Fun fact: boomers entered the workforce before credit scores existed. Credit scores were created in 1989, but people treat them like they were in the bible.
Do people want to go back to the system that was used before credit scores? Where the person serving the loan just made the choice based off if they thought you seemed trustworthy? Aka were a white man who went to the same church as them.
Maybe the answer is less reliance on a debt based economy. Maybe the answer is to not bake into the fabric of society a mechanism that makes a lifetime of debt a foregone conclusion. Kill the loan shark for all I care. Why does everyone need a loan? Because it’s built to require one.
Aka were a white man who went to the same church as them.
in this case, because that’s a local direct connection as opposed to centralized.
The world works better when people help those closer in the society to them first. That’s also how routing metrics work in computer networks. This might seem gibberish, but I had a less fuzzy explanation, just forgot it.
Ah. Evolution. Connections form dependency both ways. And there’s always evolution in the society. It’s in your interest that racists would mostly connect to other racists, while smarter people to other smarter people, and dumber people to other dumber people, for evolution to work. Except, of course, that should preserve some mobility between these groups so that smarter people born in not so smart environment could change it, again for social evolution.
It’s important, somehow mostly talking about evolution in present time is attributed to fascists, while it can be seen everywhere.
In some sense who you are, who the person giving a loan is, and how that affects getting a loan is a predictive mechanism. It should work or fail for evolution.
Credit scores are a path around that similarly to Soviet planned economy being a path around markets, see how it worked that USSR, rich with resources beyond belief, had mostly poor and even malnourished population.
The world doesn’t work better if people help those closest to them. The majority of the strife in the world exists because people help those close to them and treat others as outsiders. You can look at any system ever used and the point of failure is always someone tipping the scales intentionally to favor those near them.
You can look at any system ever used and the point of failure is always someone tipping the scales intentionally to favor those near them.
A bandit kills a traveler, the former is to blame because he initiated the action, the latter is to blame for being unarmed.
Those “tipping the scales intentionally to favor those near them” succeed because others don’t help those closer to them first.
And you can tell worthy endeavor from unworthy one better when it’s someone close to you. Thus more often helping the good things and more rarely helping the bad things.
So no, it does. Those near to you are on the opposite side of the spectrum from states, ideas and -isms. They are also more like you, as opposed to things you don’t know. Your life is just your own life. Unique and only one.
The document you’ve linked talks about common perceptions and not much else, it’s short.
Anyway, nutrition is not just about amount of calories, one can consume a lot of calories but get scurvy.
BTW, the reason Soviet scurvy stats were not atrocious is that “sea cabbage” older generations remember (and hate, but it was there) being present in stores despite any deficit, and that all salt sold for food was iodised.
So - first, I’m not talking about amount of calories, second, I’ve read American food is notoriously bad nutrition-wise. Comparing USSR to Finland might be a better one.
Fun fact: boomers entered the workforce before credit scores existed. Credit scores were created in 1989, but people treat them like they were in the bible.
Do people want to go back to the system that was used before credit scores? Where the person serving the loan just made the choice based off if they thought you seemed trustworthy? Aka were a white man who went to the same church as them.
Maybe the answer is less reliance on a debt based economy. Maybe the answer is to not bake into the fabric of society a mechanism that makes a lifetime of debt a foregone conclusion. Kill the loan shark for all I care. Why does everyone need a loan? Because it’s built to require one.
As a person with very little debt, this is the way.
That’s not so bad even
in this case, because that’s a local direct connection as opposed to centralized.
The world works better when people help those closer in the society to them first. That’s also how routing metrics work in computer networks. This might seem gibberish, but I had a less fuzzy explanation, just forgot it.
Ah. Evolution. Connections form dependency both ways. And there’s always evolution in the society. It’s in your interest that racists would mostly connect to other racists, while smarter people to other smarter people, and dumber people to other dumber people, for evolution to work. Except, of course, that should preserve some mobility between these groups so that smarter people born in not so smart environment could change it, again for social evolution.
It’s important, somehow mostly talking about evolution in present time is attributed to fascists, while it can be seen everywhere.
In some sense who you are, who the person giving a loan is, and how that affects getting a loan is a predictive mechanism. It should work or fail for evolution.
Credit scores are a path around that similarly to Soviet planned economy being a path around markets, see how it worked that USSR, rich with resources beyond belief, had mostly poor and even malnourished population.
The world doesn’t work better if people help those closest to them. The majority of the strife in the world exists because people help those close to them and treat others as outsiders. You can look at any system ever used and the point of failure is always someone tipping the scales intentionally to favor those near them.
A bandit kills a traveler, the former is to blame because he initiated the action, the latter is to blame for being unarmed.
Those “tipping the scales intentionally to favor those near them” succeed because others don’t help those closer to them first.
And you can tell worthy endeavor from unworthy one better when it’s someone close to you. Thus more often helping the good things and more rarely helping the bad things.
So no, it does. Those near to you are on the opposite side of the spectrum from states, ideas and -isms. They are also more like you, as opposed to things you don’t know. Your life is just your own life. Unique and only one.
https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP84B00274R000300150009-5.pdf
The document you’ve linked talks about common perceptions and not much else, it’s short.
Anyway, nutrition is not just about amount of calories, one can consume a lot of calories but get scurvy.
BTW, the reason Soviet scurvy stats were not atrocious is that “sea cabbage” older generations remember (and hate, but it was there) being present in stores despite any deficit, and that all salt sold for food was iodised.
So - first, I’m not talking about amount of calories, second, I’ve read American food is notoriously bad nutrition-wise. Comparing USSR to Finland might be a better one.
More than boomers entered the workforce - much of GenX did too
Credit scores are as old as the simpsons!!
It’s not going to get better until we start killing office buildings full of these people.