Great. Now here's the question. What's better, having loans available at high interest, or having no loans available at all?

I'll go with the former.

It's not clear that the presence or absence of kiva affects the calculus at all.

I'm not disagreeing with you, and recall reading elsewhere about Kiva's deceptive practices, but could you back up that claim with some evidence, or at least a more detailed explanation?

Previous HN discussion on the matter

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7214353

Evidence: Just look at the portfolio yield of many of kiva's lenders.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiva_(organization)#Current_int...

If you're making more than a percent or two interest in what you believe is warm-fuzzy charitable lending, you're simply deluded. Almost all of these enjoy double digit interest rate yields... that's after losses for defaults. Most are around 30% some over 80%. It is very obviously a morally bankrupt practice which has managed to clothe itself as a charity.

This is why I've stopped believing in giving to on-the-door charity pleas, or give-some-money-to-X-before-you-check-your-goods-out-at-the-checkout. It seems much better to properly research one or a handful of organizations and give to those, than to give to organizations you have hardly heard of because of the immediate social pressure.