During the previous class, Professor Victor requested that we write our responses on our opinion of “What is Poverty.”  This was a very difficult statement for me to quantify.  First, I tend to be a “numbers guy.”  Said differently, whenever I am in a situation I tend to quantify it.  For example, when I woke up this morning, I thought about everything I had to do today, in terms of homework and extra-curricular activities, and assigned an appropriate time interval for the activity.  Further, whenever I go to the grocery store, I do not simply stroll through the aisles and put items in the basket.  Instead, I calculate how many days the combination of bread and sliced turkey will give me, and approximately how much money I will save by purchasing groceries instead of going to Subway every day.  For this reason, it was difficult for me to quantify what poverty actually is.  My best effort is as follows:  Poverty is absolute across the board, i.e. requiring a basic level of sustenance to literally survive, but it is relative between geographies.  For example, someone in a certain geography may have a lack of upward mobility, or may have a lack of information where if information were available, that person would not be classified as poor, or under the poverty line (the person might be lacking the information on where to sell his or her surplus of crops, where if this information were available, he or she would not be considered under the poverty line as they could sell their surplus).            Similar to the fact that poverty is a difficult term to define, it is also difficult to prove that you are assisting in its alleviation.  A clear example of this would be the micro lenders, discussed in all five of the articles our syllabus had us read for this week.  For example, in the discussion of “social business”, or social capitalism, “microcredit is just one example of how a business approach can help alleviate poverty when we move beyond the idea that business by definition has to mean making financial profit for the owner” (Yunus 1, “How Social Business Can Create a World Without Poverty”).   Here, as well as in the article, “Saving the World with a Cup of Yogurt” (Prasso), numerous examples are given that describe individuals classified as poor taking out loans to purchase cows, eggs, and cars, where each of these purchases lead to a profit of some sort.  Thus, the lives of each individual were improved through this “social capitalism” that seemed to be mutually beneficial to both lender and borrower, providing for economic gain and upward mobility for the borrowers.In contrast to this statement, many people say that the interest rates charged to borrowers, which are often at an annual rate of 20% or higher, demonstrate those with means taking advantage of the poor.  I was especially intrigued by the “Mexican Maverick” article, where this argument was presented as follows:  Prices inside Elektra, a discount retailer in Mexico, are listed by their monthly payment instead of the actual price of the item if it were to be paid for in total at that moment.  Critics said that, “People who shop at Electra are thinking in terms of whether they can afford the weekly payment.  Electra is exploiting that psychology” (Coster 1, “Mexican Maverick”).  But Ricardo Salinas, who owns the Electra chain of stores, among other businesses who cater to Mexico’s poorer residents, stated that, “If we were such a bad guy, they wouldn’t come back to us.  Maybe they have nowhere else to go” (Coster 1, “Mexican Maverick”).  I agree with the above rationale that the poor residents of Mexico, or of any country for that matter, have limited choices in terms of businesses that will extend them credit, otherwise classified as the vehicle for upward mobility out of the classification of “poor” or in “poverty”.  Thus, I have come to the firm opinion that those engaged in “social capitalism” are a benefit to the poor and those in poverty, assisting them in their entrepreneurial ventures despite interest rates that are high when compared to those in more developed countries, or when compared to those given to individuals that are not classified as being “poor”.