3 ms·

In regards to the ethics of profiting from the poor, while everyone has their own definition, one if the biggest issues I could see is if one is trying to lever

In regards to the ethics of profiting from the poor, while everyone has their own definition, one if the biggest issues I could see is if one is trying to leverage the common lack of education to make people get into situations they don't understand or leverage their financial situation to offer them short-term solutions that ultimately have long-term harm. It's also interesting to note that some cultures have codified protections against the poor from exploitation. For example, in ancient Israel according to the Bible, there were laws regarding excessive interest rates and a global debt-clearing every 50 years or so. Furthermore there were also some instructions that fallen unharvested crops be left ungathered for the poor to come and harvest themselves.

rgarcia 15y ago
Agreed. I think the biggest problem with applying free-market ideals to these situations is that one party (the poor) is not in a position to act rationally, i.e. there is an element of coercion in their actions, due to hunger/sickness/etc.
- ndefinite 15y ago
  Sorry but if you're hungry the rational thing to do is to acquire food. If you're sick the rational thing to do is to assess your options for immediate help. I use the word immediate here intentionally. You're referring to difference in rationality but these are actually differences in time preference. A starving person prefers food NOW while someone who is well fed can wait a little longer and wait for a good deal to come by. If you're on death's door, then long term financial planning is not a rational choice. Long term financial planning is probably the worst choice they can make as they'd be dead before any dividends are paid. The poor are not coerced into buying food, they are making a choice and their choices meet an immediate need. Recommending that people don't sell the poor food or that we never lend the poor money, what in immoral thing to say.
  - rgarcia 15y ago
    > Recommending that people don't sell the poor food or that we never lend the poor money, what in immoral thing to say. I never even came close to saying that... All I was pointing out was that when one side of a transaction is coerced into doing something, then the assumptions of a free market have been broken. Maybe "rational" is the wrong way to describe it, but when it comes to dealing with the poor, there are definitely issues of this kind. Anyway, thanks for the troll!
    - ndefinite 15y ago
      Low blow. Recommending that I don't sell food to the poor for "profit" is the same difference. I have to feed my family too and without making a profit I have no time to spend feeding the poor, so I don't. The assumption of the free market that you refer to is specifically: no coercion occurs (it's not "your" assumption I understand that, but it is the necessary prerequisite of a free market). If that specific condition is not met it's not a free market transaction. The free market is not some imaginary utopia, it's what happens when two non coerced people trade. If you add coercion, free market theories don't apply because there is no free market. It's not a free market transaction if the poor are robbed. It's not a free market transaction if fraud occurs. To be a free market transaction both parties have to voluntarily execute the contract; most times a simple verbal one like I do when I hand over my money for groceries. Being sick does not mean coercion occurs. It's unfortunate and it would be great if someone could help for free. But it's even better that there are trained professionals who can make a living helping the sick as they can refine their skill set over an entire lifetime. To do this however, they have to turn a profit otherwise the activity is unsustainable; they too need to feed their families and can't dedicate 100% of their time to helping others without charge. Again this assumes no coercion, which unfortunately these conditions do not exist in North America; government regulation in healthcare by its very definition means coercion of healthcare providers by the government, under penalty of force and arrest for non compliance.
gyardley 15y ago
Every seven years, not every fifty. That said, this rule caused all sorts of problems - because debts had to be forgiven on a regular basis, no one would lend to the poor at all. In the first century BCE, Rabbi Hillel came up with a novel solution - the creditor 'sold' the debt to a rabbinical court, who didn't have to cancel it since (I believe - memory's a little hazy here) the letter of the law referred to individuals. The court in turn gave the creditor power-of-attorney to collect the debt at any time and the right to all the proceeds. Problem solved. The mishnah (a codification of Jewish oral tradition) on this part of the Torah and Hillel's reinterpretation of it is really interesting - the rabbis aren't stupid, and they can see that Hillel's playing fast and loose with the original intent of the law, but write that it was necessary in order to 'repair the world'. This wouldn't be the last time something designed to protect or help the poor completely backfired due to unforseen circumstances.

rgarcia 15y ago

Agreed. I think the biggest problem with applying free-market ideals to these situations is that one party (the poor) is not in a position to act rationally, i.e. there is an element of coercion in their actions, due to hunger/sickness/etc.

ndefinite 15y ago
Sorry but if you're hungry the rational thing to do is to acquire food. If you're sick the rational thing to do is to assess your options for immediate help. I use the word immediate here intentionally. You're referring to difference in rationality but these are actually differences in time preference. A starving person prefers food NOW while someone who is well fed can wait a little longer and wait for a good deal to come by. If you're on death's door, then long term financial planning is not a rational choice. Long term financial planning is probably the worst choice they can make as they'd be dead before any dividends are paid. The poor are not coerced into buying food, they are making a choice and their choices meet an immediate need. Recommending that people don't sell the poor food or that we never lend the poor money, what in immoral thing to say.
- rgarcia 15y ago
  > Recommending that people don't sell the poor food or that we never lend the poor money, what in immoral thing to say. I never even came close to saying that... All I was pointing out was that when one side of a transaction is coerced into doing something, then the assumptions of a free market have been broken. Maybe "rational" is the wrong way to describe it, but when it comes to dealing with the poor, there are definitely issues of this kind. Anyway, thanks for the troll!
  - ndefinite 15y ago
    Low blow. Recommending that I don't sell food to the poor for "profit" is the same difference. I have to feed my family too and without making a profit I have no time to spend feeding the poor, so I don't. The assumption of the free market that you refer to is specifically: no coercion occurs (it's not "your" assumption I understand that, but it is the necessary prerequisite of a free market). If that specific condition is not met it's not a free market transaction. The free market is not some imaginary utopia, it's what happens when two non coerced people trade. If you add coercion, free market theories don't apply because there is no free market. It's not a free market transaction if the poor are robbed. It's not a free market transaction if fraud occurs. To be a free market transaction both parties have to voluntarily execute the contract; most times a simple verbal one like I do when I hand over my money for groceries. Being sick does not mean coercion occurs. It's unfortunate and it would be great if someone could help for free. But it's even better that there are trained professionals who can make a living helping the sick as they can refine their skill set over an entire lifetime. To do this however, they have to turn a profit otherwise the activity is unsustainable; they too need to feed their families and can't dedicate 100% of their time to helping others without charge. Again this assumes no coercion, which unfortunately these conditions do not exist in North America; government regulation in healthcare by its very definition means coercion of healthcare providers by the government, under penalty of force and arrest for non compliance.

gyardley 15y ago

Every seven years, not every fifty. That said, this rule caused all sorts of problems - because debts had to be forgiven on a regular basis, no one would lend to the poor at all. In the first century BCE, Rabbi Hillel came up with a novel solution - the creditor 'sold' the debt to a rabbinical court, who didn't have to cancel it since (I believe - memory's a little hazy here) the letter of the law referred to individuals. The court in turn gave the creditor power-of-attorney to collect the debt at any time and the right to all the proceeds. Problem solved. The mishnah (a codification of Jewish oral tradition) on this part of the Torah and Hillel's reinterpretation of it is really interesting - the rabbis aren't stupid, and they can see that Hillel's playing fast and loose with the original intent of the law, but write that it was necessary in order to 'repair the world'. This wouldn't be the last time something designed to protect or help the poor completely backfired due to unforseen circumstances.