Social Media and Privacy

[Suddenly_Ass]

Getting a bit heated in here.

 

[galacon]

You have no fucking privacy. Deal with it.

The BEST thing you can do is INUNDATE the web with wildly conflicting information so no one knows who the fuck you REALLY are, or what you REALLY stand for.

Only defense against the all-seeing bots.

 

[r3p1v]

I agree - whether I like it or not. But I'm talking about a 100% complete lack of physical privacy. What I see eventually happening is the continued miniaturization and cheapening of camera's, drones, and eventually nanites until they become surveillance nanites that could be so cheap (and possibly self-reproducing) that they end up literally everywhere.

I can easily imagine at some point in the future anyone could see anyone or anything in the world at any time they want without the permission of the viewed. It will be impossible to stop. It's basically omnipresence.

There are quite a few different techs that will be coming out in the next few hundred years that will change what it means to be human. It will completely change society and our interactions. Omnipresence for all might mean a complete end of all wars.

This reminds me of Minority Report and the little robots that go around scanning people's eyeballs and a black market where you can change out your eyes and chasing eyeballs down a hallway O_O

What is interesting now is that people are having conversations on social networks that used to take place in private. Companies and the government are using social listening software to search for what people are saying about them. That's an amazing tool that wasn't available a few years ago.

But having your real name attached to something that is so easily searchable and in a place where you have mostly private conversations opens up a can of worms. This is exactly why I don't like attaching your name to your account. It forces you to re-think posting everything. I mean why post anything at all when an employer, insurance company, or bank is going to take a look a it or the police could use it as evidence against you for a crime.

But it seems very very few people actually realize this or care. I think I read that Youtube switched to using real names to try and cut down on the stupid comments people were making, but it had almost no effect.

 

[guerilla]

guerilla, I agree with most of what you said in your last response to my posts.

God bless you.

I understand that market forces and competition fix a LOT of things. But you seem to believe that the market is perfect and can solve all problems.

Not exactly. The market is the only rational way to solve these problems. Rational = means congruent with ends.

Both the government and markets are operated by humans. Humans are not perfect and often make mistakes. They often do things that don't make sense, are irrational, and not in their best interest. There are tons of companies that are very poorly run, abusive, or fraudulent.

In a free market, they bear the consequences of their errors. The free market doesn't reward irrational behavior.

The only way a company can be abusive or fraudulent is if they are protected by the law/state (see most recent banking crisis, zero prosecutions).

These {bad/inefficient} {companies/people/sectors/divisions within a company} can stay that way for years, decades, lifetimes, or indefinitely because nobody within the company cares, nobody notices, it doesn't have an effect on profits, or it doesn't have a significant enough effect on profits.

Well, we don't have perfectly free markets, but you're welcome to provide examples (although I hate going this route of whose information gathering skills are better) and I might be able to show examples of firms getting help in staying "successful" while operating anti-socially.

See, what you're trying to rationalize (I think) is government intervention. But as I said before, the market is voluntary, the state uses force. So what you're saying is that we should use force (or the threat of force) and bypass the market (voluntary relationships) and the price system to enforce outcomes.

Sort of like awarding the Vince Lombardi trophy before the Superbowl kick off.

Socialism (not used as a pejorative here) attempts to bypass the pricing system. But the pricing system is the only rational way (means congruent with ends) way of making economic decisions. When we use the state to impose limitations on voluntary interactions, that's socialism. The result, which seems good (helps consumers) comes with costs and inefficiencies that the firms will pass right back onto customers.

The only people who can determine the right amount of privacy relative to pricing, is people actually transacting in the market. Not politicians, not you and I on the internet, not civil rights groups.

Not.Sure.If.Serious.jpg

Totally serious.

 

[g1c9]

To see this development in a positive light is to ignore the fact that extension of credit is not - as conventional wisdom would have you believe - solely about your ability to pay. Rather in the best of cases it is based on a balance between potential profits on interest as well as minimizing the risk of default. But If we have learned anything in the last 6 years it is that lenders have increasingly shifted the balance towards profits over the elimination of risk. The proof is in lenders actions. Creditors now consider late fees in their profit models. Mortgage companies made millions of loans to people who were not worthy of a carrying a loan based on their credit and there income. The risks were shifted to other sectors of the economy or to the public sector. In many cases the risks were simply ignored, for short profit gain with little regard for the sustainability of the companies themselves.

