulate more trade that was, after all, its function. Rather, they predicted that any benefits would go largely to the rich while the middle class and the poor would pay the costs, and that the promised growth would not materialize. They were right. NAFTA is not the cause of all Mexico's economic troubles, but it has clearly made them worse. Since NAFTA's inception in 1994 -- indeed, for the 20 years of neoliberal "reform" -- the Mexican middle class has shrunk and the number of poor has expanded. Economic growth has been below the old corporatist economy's performance and substantially less than what is needed to generate jobs for Mexico's growing labor force. During his 2000 campaign, Mexican President Vicente Fox promised that under his six-year term the country would grow 7 percent per year. Two and a half years after his inauguration, growth has averaged less than 1 percent.
So the northward migration continues. Between the U.S. censuses of 1990 and 2000, the number of Mexican-born residents in the United States increased by more than 80 percent. Border-crossings diminished temporarily after September 11, but they are now as great as ever. Some half-million Mexicans come to the United States every year roughly 60 percent of them are undocumented. The massive investments in both border guards and detection equipment have not diminished the migrant flow they have just made it more dangerous. In the past five years, more than 1,600 Mexican migrants have died on the journey to the north, including 19 people who were found asphyxiated in a truck near Houston in May. Still, as a neighbor of one of the 19 who left told The Washington Post, "If you're going to improve your life, you have to go to the United States."
The failure of NAFTA to deliver on its promise of a better life for Mexicans represents more than just a misplaced faith in free trade. Behind the laissez-faire rhetoric, Mexico's neoliberals were pursuing a large-scale program of government social engineering aimed at forcing Mexico's rural population off the land and into the cities, where it could provide cheap labor for the foreign investment that the new open economy would attract.
Salinas and the PRI reformers did not, of course, announce that they intended to depopulate rural Mexico. The Mexican government promised that as tariffs on U.S. agriculture products fell, generous financial and technical assistance would enable small farms to increase their productivity in order to meet the new competition. But, after the treaty was signed, the reformers pulled the rug out from under the rural peasantry. Funding for farm programs dropped from $2 billion in 1994 to $500 million by 2000.
Meanwhile, the U.S. Congress massively increased subsidies for corn, wheat, livestock, dairy products and other farm products exported to Mexico. American farmers now receive 7.5 to 12 times more in government help than Mexican farmers do. This "comparative advantage" enabled U.S. agribusiness to blow thousands of Mexican farmers out of their own markets.
But when the displaced campesinos arrived in nearby cities, few jobs were waiting. NAFTA concentrated growth along Mexico's northern border, where factories -- called maquiladoras -- processed and assembled goods for the then-booming U.S. consumer market. Between 1994 and 2000, maquiladora employment doubled while employment in the rest of the country stagnated.
Neoliberalism was supposed to reduce the income gap between Mexico's relatively rich border states and the poorer ones in the country's middle and south. Supporters claimed that privatizing banks and opening them to foreign ownership would make more capital available for domestic firms in domestic markets. But -- in the depressingly familiar pattern of privatization the world over -- the PRI reformers sold off the banks to friends, then bailed out the new owners when the peso collapsed a year after NAFTA was passed. Made whole with more than $60 billion of the taxpayers' money, these crony capitalists resold their banks at a handsome markup to foreign investors. For example, an investment group headed by the well-connected Roberto Hernandez bought Mexico's second-largest commercial bank for $3.2 billion and sold it to CitiGroup for $12.5 billion. Yet, as 85 percent of the country's banking system was being turned over to foreigners, lending to Mexican business actually dropped from 10 percent of the country's gross domestic product in 1994 to 0.3 percent in 2000. The global bankers were more interested in taking deposits and making high-interest-rate consumer loans than in developing Mexico's internal economy.
Meanwhile, booming investment in the exporting sweatshops of the north has created a social and ecological nightmare. Rural migrants have overwhelmed the already inadequate housing, health and public-safety infrastructures, spreading shantytowns, pollution and crime. Maquiladora managers often hire large numbers of women, whom they believe are more docile and more dexterous than men at assembly work. Earnings are typically about $55 a week for 45 hours -- poverty wages in an area where acute shortages of basic services have raised the cost of living. Families break up as men cross the border in search of jobs, leaving women vulnerable to the social chaos.
