Ilima--Nature and beauty will always win in the long run. I'll be rooting for you and your garden. How can people muck up such a bit of paradise as Maui with such a thing as the plastic house?

Sorry...had the same problem you did, prairiemoon. Here's a clean version: I've decided to make one last effort to acquaint you with the significance of economics in understanding the world around you and distinguishing between effective and ineffective solutions to society's many problems. But before I do that, let me first acknowledge that perhaps my efforts thus far reflect my limitations in clearly communicating my points. For example, when referencing Karl Marx, I was NOT intending to disparage you by labeling you a communist or inferring that you supported his views. Rather, I was trying to make the point that many times an apparently sensible principle such as those espoused by Mr. Marx (or you) can prove to be totally dysfunctional in practice as explained by economic principles. But I'd like to walk you through a specific example of the application of microeconomics (i.e., the application of economics on a small scale, as distinguished from macroeconomics which looks at issues affecting, say, the national economy). Here in California, we've had our share of droughts in the past and we were experiencing a particularly prolonged drought when I was in business school. People were being forced to cut their water usage by 20% or face stiff fines. We were being required to only water our lawns on alternate days. "Water police" were issuing citations when landscape runoff was found in the street. Because of the drought, we were told, there was simply not enough water to go around. My econ professor used the occasion to make a strong point about the importance of understanding economics. He proclaimed, "Our current water shortage has nothing whatsoever to do with the drought!" What??? How could that be??? Economics tells us that the most efficient way to allocate scarce resources is through a market exchange, where the price of a given good or service is determined by the price that a willing buyer will pay a willing seller. Such a system GUARANTEES that the supply of a given good or service will always be sufficient to meet the demand (except for very short-term, unanticipated distribution problems, such as supplying drinking water immediately following the Haitian earthquake or introducing virtually ANY new Apple product). So how could CA be experiencing a water shortage? Very simple. The Public Utilities Commission was unwilling to allow the price for water to be set by the marketplace. Their reasoning was paved with good intentions (as is the proverbial road to Hell). They didn't want the burden of a decreased supply of water to fall disproportionately on those least able to pay for it. And, after all, isn't water a necessity of life? Yet each of their "solutions" created its own set of problems. Restricting landscape irrigation placed a disproportionate burden on those with large properties while apartment residents could continue to take half-hour showers. Requiring a reduction in water usage from the prior year disproportionately punished those who had always conserved water and those who had recently put in a yard. And these regulations did NOTHING to increase the supply of water. If instead they had let the price of water rise to a level that reflected its scarcity, the demand for water would be brought into equilibrium with supply. Consumers would have reduced their consumption in response to the higher price (as occurred during last year's spike in gas prices) and there would have been adequate water for all those willing to buy it. But wait, you say...what about fairness? Is it fair that the poor, who may be least prepared to deal with an increase in water prices, assume such a disproportionate hit? Well, the poor already have to pay for all the other necessities of life: food, shelter, transportation, heating, etc. Why should water be any different? (And to restate a previous remark, a ten-fold increase in water prices would still mean less than $10/YEAR to stay alive.) Our free market system works because it forces those who would be satisfied with only the necessities of life to get off their duffs and contribute to society...or they'll starve, freeze, etc. (Thank God for Clinton putting an end to Johnson's ill-conceived War on Poverty, which expanded the ranks for the impoverished and nearly bankrupted the nation.) If we feel that some are UNABLE to provide for themselves, we can (and do) establish welfare programs, charities, homeless shelters, etc. to help them deal with the price of necessities. But using PRICE to allocate scarce resources gives each individual the freedom to make decisions on how he/she would prefer to allocate their scarce dollars. But even more important, price provides the capacity for us to actually increase a dwindling supply by providing an economic justification to drill new wells, import water from areas having an abundant supply, expand water conservation technology, build desalinization plants, plant xeriscape landscapes, etc. And unlike wishing and hoping that citizens would simply act on the need for conservation by being RESPONSIBLE, a market allocation of scarce resources ACTUALLY WORKS! But couldn't a group of evil rich meanies corner the market on water, driving the price higher to satisfy their own greed? Sure, that could happen. And that's where government has a role in preventing the manipulation of the marketplace and the creation of monopolies. It takes vigilance to keep markets free. A good example of our government's failure to do so is in allowing China's currency manipulation to capture a disproportionate share of the American market. Why aren't we more aggressive in stopping this? Because China buys off our politicians by purchasing Treasury bonds which enables them to finance their on-going deficit spending. Oops...sorry, I'm slipping into macroeconomics and politics. That's a much more involved lesson. Market solutions aren't perfect but, as Churchill said about democracy, "...the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried" (Of course, he also said, "The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter." He might well have been referencing their ignorance of economics!) Dr. Granfield likely would be rather disappointed with the superficial job I've just done in recreating his lesson on CA's water shortage but I hope it's given you a flavor of some of the considerations in looking at society's challenges through the lens of economics. Any questions?