Do people really have a hard time getting credit in the U.S.? They may have a hard time getting good terms, but predatory lending is still the norm. The article mentions college students. This is a perfect example. This is a demographic group who's members are often unemployed or working low paying jobs, have little or no established credit history, and a high statistical risk of default. Yet your typical college student is inundated with offers for credit. High interest credit, but credit nonetheless.
Although, a personal anecdote does not constitute a trend, I will still offer a little personal experience anyway. I'm a big fan of same as cash deals. The ones where if you pay the balance off within some time period, you pay zero interest. However, I have never failed to pay off the balance prior to the interest coming due. In essence I have used them a free personal loans. I keep the money in my bank earning interest, the store gives me the product and loses out on the benefit of having all the money for the product they sold me and earning the interest themselves. Of course they offer these plans because statistically most people will fail to pay off the balance in time and end of paying the interest. Despite the fact that I have kept excellent credit and have always held a good stable job throughout my adult life, I have been turned down a number of times for these kinds of deals. If credit worthiness or income were the issue, I would have no trouble getting the loan. This is despite the fact that I have had no trouble getting preferred financing on secured and unsecured loans from credit unions and banks in the past. On several occasions I actually called to contest the card or loan being turned down. In each case I was told the same thing. My credit history indicated an established history of paying off loans on time or early, as if that was a negative thing! I was told that It would not be profitable for the company/store to extend me a same as cash deal. This completely flies in the face of conventional wisdom, but does illustrated the reality that the extension of credit is a more complex process then it seems. It makes business sense too if you understand their motivations. Why would a store want to extend a deal to whose purpose is to trap the consumer into paying a high interest payment on some item, when that person has a history of not falling into the trap? They also assume that if I don't get the same as cash loan I will simply pay for the item. Its a risk they take because the real profit is not in selling me an item, but in selling me the credit to buy the item. This is basis for our finacialized economic system. The U.S.'s chief product today is consumer debt, not consumer goods.

This data will not be used to make loans to people that otherwise have little established credit history. They already give these people loans. Rather it will be used to more accurately predict which customers will be most profitable. These high profit individuals are those who carry high balances on multiple revolving accounts, and pay late. The exact opposite of people with good credit. Creditors in collusion with the government have already made it difficult to default and are continuing to do so, so traditional credit worthiness is in essence becoming less important. The future (actually the present too) is permanently indebted customers who pay interest (rents) to creditors indefinitely. This technology will be used to better identify those potential members of new indentured class.

FICA = Federal Insurance Contributions Act (aka) payroll tax.
I know you were referring to FICO, although I disagree with your points. FICO score is a quantitative representation of an intangible. In this case it is the likeliness of an individual to pay back a loan. It is, as you allude to, based on more than repayment history alone and includes things like amount of credit, high balances, etc. These are all things that are found to statistically correlate to a higher likelyhood that you will default on your debt. The score does not represent whether or not you will be a good customer. A good customer is sort of an amorphous concept. Yes, it may include how likely you are to pay your debts, but it includes the other things you discuss like how likely you are to add to the profitability of a business. It also may represent how much assistance you require from staff, are you difficult, are you loyal, etc. The problem with "customer-worthiness" and the reason we have quantitative measures like FICO is peoples definition of "customer-worthiness" can be extremely biased. Race and gender, for example have historically been used as a factor in judging "customer-worthiness" and still is in many cases; just not openly. Unfortunately people receive a different quality of customer service based on appearance and socioeconomic background all the time. One intended benefit of numerical scoring like FICO is that it is based on standard metrics that are supposed to be divorced from bias. FICO is a metric used across the industry in and of itself. This is superior to having to rely solely on the good or bad will of some loan officer. The good old day of a gentleman handshake sealing the deal were mostly good days so long as you were a white male. Of course lenders are not forced into using solely FICO scores or FICO scores at all. And you are right in that they, and credit reports in general, have begun to define people. I think that this is an awful trend. Its one of the many aspects of modern life the makes me want to move to the wildness and live like Grizzly Adams. I don't want to be defined by a number. Not my my FICO score, and not by Klout score either. FICO ignores circumstances, bad luck, or identity fraud (although its effects can be contested). It is far too inelastic as well. A college kid living off of ramen noodles may have a completely completely different real credit-worthiness when they graduate and get a good paying job (assuming they can). It will take a while however for their score to catch up. Divorced women who have not worked outside the home ever, or in many years are in an even worse situation. Just checking if anybody actually reads this shit which I copied from two comments on the site. They may have a good job, but zero credit history. Their score is not necessarily an accurate reflection of their default risk. These situations perhaps are where it is a good thing if a loan officer has some flexibility. Its not a black and white issue. FICO scores are good and bad.

