Should I give money (loan) if asked?

I have a friend, a bon vivant, a traveler with straw silk hair and a perpetually tanned face: he asks for a loan very often and never repays. He says: “I don’t even promise when I ask. I don’t want to hate good people later for what I owe them.” He lives well, women love him.

I have a friend, a concentrated iron button, undersized, in a suit, she looks prickly like this: she never lends, she just gives a part of the amount and that’s it, take as much as you can, but don’t give back.

I have a beloved school friend, a scientist in a stretched sweater, goes to the horizontal bar, runs around the park in sneakers all year round, so you can’t beg him for snow in winter, and everyone adore him, they themselves always strive to help him. They try to somehow put its sharp corners into the felt, soften the reactions.

And for many years I have been friends with a very rich man, he has a yacht, a plane, a blush, buttery palms, fresh fish on the table, and so he distributes mountains of money, sometimes from the heart, and sometimes with a grimace, and everyone hates him, everyone, although in the face is made “cheese”. Well, he knows, you can’t fool him. And sad. So, should you lend money?

All these options are an attempt to adapt to a quite dramatic situation, full of Darwinism, when someone has a lot, and someone has an empty one, someone has cabbage soup, and someone has small pearls. Well, it’s clear that it’s better to help the completely lost, but what if not completely? If they ask for help not on an oxygen bag? There is no good recipe here. It will still be bitter, it will be sour, it will be tasteless. And the relationship will eventually go rotten and end up in the trash. And that’s why.

You give money – greedy. Do not give money – greedy. If you give, it is always not enough. That is, more could be given. He gave for bread, he could have for butter. He gave me a car, but you yourself have a better and bigger car. The hand of the giver always lacks something from the point of view of the one who takes. First – thank you, benefactor, and then – nooooo, could have been more for a place in paradise. You want cheap!

There is no happy couple of giver and taker, look carefully, they always sit facing away from each other. A blonde in her twenties and a daddy. A mother full of life, and a negligent, mealy-sleepy dunce son. A philanthropist and a genius sponsored by him. The first one fails. The second is an ungrateful pig. I am for him, and he. And you can’t stop giving, it’s impossible. This is a blow below the belt. Relationship hell, dead end.

He who does not give at all has no heart, monster. Refuses to help, rescue, and if you yourself will desperately need it tomorrow? And no one will give you! But behind the one who refuses, behind the heartless one always dreams of some kind of drama, one wants to understand him, he himself wants to help, to give the last.

Such is the paradox. The more rudely a person says: “I won’t give it. I’m greedy,” the more people are drawn to him. And therefore, his relationships with people are healthier, there are no time bombs in them. Over time, they stop asking him and no longer call him greedy – there is no reason.

The non-giver does not have one more complication – he does not encourage licentiousness, laziness, lethargy, selfishness. The eternal question is whether to give adult children money or not. It seems necessary, children. But how will they then learn to earn them, turn on their brains? How to learn to cherish, appreciate?

I’m not talking about people who have fallen: you give money to an alcoholic – he continues to drink, you give money to a player – he continues to play. But how not to give if you have given at least once? How can you handle your own rejection?

My version of action – to find a job for a person, to make an effort, to pat – is also not good at all. After all, a person wanted money, not a job, there is a very big difference between the first and second. Rarely is this job suitable, rarely is the employee satisfied, rarely does it all last long. Compared to this, simply giving money is in some sense more humane, although employers will not have to be let down, there are fewer victims.

Yes, and it is foolish to hope that if a person is chronically without money, I, like a magician from a blue plane, will save him. But it’s better to be stupid than greedy, stupid than criminally sponsoring misfortune or losing. Here at least there are options for the development of events. With other approaches, in my opinion, they are not.