What are some characteristics of - what defines - what does it take, to be a good person? A hypothetical good person would be courteous - not to satisfy a rule, but out of a genuine desire to show respect for others. She would, as much as is humanly possible, make decisions based on conscience not for personal gain. What makes him so good? Was she born this way? I propose that he was not.
Being a good person is really not what anyone is, but rather what one may become. Nobody starts out as a good person. This is physically impossible. Human beings, even the most precocious of us, do not show signs of a developed conscience usually until late adolescence - and conscience is what makes good people good. It is not that all young humans are bad people; it is just that the frontal lobes of the brain do not really develop until mid to late adolescence and it is known that this portion of the brain is the seat of conscience. If this is true, no one will have a well-developed conscience until approaching or having arrived at adulthood. Many children and adolescents may exhibit behaviors that make them appear to act with conscience, but "good" children are not making these choices altruistically but for personal gain, to "fit in" or for the basic human need for order.
It seems obvious that most people develop a degree of conscience, but way too many develop little or none. Of the latter group, those of lower intelligence fill our prisons while those of higher are our governments.
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Thursday, January 1, 2009
Credit History
Hi Folks,
This is my first visit to blogdom. The title of this first blog might make one think that I will be laying out ways to improve, change or protect one's credit history. That is not it at all. Instead I would like to discuss the history and the nature of credit.
Credit has been around for at least three thousand years, when it was purportedly invented by the Babylonians. For most of those three millenia, the rules of credit -- borrowing and lending, were based on the principle that if you were the borrower, you had to show some form of capital to the lender or show good proof of your ability to pay the money, goats or chickens, etc, back.
However, staring circa 1950 with the original few hundred Diner Cards (the first credit cards) that were handed out to select customers, the use of credit grew and changed. It grew gradually at first, but by the Reagan 80's, the concept of credit was transformed into the house of cards that is collapsing as I type.
Being born in the late 1940's, I remember well that when my parents wanted to buy something, say a washer & dryer, they had two options opened to them. They could save the money and buy it, or they could put it on layaway until they had saved the money to buy it. If they went to the bank to take out a loan for a mortgage, they had to show actual capitol if they even dreamed of getting the loan. And, the main reason any family bought a home was . . . well, for a place to live, not as an investment.
Starting in the 1980's and up until the whole system started to fall apart a few months ago, the rules for obtaining credit have been increasingly based on what an individual PLANS to have in the future to pay the loan back and with each successive year, this allowable future payback time got pushed further into the future. What has happened is that what once was a capitalist system, simply no longer is one. I have coined a better term I think: "Airism."
Now I am not a Harvard or any other Ivy (or non-Ivy League college) trained economist. In fact I am not an economist at all, but teach People who are blind or visually impaired to travel with canes. So why did I know more than Allen Greenspan or any of the rest on the subject, when I predicted frequently over two years ago what has happened would happen and that it would happen now? It really seemed to be absolutely obvious to me after about the 20th letter I received from one lending institution or another --not unknown fly-by-night companies, but supposedly solid major financial institutions -- offering to loan me money at low rates and displayed to me in bold print that I needed ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF THAT I HAVE THE ABILITY TO PAY IT BACK. It didn't even matter whether I was employed or had defaulted on loans previously.
I think credit qualifications should move back to the earlier model. I am not against people living the American dream and having a home. I think that maybe it would be a good idea if people tried renting for awhile and saving for as long as it takes to have saved ten or fifteen percent of the value of the home they want to purchase, that is when they should even be considered for a loan.
This is my first visit to blogdom. The title of this first blog might make one think that I will be laying out ways to improve, change or protect one's credit history. That is not it at all. Instead I would like to discuss the history and the nature of credit.
Credit has been around for at least three thousand years, when it was purportedly invented by the Babylonians. For most of those three millenia, the rules of credit -- borrowing and lending, were based on the principle that if you were the borrower, you had to show some form of capital to the lender or show good proof of your ability to pay the money, goats or chickens, etc, back.
However, staring circa 1950 with the original few hundred Diner Cards (the first credit cards) that were handed out to select customers, the use of credit grew and changed. It grew gradually at first, but by the Reagan 80's, the concept of credit was transformed into the house of cards that is collapsing as I type.
Being born in the late 1940's, I remember well that when my parents wanted to buy something, say a washer & dryer, they had two options opened to them. They could save the money and buy it, or they could put it on layaway until they had saved the money to buy it. If they went to the bank to take out a loan for a mortgage, they had to show actual capitol if they even dreamed of getting the loan. And, the main reason any family bought a home was . . . well, for a place to live, not as an investment.
Starting in the 1980's and up until the whole system started to fall apart a few months ago, the rules for obtaining credit have been increasingly based on what an individual PLANS to have in the future to pay the loan back and with each successive year, this allowable future payback time got pushed further into the future. What has happened is that what once was a capitalist system, simply no longer is one. I have coined a better term I think: "Airism."
Now I am not a Harvard or any other Ivy (or non-Ivy League college) trained economist. In fact I am not an economist at all, but teach People who are blind or visually impaired to travel with canes. So why did I know more than Allen Greenspan or any of the rest on the subject, when I predicted frequently over two years ago what has happened would happen and that it would happen now? It really seemed to be absolutely obvious to me after about the 20th letter I received from one lending institution or another --not unknown fly-by-night companies, but supposedly solid major financial institutions -- offering to loan me money at low rates and displayed to me in bold print that I needed ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF THAT I HAVE THE ABILITY TO PAY IT BACK. It didn't even matter whether I was employed or had defaulted on loans previously.
I think credit qualifications should move back to the earlier model. I am not against people living the American dream and having a home. I think that maybe it would be a good idea if people tried renting for awhile and saving for as long as it takes to have saved ten or fifteen percent of the value of the home they want to purchase, that is when they should even be considered for a loan.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)