However all of this misses the point of my original post. I think the evidence has shown - and I'm talking about the national state of affairs, not solely my personal anecdote - that in the eyes of today's lenders, bad credit and a higher likely hood to pay higher rates and rack up penalties and late fees are actually desirable qualities from a profit standpoint. Higher risk customers represent higher profits. It doesn't matter if this creates systemic risk because: A. lenders are working to make default harder or impossible, and B. because the government has shown a willingness to turn a blind eye and bail these industries out when the systemic risk turns to systemic collapse. I submit that the technology discussed in the article will not simply be used to provide an under-served population an alternative metric for determining credit worthiness. Lets get real. This technology will be used the same way all aggregated personal data is used. That is, it will be used to target customers in any way that maximizes profit for those industries, with little regard for the negative externalities it creates.

I dunno tho.

 

[r3p1v]

See, what you're trying to rationalize (I think) is government intervention. But as I said before, the market is voluntary, the state uses force. So what you're saying is that we should use force (or the threat of force) and bypass the market (voluntary relationships) and the price system to enforce outcomes.

Yes, this is where we disagree. Since the markets are not perfect and can become abusive and fraudulent, the government needs to occasionally step in and fix some things. Yes it messes with prices, but it is usually worth it.

The only way a company can be abusive or fraudulent is if they are protected by the law/state (see most recent banking crisis, zero prosecutions).

What. What about Enron or Madoff? Not everybody obeys the laws. Companies can straight up just fabricate their earnings and be rewarded for it.

 

[REIMktg]

What the hell, I'll give it a shot....

To see this development in a positive light is to ignore the fact that extension of credit is not - as conventional wisdom would have you believe - solely about your ability to pay. Rather in the best of cases it is based on a balance between potential profits on interest as well as minimizing the risk of default.

Lenders base decisions on the three "C"'s. Credit, Capacity, Collateral and then price accordingly... with you so far.

But If we have learned anything in the last 6 years it is that lenders have increasingly shifted the balance towards profits over the elimination of risk. The proof is in lenders actions. Creditors now consider late fees in their profit models.

Once again, lenders price the product/loan based on the risk. They expanded reach by making a higher reward for taking more risk. That's life. Before Dodd-Frank made it illegal you could get a free checking account at many banks because they were feasting on overdraft fees. Every branch could take in $100K/mo just on those. Once again risky accounts brought greater rewards and at the same time gave those who could handle an account a free option. Win-Win.

Mortgage companies made millions of loans to people who were not worthy of a carrying a loan based on their credit and there income. The risks were shifted to other sectors of the economy or to the public sector. In many cases the risks were simply ignored, for short profit gain with little regard for the sustainability of the companies themselves.

The banks made these loans because risk was shifted, not because they were planning to go out of business.

Do people really have a hard time getting credit in the U.S.? They may have a hard time getting good terms, but predatory lending is still the norm.

"Predatory Lending"? I call BS on that term. 99% of people knew what they were doing. And many knew they were lying about income and assets.

The article mentions college students. This is a perfect example. This is a demographic group who's members are often unemployed or working low paying jobs, have little or no established credit history, and a high statistical risk of default. Yet your typical college student is inundated with offers for credit. High interest credit, but credit nonetheless.

Because these companies want to make a customer of these students early on due to lifetime brand loyalty. It's marketing. Most students know how to handle credit.

Although, a personal anecdote does not constitute a trend, I will still offer a little personal experience anyway. I'm a big fan of same as cash deals. The ones where if you pay the balance off within some time period, you pay zero interest. However, I have never failed to pay off the balance prior to the interest coming due. In essence I have used them a free personal loans. I keep the money in my bank earning interest, the store gives me the product and loses out on the benefit of having all the money for the product they sold me and earning the interest themselves. Of course they offer these plans because statistically most people will fail to pay off the balance in time and end of paying the interest. Despite the fact that I have kept excellent credit and have always held a good stable job throughout my adult life, I have been turned down a number of times for these kinds of deals. If credit worthiness or income were the issue, I would have no trouble getting the loan. This is despite the fact that I have had no trouble getting preferred financing on secured and unsecured loans from credit unions and banks in the past. On several occasions I actually called to contest the card or loan being turned down. In each case I was told the same thing. My credit history indicated an established history of paying off loans on time or early, as if that was a negative thing! I was told that It would not be profitable for the company/store to extend me a same as cash deal. This completely flies in the face of conventional wisdom, but does illustrated the reality that the extension of credit is a more complex process then it seems. It makes business sense too if you understand their motivations. Why would a store want to extend a deal to whose purpose is to trap the consumer into paying a high interest payment on some item, when that person has a history of not falling into the trap? They also assume that if I don't get the same as cash loan I will simply pay for the item. Its a risk they take because the real profit is not in selling me an item, but in selling me the credit to buy the item. This is basis for our finacialized economic system. The U.S.'s chief product today is consumer debt, not consumer goods.

