edit

on my last post i mentioned somethin about a concern i had which was something I got off of the blog of Porfessor Imazeki, just wanted to restate my initial thought of such a strange cunundrum that i myself am also confused with, it is that people should get what they desrve when they gamble. making high risks whether your an investor, a banker, or an individual who takes on a loan they fool themselves into thinking they can not pay is taking a high risk. with risks there are rewards and there are consequences. My greater fear is that im looking at this in too simple terms so maybe Ill go back and look at what the professors comments were on herr blog. (After i do the readings of course...well some...atleast half)

intorductory entry

I chose futbolhead-danielalvarez because I play soccer about 3 times a week, sometimes more. Im not obsessed with the sport but I have always played, makes me feel good, and its always been a great way to meet new people and make new friends. I especially learned this travelling throughout Mexico and Ireland. I seem to consiously remember to bring my cleats everywhere I go, or at least a ball to pass around or juggle with other futbols heads; boys and girls. Indoor season is coming up so I wont be bringing those shoes around with me everywhere all the time. Baseball playoffs are coming up so if im not rooting for the home team im rooting for the team with the smallest payroll.
Since this is an econ blog there is something that concerns me that I want to share only because I can not make too much sense about it. Ok, so lets say we consider greedy people to be the bankers or investors who make risky moves as a way to make profits or income or reveue or a higher salary or whatever. But then we see people who take on risky loans and who can not afford to pay for them as somewhat victims. Cant we just say that people deserve to have their money taken away if they gamble with it?