Red Cross money: a Commons Problem?

[roymeo]

Well, what we had hoped wouldn't happen has been reported in the New Yorker: Red Cross money going to pay things like 3 months of rent for people who just happen to live in lower Manhattan, as opposed to going to the sort of thing that people donated money for.

I'd personally rather the Red Cross spend my donation on a real worthy cause. Though I understand that people who make twice as much as me and pay 8 times the rent have problems, too.

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/conten...alk_paumgarten


feh

roymeo
-----------------
oh yeah. about that title:

The article sorta slants this whole thing as a Commons Problem from Game Theory: originally related to people grazing their cattle on the community commons. If everyone grazes with the idea that everyone needs to use it (IE responsibly and respectfully) then there's enough for everyone. But if someone starts to graze their cattle too much, soon just about everyone starts to do so because the commons will become overgrazed so everyone starts grabbing what they can. This almost looks like a Commons Problem sort of thing....everyone elses neighbor is taking some freebies.....

Though, in this case, the Commons is money that's already been given (too much given to this specific cause, it seems, if the Red Cross is trying to find homes for it) and isn't something like the commons natural resource.

[Cynon]

I saw a report on this last week, I was speechless at how selfish some NY people were being (especially after so much praise has been made towards them) and how un-responsible the Red Cross was being with their money. The news show I was watching interviewed a dozen or more people and all them said pretty much the same thing. "We really weren't affected by the attack. Sure there was dust in the air for 2 days and I was a little scared but my building and my self weren't damage and I lost no friends of family members in the crash, so I didn't think I should take the money." This was usually followed up by someone stating "But then the red cross was saying they needed to get rid of the money and that I'd be doing them a favour by taking it off there hands.". Ok first, according to many of these people it does seem like they were semi-forced into taking 3-4k from the Red Cross so I'll give them the benefit of the doubt, and say they weren't being completely selfish. The Red Cross on the other hand is being completely un-responsible with their actions. Couldn't this money be used differently, such as supporting the innocent families of Afghanistan that have lost their homes and family members in attacks by the U.S. Or perhaps the money could be used to support Aids relieve funds (especially in Africa), or perhaps to reduce poverty in other countries, or clean up the environment a little bit. Doesn't it seem kind of foolish to be throwing money (money that was donated by the people throughout the U.S) around like this when it could be going to better uses?

Rob

[roymeo]

Part of the problem was that people donated money "For the WTC" and I think congress even got involved turning up the heat so the money has to go "for the WTC".

They're so jumpy about it, now, that they probably can't use "WTC" money for the victims of the other two planes.

roymeo

[tpierzina[$]]

Doesn't anyone else remember the outcry in middle to late September when nobody could get money out of the Red Cross? People were outraged that the donations weren't making their way to the people who needed them--too much red tape and bureaucracy.

So the Red Cross cut out the red tape and bureaucracy.

Why are we surprised at the results?