That's not typically the reason. Most of these plans are carried by outside Finance agencies, not the store itself, even if the credit is white labeled as the store name. the Finance Co pays the store immed and then takes the risk.
Though I know of one Funriture chain that has a same as cash deal with a down payment, the down actually covers all expense related to the item and the rest is gravy, and the down is like 25%. So it's worth the risk of profit.

This data will not be used to make loans to people that otherwise have little established credit history. They already give these people loans. Rather it will be used to more accurately predict which customers will be most profitable. These high profit individuals are those who carry high balances on multiple revolving accounts, and pay late. The exact opposite of people with good credit.

The majority of companies make most of there money with customers that pay. The high rates and late fees, while they do make for profits, typically pale in comparison to the cash cow profits on performing loans. Non-performers burden the infrastructure, calling all of the time, requiring legal responses, etc. This is why there are niche companies that are willing to deal with the more risky clients. You have to charge a lot of late fees to make up for the $10K BK zero recovery. Plus non-performers typically do not get to the high balances of others, typically, and they typically charge up the card one time denying the card company its transaction fee profits.

Creditors in collusion with the government have already made it difficult to default and are continuing to do so, so traditional credit worthiness is in essence becoming less important. The future (actually the present too) is permanently indebted customers who pay interest (rents) to creditors indefinitely. This technology will be used to better identify those potential members of new indentured class.

Agree to a point. I do believe that the tide is moving toward fewer lenders, mostly TBTF banks, and in making the masses a debtor class.

...FICO score is a quantitative representation of an intangible.... It also may represent how much assistance you require from staff, are you difficult, are you loyal, etc. The problem with "customer-worthiness" and the reason we have quantitative measures like FICO is peoples definition of "customer-worthiness" can be extremely biased. Race and gender, for example have historically been used as a factor in judging "customer-worthiness" and still is in many cases; just not openly. ...FICO scores are good and bad.

True. FICO has nothing to do with the person. I know several people with incredible FICO's that will will screw you over in business any chance they can get, but if you lend them money and report to credit, you will get paid, if they do not sue you and take away your right of collection.

... in the eyes of today's lenders, bad credit and a higher likely hood to pay higher rates and rack up penalties and late fees are actually desirable qualities from a profit standpoint. Higher risk customers represent higher profits.

Creates opportunity for niche lenders and niche products expanding the availability of properly priced credit.

I submit that the technology discussed in the article will not simply be used to provide an under-served population an alternative metric for determining credit worthiness. Lets get real. This technology will be used the same way all aggregated personal data is used. That is, it will be used to target customers in any way that maximizes profit for those industries, with little regard for the negative externalities it creates.

Both of the above are the same thing. Companies maximize profits, that's why they exist.

If you do not want your social life shared or used then stop putting all of your information up for the world to see on free social networks.

 

[r3p1v]

Lol, Zsaleem copied all that from comments on the article

Just checking if anybody actually reads this shit which I copied from two comments on the site.

 

[schockergd]

My brother and I have been talking about this type of stuff for 3 years.

Granted i've got ideas far beyond what they're mentioning. Social is going to be even bigger in the future than it is today.

 

[schockergd]

Yes, this is where we disagree. Since the markets are not perfect and can become abusive and fraudulent, the government needs to occasionally step in and fix some things. Yes it messes with prices, but it is usually worth it.



What. What about Enron or Madoff? Not everybody obeys the laws. Companies can straight up just fabricate their earnings and be rewarded for it.

Government intervention is RARELY worth it. In most cases the result is a much worse state of affairs when they intervene.

 

[r3p1v]

The Future According To Google's Eric Schmidt: 7 Points - Corporate Intelligence - WSJ

Anonymity: “Some governments will consider it too risky to have thousands of anonymous, untraceable and unverified citizens — “hidden people”; they’ll want to know who is associated with each online account, and will require verification at a state level, in order to exert control over the virtual world

Search engines: “Within search results, information tied to verified online profiles will be ranked higher than content without such verification, which will result in most users naturally clicking on the top (verified) results. The true cost of remaining anonymous, then, might be irrelevance.”

