Like back when I lived in VA.. we were eligible for Toys for Tots.

When I went to the building with my mom, there were a lot of moms in line. A lot of the moms did not look needy at all, in fact, a lot of them looked well to do, they had their nails, done, hair done, nice clothes, nice shoes. But apparently... they can't afford to get toys for their kids.

There's a lot of things that contribute to America's current status. Can't point a finger at one thing, its a big domino effect.

And watever happened to America had a flow on effect to the rest of the world...

Domino effect alright...

That might also be people getting more than what they need... (and in turn, makes other who IS in need, not get what they need...)

And like Katrina.. people were using their money for crappy material things when the money was to rebuild their life.

Some dude would rather have a nice watch than use it for the down payment on a new apartment.

Companies are also out sourcing, those are jobs Americans could have. Then more Americans would have more money, and then they'dactually have spare cash to spend, the companies would probably gain more money then. But, they'd have to pay Americans more, because they pay the people in India or w/e lower than the American minimum wage. But to develop and advertise these new gadgets and products, such as the iphone, that requires a lot of money. So they don't bother...

Socialism works on paper, too, but it doesn't account for how humans actually behave. IF everyone were responsible with their money AND made correct decisions, then yes, the method you described would be great. However, reality is a lot messier than absolute philosophies.

Game theory really comes into play, here. Look up altruism and how it relates to evolutionary stable strategies.

well, I guess I'll add my economic thought at this random hour where I should be sleeping.
To start off, the sub prime market was hit with predatory lenders who targeted people who could borrow loans with balloon payments or unfixed rates. Those people who lead their greed got the better of many banks who took that money and then sold it to business, corporations and countries. Those banks who packaged those mortgages knowingly added them to larger deals so they could get it off their hands and make the money they wanted.
This then turned to the buyers who thought they had secure money, but led to the people who defaulted and led to the housing crisis we are in now. From there this hits many countries who relied on the U.S. for their currency to stay strong, but too invested in the housing market and went bankrupt like Iceland. This comes full circle to where the government decides in order to help the banks who decided to sell those deals with the bailout. However, with the increase of printing of money, leading to inflation and even hyper inflation if the country decides to print way to much money. This money that is suppose to trickle back into society, is being held by businesses that helped to influence this current depression. There leads to the car dealers who are trying to obtain bailout money, which had they actually invested their time and money in the long run instead of the short run, would have actually worked on securing a better tomorrow decided to keep the short run game thanks to wall street bugging the hell out them to make the margins they needed to look good. These jobs which support the current economy would devastate many people who, if they were to lose their jobs would be out on the streets. Which comes back to the government to think where or not it should let the free market take over, or let socialism step into play and have government owned car companies, which in the end is worse off because they aren't run very efficiently. The government also has major stock share in the banks but have left the people who started the crisis in power.
Where do we get justice in order to remove the people who started this. How do we get rid of them? These people lacked the morals, ethics and basic common sense that lead us to this current affair and pitted it against their greed, lust and desire to make money.

But where does he get the money to eat for those 10 days? A loan? Why is he given a loan when he doesn't have any collateral to show for it?


Since when does "need" dictate who gets what? It's earning power that earns you money. I "need" food to live. So if I sit there and "need" it, I won't get it. I need to go "earn" it.

Objectivist economics support laissez-faire capitalism, or in other words say that the markets are evolutionarily stable, because left to themselves, they will prosper. Now I didn't really find anything to do with altruistic economics, so if you could give me a link, I would be much obliged.

He could very well be given a credit card, as his payslip will show that his income is greater than his "usual" expense, it's not entirely up to the people who lends him money that he will use it in appropriate discretion. And believe it or not, banks LIKE it that you get into debt becoz that means forever interest for them...

Or a nice friend will lend him some money so he can eat for the rest of the month.... on a simpler scale.

OK i've tried retyping this reply 3 times and i don't think i exactly know what you mean.

There are organisations out there that realise not everyone could EARN their own food, hence they reach into their bank account and lay out for some money/materials for those who cannot afford certain things. Whether it's things that keeps them alive (food) or things that enhance their lives (education).

So, I have my own job, I can afford my own NEEDS, should I still go and ask these generous people for THEIR money too? If I do, for every bit that I take, someone else who doesn't have a job / money will not get the support.

We both NEED the offer, but they need it more than I do... as I have other avenues to support my own need.

Not sure if that answers you, but that's wat my post meant.

Forever interest...from where? From where when he's already in debt?

Then it's the friend's fault for, in a way, supporting his irresponsible spending.

Shouldn't those organisations be checking into whether you really need it? Isn't that irresponsible of them?

In the ideal perfect world, yes. They should be checking every bit they could to ensure that only people that deserves gets it. But, reality is people will lie and dodge criterias to receive more than what they need. And often there's a limit to how far an organisation could go into checking you.

For example, people get study allowance for students that doesn't have an income. But I go and tutor my cousins and all my relative's kids, and i get cash. I probably don't "need" the government hand outs, but I still get it coz I fit their criteria and they can't check on me coz i get cash... kinda thing..



OK, that man with the pants. He earns $300. The bank can very well give him a credit card with $200 limit on it. He gets his pay check, spent $150 on food, and pays for the pants with his $200 limit. In the next month, he gets another $300, pays $150 for food, and he still owes the bank $200. He pays $150 off (because that's all he could afford) and in roll the interest for the $50 he still owes.

That is, provided that he doesn't spend any MORE luxuries. If he does, he rolls more interest through.

There's his debt and interest. Of coz, if he's really a plan ahead guy, he can pay it off in 3 months. BUT if things gets into a bigger scale like a mortgage or a car loan, the lump sum can get bigger and bigger easily.




And just for a fun fact, when I first applied for a credit card, the monthly limit they gave me was 4 times the amount I earn. I didn't even ask for that limit, they just said "here you go". They really don't think about how I was going to repay it coz that's how banks earn money. From interest.

Okay. I'm getting a little tired of the ideal world brush-offs. What is your suggestion then? That everybody be responsible? That nobody be materialistic? Even that happens only in an "ideal" world. I still maintain that the fact that banks give out loans so irresponsibly is NOT the man's fault. He's entitled to spend his money in any way he sees fit.