It sounds like with the number of credit cards you are currently holding, along with the large balance on the citibank card, you would be a great candidate for a REPUTABLE debt settlement program. I say reputable because it is well known that the majority of debt settlement companies have taken their fees first before they ever settle one of your accounts. However, new FTC legislation bans this practice, and as of October 27th, 2010, debt settlement companies must settle at least one of your debts before they can charge you for their services. You may genuinely benefit from working with an accredited debt settlement company. By doing so, the company will negotiate with your creditors on your behalf to help secure a settlement that is a percentage of what you originally owed. Great settlements are usually somewhere between 40-60% of the original debt. If you do choose to do this be aware that your credit will initially suffer, but that with more cash flow to go around because it is not being eaten up in minimum payments and interest, you can actually begin to repair your own credit by making solid financial decisions. In reality, you most likely already have poor credit due to your current situation, so you seem to have nothing to lose by seeking reputable, outside help. You can get ideas for repairing your credit from myfico.com. Further, I would be wary of going with a credit counseling agency. Though they may have a 'non-profit' status, they are in reality usually set up by the credit card companies themselves in order to recover as much of the original debt as possible. Nobody works for 'free.' Credit counseling works by contacting your creditors to lower the overall interest rate of a debt. Though this may save you some money, you would be better off finding an accredited debt settlement company to negotiate for you. Arm yourself with perseverance and a solid understanding of all your options. Once you set your mind on a plan, follow through- debt does not have to consume your entire life, and can be paid off in time.

Education is only part of the experience of high school. I have great high school memories because I had a great group of friends. My sister had a very unhappy high school experience because she didn't fit in. Same school, 1 year apart. This may already have been voiced above, but a few additional things to consider, which I have seen happen to other people, are the lifestyle issues and the donation issues. Specifically, will your child feel left out if they cannot afford to do the things their classmates do? I can remember being the only one of my friends in (public) high school who didn't get to go to Europe senior year (in my case it was my mother worrying rather than money, either way, I was left out). I've seen the activities and things friends' kids want. Will your child feel left out if they can't go skiing in the Alps over Christmas break? Will there be an issue if he has a beater car rather than a BMW? Another issue which I was a little surprised by was the "donation" issue. A good friend of mine has her only child in a $30k per year high school. They can easily afford it. However, the school also expects a sizable donation every year, and it keeps going up (he is in his third year). Think thousands - extra. They also do expensive things to raise money for the school, like auctions. Regarding treating kids "the same". It is very difficult. My parents didn't pay (or even help pay) for my law school because my mother didn't think they should do something for me that they were not going to do for my sister. But they weren't going to do the same for her because she wasn't going to go - she dropped out of college. I didn't argue with them about it at the time. In fact, it wasn't until after I graduated that my father even knew they didn't help. He assumed they had. My mother handled the money. So now all the money they saved my father is spending on his chi-chi girlfriend (my mother passed away). I have to admit, it irks me now. But it wouldn't have bothered me if my parents had used the money together. My in laws took the "equal" thing to a ridiculous extreme. DH was the "perfect" child. He was the oldest, and was a great student, athlete, and was very handsome (voted "best body" in high school, which we have a good giggle over). His parents wouldn't even give him praise unless they could give the same praise to his 2 younger (and less stellar) siblings. One story he mentions is when he came home with all As in all AP classes. His mother said something like, "well, Sally and Billy tried very hard to". My MIL was an early example of the dangers of praising trying as much as succeeding. His siblings learned they would get as much credit for failing as DH would get for succeeding. No one lived up to their potential as a result. I guess my point is this, you can't treat kids equally, and you can't be perfectly fair. Every kid is different.