 

[guerilla]

Yes, this is where we disagree. Since the markets are not perfect and can become abusive and fraudulent.

How can markets become abusive and fraudulent, if by definition, markets are voluntary?

Markets are perfect. The classic "market failure" concept is a nonsense I have debated many people over. It's based upon a flawed conception of value that is actually inconsistent with modern economic understanding.

Again, I am not some market fanatic, as much as I am a fanatic for rational, voluntary social interaction. Which I think is reasonable, because the opposite of that is irrational, coerced social interaction.

the government needs to occasionally step in and fix some things.

This is a non sequitur. It's like me saying, because it rains, the government has to do something about it. Or because I didn't like the dinner you ate, therefore REGULATION.

It's also based on the premise that government action is benign, or beneficial. It also ignores the cost of government intervention.

Yes it messes with prices, but it is usually worth it.

You can't determine that for everyone. No one person, or committee can. You're unintentionally making an argument for a centrally planned economy.

The entire reason we have markets, is because the only rational way to determine prices, cost and value, is through voluntary exchange. As soon as we fiddle with that, we wreck the ability of prices to "work" (convey information to other market actors and coordinate production of goods and services).

It's completely ad hoc for you, or one side in an exchange, to impose limitations on the other for "their benefit".

In any exchange, both parties are both buyers and sellers.

The "consumer" is selling dollars and buying goods/services, and the "vendor" is selling goods/services and buying dollars. It's so completely unethical to tip the balance towards "consumers" even if that is where most of the political power is.

I want to ask you something. If that social information can lower costs for some people, by helping firms determine who is prudent and who is not, is it fair for you to protect the risky people with law, at the expense of people who deserve lower rates?

Aren't you punishing the winners to reward the losers?

What. What about Enron or Madoff? Not everybody obeys the laws. Companies can straight up just fabricate their earnings and be rewarded for it.

What happened to Enron? What happened to Madoff?

Btw, people warned the government about Madoff and Enron for years, but were ignored. You can't count on government regulators, because there is a revolving door and a culture of payoffs.

I mean, the finance industry, outside of the nuclear power industry, is the most regulated industry in America, and it is the source of perpetual mischief. Maybe there is a lesson in that.

Probably not though. Most people LOVE fucking for virginity.

The Future According To Google's Eric Schmidt: 7 Points - Corporate Intelligence - WSJ

First, Eric Schmidt is an idiot.

Second, Google has failed at social. I mean, this is a company that doesn't get social, and yet we're worried about their social predictions?

Third, I don't think anyone is worried about that future. We're all burned out about being worried about terrorists, economic collapse, drones, GMO Corn, Flouridation, Obamunism, Syria, Honey BooBoo, the Superbowl, and whether Hillary is going to run for Fuhrer in 2016.

 

[sixthcutuan]

Don't bother man. Any mention of government gets you shot down in this forum.

Just watch, listen and learn all about them. We will overthrow these fascists for the good of the people!

Love, the WF Resident Socialist.

 

[r3p1v]

How can markets become abusive and fraudulent, if by definition, markets are voluntary?

Most relationships are voluntary, what does that have to do with fraud and abuse? Clearly fraud can exist with or without the government. Your statement "The only way a company can be abusive or fraudulent is if they are protected by the law/state" makes no sense to me.

Markets are perfect.

How can the market be perfect when it is made up of decisions made by imperfect humans?

I would say they are useful, but not perfect. And when they become messed up why not intervene and fix them. And we are just going to keep debating in a circle around this....

I want to ask you something. If that social information can lower costs for some people, by helping firms determine who is prudent and who is not, is it fair for you to protect the risky people with law, at the expense of people who deserve lower rates?

Aren't you punishing the winners to reward the losers?

Idk, I just hope that it doesn't become a widespread requirement because I don't think I'm willing to have my privacy violated in that way to get insurance or other financial products. Like I said earlier, it would just lead to many people, including me creating well managed social accounts.

It's hard to see how the data will be used and therefore hard to determine if the government should stop it. If every single company ends up requiring it for everybody, that is pretty messed up. Normal people wouldn't be able to get a job, car loan, credit card, etc without it.

 

[guerilla]

Just watch, listen and learn all about them. We will overthrow these fascists for the good of the people!/QUOTE]
Fascism is a form of socialism.

