I recently read a book that critiques “big corporatocracies destroying the little people”. However, I’m left wondering if “big government to control them” is any better.
Mortgage defaults these days are horendous. Everybody over-bought what they should have. But defaulting wrecks your credit rating, keeping many people in their homes, lowering their standard of living while honoring the debt they incurred. USA Today newspaper released an article today titled “Mortgage defaulters may not be bad risks,” based on a TransUnion study (or local copy), which basically provided an excuse for defaulting on !only! your home loan. If you pay off others, then you won’t be hurt that bad credit-wise.
That seems unfair to those who do responsibly accept the burden of paying off a loan more than their house value. But times change. As the bulk of people grapple with an issue, mores of society shift to accommodate it.
Conclusion: live like everybody else. Don’t have stringent reasons for being outliers of the gaussian distribution. Are you too “liberal”, wanting to overthrow a government? You’ll be taken down as a terrorist. Are you too “conservative” and standing on timeless values? You’ll be taken down as a fundamentalist nut.
Our society doesn’t handle large dynamic range very well. The rules change and adapt to the norm.
The Summer 2011 TED Conference opened with some interesting speakers. http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/07/12/rossy.ted.global/index.html?hpt=hp_c2
Epidemiologist Richard Wilkinson presented a raft of data showing how social ills — including homicide, mental illness and limited social mobility — are much higher in countries with stark levels of income inequality. “If Americans want to live the American dream,” Wilkinson said, “they should move to Denmark.”
Our society doesn’t handle dynamic range very well. This could explain a lot of conflict in the world these days. Pushing everybody into the norm (minimizing standard deviation) is seen as a good thing.