An Amnesty International report on the border town of Ciudad Juárez, where hundreds of young women have been killed, quotes the director of the city's only rape crisis center (annual budget: $4,500): "This city has become a place to murder and dump women. [Authorities] are not interested in solving these cases because these women are young and poor and dispensable."
As the U.S. economy slowed down after 2000, the number of jobs in the maquiladoras stopped growing. Moreover, the privileged access that Mexicans thought NAFTA had given them began to erode. The same global corporate coalition that forced NAFTA through Congress later successfully lobbied for the United States to sponsor China's full entry into the World Trade Organization (WTO), paving the way for a huge increase in Chinese exports to the United States. In the last two years, an estimated 200,000 maquiladora jobs have left Mexico for China, where workers can be had for one-eighth the Mexican wage. In a deregulated world, there is always someone who will work for less.
Hope that NAFTA would enable Mexico to export its way to prosperity has largely vanished. In order to relieve the pressures of unemployment, Fox has been badgering George W. Bush to liberalize migration, create guest-worker programs, and provide Mexican migrants with civil rights and social benefits. The Mexican president regularly refers to migrants in the United States as "heroes," and their remittances have become one of the country's most important sources of foreign earnings.
The White House has been unresponsive. After Fox -- facing a July election with 80 percent of Mexicans opposed to the invasion of Iraq -- declined to join Bush's war coalition, Washington is even less interested.
In time White House pique will fade. But, in any event, Mexico cannot develop by sending its most ambitious and industrious workers to the United States. It is not the poorest and least educated that migrate it is the working-class risk takers -- those who save up the $2,000 to pay a smuggler to take them across the river and who, once in the United States, sacrifice to send home their exploitation wages. Mexico needs these people. It paid for the cost of their upbringing and education, in effect subsidizing U.S. consumers of low-wage work.
The Mexican government, aided by some U.S. foundations and nongovernmental organizations, is attempting to channel migrant remittances into quasi-governmental credit unions that would provide capital to businesses and local governments. This may be useful. But migrants send money home for immediate consumption to maintain the living standards of parents, grandparents and children in a depressed domestic economy. It is an odd notion of economic development that rests on the meager savings of low-wage Mexican workers in America while wealthy Mexicans regularly ship their capital to New York, London and Zurich.
In fact, for Mexico's oligarchs, the public focus on the condition of Mexican workers in the United States has the great virtue of diverting political attention from the condition of Mexican workers in Mexico. Fox has been eloquent on the maltreatment of undocumented migrants at U.S. farms and factories. Rightly so. But he has been silent about the harsh and brutal conditions suffered by Mexico's own domestic migrants, including those as young as 11 years old who were found -- after Fox's election -- to be working in his own vegetable packing plant.
As in many developing countries, the largest part of Mexico's economic problem lies not in restricted export markets but in the stifling maldistribution of wealth and power that restricts internal growth. The gap between Mexico's rich and poor is among the worst in the Western Hemisphere. The rich hardly pay any taxes. Despite the image of Mexico as a country with a strong state, the public revenue is 19 percent of GDP, compared with the 30 percent that the presumably more conservative American public sector takes. Mexico -- even more than did the poorest nations of Western Europe -- needs substantial investment in education, health and infrastructure to create sufficient jobs for its people. A contribution to that investment by the United States and Canada equivalent to the EU's cohesion funds would approach $100 billion. The only imaginable scenario for anything near that level would require, among other things, a dramatic democratic reform of Mexico's corrupt and inefficient public sector.
Ironically, hopes for such a future lie in the political fallout from NAFTA's lack of success. By 2000, Mexican voters were so disgusted with the failed promises of PRI neoliberals that they ousted the party after 71 years of continuous rule. Whatever else Fox may accomplish, his breaking of the PRI's political stranglehold has reverberated throughout Mexico's political economy. Not only are elections contested at all levels, the major institutions of the old corporatist system -- the client labor unions, rural organizations and small-business groups -- are being slowly democratized by a younger generation of leaders demanding accountability.