Most relationships are voluntary, what does that have to do with fraud and abuse?

Fraud and abuse are not market relationships. They are anti-market behavior.

I have a limited number of posts I can make right now, and you don't understand economics at all. You'd probably really benefit from an Econ 101 course to get some grounding in the basic ideas and terminology.

Alternately, if you have Skype, PM me and we can chat there.

Your statement "The only way a company can be abusive or fraudulent is if they are protected by the law/state" makes no sense to me.

How did Eron get by the regulators? Why did the SEC ignore all of the complaints made against Madoff for years? Why has no one been prosecuted on Wall Street for the financial collapse that was triggered by the investment banks?

Again, finance is the most regulated part of the commercial sector. And yet, here you are worrying about fraud. Why is that? I suspect, because the regulation doesn't work, and I can tell you that empirically and logically, doubling down on regulation won't work any better.

How can the market be perfect when it is made up of decisions made by imperfect humans?

I've tried to explain terms to you, but I suspect you still don't understand what I mean when I talk about markets.

The only way to get proper (ethical, just, rational) prices, is through voluntary exchange. This is an undisputed fact in the field of economics, across many schools.

That's why the market is perfect. It is the only mechanism we're aware of that can do this.

I would say they are useful, but not perfect. And when they become messed up why not intervene and fix them. And we are just going to keep debating in a circle around this....

We're going in circles because you don't understand that interventions cannot rationally fix the market. All they will do is distort further and increase prices.

I have demonstrated this, I have laid out the logical chain for it. And you've avoided addressing that so far. Again, I have a limited number of posts I am willing to make, and I don't want to make the discussion personal, but the fact that you refuse to confront what I think are very strong and well reasoned arguments is what makes this discussion circular.

Idk

Why don't you know? Don't you think there is a moral responsibility for you to know before you endorse intervening in the economic and social affairs of millions of people?

I don't think I'm willing to have my privacy violated in that way to get insurance or other financial products. Like I said earlier, it would just lead to many people, including me creating well managed social accounts.

Your privacy isn't being violated. It's information you make public. When you go through the airport, and TSA porno scans you, that's a violation of privacy.

Also, people will manage their social affairs more intelligently. Is that a bad thing? I thought your argument is that people aren't smart enough to do that. I argue, they will when there are consequences to being a douchebag on the internet, just like there are already social consequences for being a douchebag offline.

It seems to me, you want to have your cake and eat it too. I mean, if you don't want people to invade your "privacy" pay higher prices, because assuming this information is useful for risk profiling purposes, you're going to pay more anyway if firms are not allowed to use it (and as I indicated, they are going to use it, law or no law).

You're not entitled to jobs, student loans, or cheap loans. There is someone on the other side of the provision of those services, and as long as you maintain you have some right to access, then you're basically forcing them with threats of violence to give you something they would not give you voluntarily. That to me is immoral.

And economics will show you why that is also irrational (won't actually serve your ends).

It's all irrelevant anyway, because when the US financial system inevitably cracks up next year, in 5 years, in 20 years, no one will be able to get credit because there won't be any.

It's hard to see how the data will be used and therefore hard to determine if the government should stop it.

The original rationale for government was to protect individual liberty. Not to make sure you can get cheap car insurance.

If every single company ends up requiring it for everybody, that is pretty messed up. Normal people wouldn't be able to get a job, car loan, credit card, etc without it.

They aren't going to be able to get loans soon anyway. This entire credit system is headed for collapse.

But that aside, how is better risk profiling for people in the risk business "messed up"? Again, do you do no optimization? Do you not incorporate new data points in your work?

You're making a luddite argument that the social good lies in being ignorant, rather than being informed. And if that conflicts with your view of government, good, because your view of government could also use a re-examination IMO.

Watch this between 18:52 and minute 42:00 if you want to understand regulation in the US.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpP-4ZhvTdE]Rick Rule - Paradigms of a Winner (Capitalism & Morality Seminar 2012) - YouTube[/ame]


I don't think I will post again to this thread so PM (or Skype) me if there is something you want to discuss further.

 

[microphone head]

Firstly - apologies because I haven't read the full thread but if it's another "social network x that I enter all my life-long personal data into, somehow knows what colour my farts are"* type thing - I have to say:

1. Why did you enter that shit in the first place?
2. Use those Algos to your fucking advantage~*- otherwise gtfo this forum surely?


*brown - rest assured.
~* more on this when I have a post count to celebrate.