Nearly 80 million people are displaced from their homes today.
The Kiva community has lent over $20 million to refugees so far.
Nearly 24,000 refugees have been supported by Kiva loans.
Kiva Board Chair, Egypt / U.S.
“To be a refugee is not an identity. It's a broken circumstance that happened to a person. It can happen to anyone.”
“At first we couldn't adapt to the lifestyle in Kenya, but now I have and I'm happy. [After my loan], I felt encouraged. I can plan better to expand my business."
“Refugees have to either put their family in huge danger, or they have to leave. Those people are engineers, well-known doctors, they are fathers and mothers.”
Role of the IMF and World Bank
The Bretton Woods system could not have worked without the IMF. Member countries needed it to bail them out if their currency values got too low. They'd need a kind of global central bank they could borrow from if they needed to adjust their currency's value and didn't have the funds themselves. Otherwise, they would just slap on trade barriers or raise interest rates.
The Bretton Woods countries decided against giving the IMF the power of a global central bank. Instead, they agreed to contribute to a fixed pool of national currencies and gold to be held by the IMF. Each member country of the Bretton Woods system was then entitled to borrow what it needed, within the limits of its contributions. The IMF was also responsible for enforcing the Bretton Woods agreement.
The IMF was not designed to print money and influence economies with monetary policies.
The World Bank, despite its name, was not (and isn't) the world's central bank. At the time of the Bretton Woods agreement, the World Bank was set up to lend to the European countries devastated by World War II. The purpose of the World Bank changed to loaning money to economic development projects in emerging market countries.
What Was the First Bank in the World?
The world's first bank on record was the Taula de la Ciutat, which opened in Barcelona in 1401. Banking practices can be traced back to the Roman Empire.
The Taula de la Ciutat opened in Barcelona in 1401 to act as a treasury resource for the Catalonian government. The bank is on record as the first official bank in the world, although the practice of banking has been traced back for several centuries.
The oldest continually operating bank in the world is Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena, which has been operating as a bank in Italy since 1472. It was originally named The Monte di Pieta. The original goal of the bank was to offer charitable loans to the poor. The bank continues to operate today and has branches throughout Italy.
Other longstanding banks include Berenberg Bank, which has been operating in Germany since the 16th century, and C. Hoare & Co., which was founded in London in 1672. Bank of New York, which is now known as Bank of New York Mellon was founded in 1784.
Ready to get the money you need to get back to the good?
Completing our online application only takes a few minutes. Once submitted, keep an eye on your inbox for next steps.
Need help with your application? Our team members will be happy to walk you through the process. All you need to do is set up an appointment.
Visit your local branch.
Once approved, your next stop is a local branch. One of our team members will talk through your options, goals and loans options. After we verify your application information, we'll prepare your check.
We Have a Long History of Helping People
Millions of customers have turned to World Finance for a fast and affordable loan solution for unexpected car repairs, seasonal expenses or surprise budget shortfalls. Along the way, we’ve helped them improve their credit scores, lower their interest rates and achieve their financial goals. We even provide free tools to educate customers about income, expenses, saving, investing, credit and insurance. Learn more and take our MoneySKILL online course here.
Why World Finance?
Unlike other riskier loan options, World Finance’s personal installment loans allow customers to borrow money based on their overall financial picture, establish an equal monthly payment based on their ability to repay the loan, build credit, and create long-term financial stability. Learn more about the differences in loans and the benefits of installment loans here.
With World Finance, you don’t need perfect credit to get a loan.
Start your online application, call us, or visit the World Finance branch nearest you, and our friendly, qualified team members will take the time to listen to your financial needs and work with you to find an amount and payment plan that is right for you.
Branch Service Center
Please refer to our Rates and Terms page for more information. Georgia NMLS ID#: 2032867
*Reserved for customers who have received a loan from, or had taxes prepared by, World Finance within the previous two years.