learning

Brain on fire.

There’s the things you know, and then there’s the things you know. You can take something for granted, assuming you know the processes at play, but then there comes that eureka! moment when some knowledge really sticks itself inside your mind. This is a little tale about one of those moments.

Credit: good, bad, or none at all; somewhere along the line a big collective dupe has been played, and many folks have just started accepting the inevitability of having a credit score. And even those, such as myself, who have been generally apathetic or dismissive of such a thing, have been led to the broad assumption. that a credit score is a measure of how much risk a lender would expose themselves to by lending you money.

This last assumption is incorrect. In fact, it’s almost dangerously misleading. Here’s how I came to properly know this:

I recently applied for a credit card. To be clear, this is so that I can rent a car during an upcoming trip; I have never had or wanted a credit card. To be completely honest, my past experiences with other forms of credit have been, um… dismaying. Still, I have a need, so I filled out the forms. Minuted later, here in this lifetime, in this country, at my local bank, I discovered that I have absolutely no credit score at all. The ensuing conversation with my banker provided me with my first big clue.

I have now applied for a “secured card”. This device will enable me to borrow against my own money at 30%. What? Yes, it’s like you give me your own piggy-bank, and I lend you money out of it, while paying myself 30 cents for every dollar you “borrow”. Of course, I have zero desire to use this card, except to slap it on the counter at the rental agency. But just for educational purposes, I asked my friendly banker, “If I use the card, and promptly pay it off, will this create a positive credit score?”

She quickly and decisively answered, “No.” This was my second big clue. Apparently, credit agencies do not award positive scores for safe, prompt, reliable re-payment. While they do penalize for long-term delinquency, what they really “reward” you for is carrying a balance and making the maximum interest payment possible.

This is when it really hit me: a credit score is not a rating of my “safety” as a borrower, or my ability to repay/service a debt. A credit score is a rating of the potential profitability I present to a creditor. Those who are able to borrow and reliably repay large sums may well score lower than those who rack -up their cards to the maximum, never repay the balance, and yet continue to pay the interest.

Another way to look at it: Think of your money as a company, and the credit-card company as an investor. When you carry a balance, it is as if the creditor now owns shares in your company. The interest you pay is like a dividend the company is paying out to an investor. When you pay off your balance, it’s just like an investor selling out their shares in a potentially profitable company. When you carry a large balance and make the required interest payments, it’s like the investor owns a large stake of an excellent dividend-yielding stock. No investor would want to be arbitrarily sold-out of a lucrative dividend-yielding position. So it follows that no credit-card company would actually want to be re-paid any outstanding balance so long as the interest payments keep rolling in. It is the creation and maintenance of precisely this situation that is most highly-”rewarded” with the best credit score.

I used to think that a credit score was a pretty benign thing. If I needed credit, fine, and if I didn’t, it could be ignored. Now I see that a credit score is really less an indicator of my financial fitness, and actually a dehumanizing measure of my value as a commodity.

Yes. I have. Sorta. All 2.27 of my regular readers will have already noticed that my previously-unsullied blog now contains advertising. Damn my eyes.

“What gives?”, you might ask? Okay, so here come my lame-ass excuses: I’ve recently started doing a little freelance web-design, mainly in the form of social media marketing consultation. As part of this increasing work, I’m digging just that little bit deeper into a few of those aspects of the web that I had previously been only aware of, not fully knowledgeable in.

This here blog has always been the place where I test out new ideas, new WordPress versions, theme variations, widgets, etc., before putting them into my other “real websites”. My usual WP theme, Tarski, looks visually plain, but actually offers a heap of back-end behind-the-scenes code customization, which I am usually fucking around with one way or the other.

For advertising, I’m playing with Google AdSense. For those of you not “in the know”, it works something like this: you put some pre-generated ad-unit code into your markup, then Google “crawls” the website to try and figure out what it’s about, who is reading it, and then displays targeted ads that are supposed to match up.
Sometimes this is uncannily accurate; the ads seem perfectly matched to the content and readership. Sometimes this is uncannily bizarre; the ads seem to have no connection to the site, the readers, to reason, to sanity, to good taste, or to any known law of the known universe. In either case, the ads are constantly shifting and changing, so you never really know what you’re going to get.
Ultimately, Google pays the website owner based on how many ads are shown, and/or how many ads actually get clicked… eventually. At this point, for me at least, it’s been an interesting experiment in patience.

One particular post on this site gets 40-60 visitors every single day (I know, right?), so I figured, “What the fuck, why not?” It’s not a massive amount of traffic, but maybe the ads will buy me a coffee or two someday.

In the meantime, please lemme what you think about these ads. Too annoying? Too weird? Too sell-out? I’ll see how it goes; deletion is just one click away.

starting from zero

I went to a job interview yesterday. This is still a fairly novel experience for me; I don’t suppose I’ve been to more than a half-dozen of these in my life. I applied for the job because my savings are getting low, and because I was curious; curious about the “real job” market, curious about what “they” pay, and curious about how I really felt about working for anyone else besides myself.
The interview went fine; I’m on the short-list, and expecting a call-back. I think it’s unlikely that I’ll take the job if its offered to me. Partly it’s because the job offers too many hours for too little pay. Partly it’s because of the reaction of the interviewers (considering me to be clearly over-qualified). Partly it’s because, if I turn this down, I’ll be starting over from zero once again.
There’s something delightful and liberating about having nothing. Being at zero makes it hard to hide from yourself. It’s a position in life that emphasizes possibility and potential over security and complacency. Sometimes nothing is the only thing that really lights a fire under my ass. I went to the Caribbean with nothing, and it worked out okay. I came back to the States with nothing, and it worked out well. I came to this town a little over a year ago with two bags and the clothes on my back, and now I’m marketable and equipped.
I don’t have payments to make, a mortgage to pay, kids to support, or any other expensive habits. My rent is very reasonable, my car is cheap, and I enjoy the support of a great partner, community, and adopted extended family. Generally, I work at the work I want to do, and work the hours I want to work. No, it’s not steady, but there’s nothing else in my life that requires that steady, reliable (low) paycheque.
So I’m staying at zero. I have skill, ability, and knowledge to market. I do not need to take whatever is available to me; I will create what others wish was available to them.
Perhaps I’ll be really truly broke in another month. There’s always the chance that I’ll lose everything. Again. I’m ready, I’ve been there before.
I know I’ll land on my feet no matter what.

browsing

As much as I enjoy and use Google services, I’ve found myself engaged in a gentle resistance against all Google, all the time. So it was with just a little quiet sigh of resignation that I installed Google’s new Chrome web-browser on my machine.

I’ve been using Firefox user since 3.0. I flirted with Opera for awhile, back in my Windoze days, but got hooked by the speed gains of Firefox 3.5, as well as the great add-on collection and support. IE finally has picked up a few of the features of both these other browsers, but now that I’ve become a Linuxophile, all closed-source Microsoft crap has been banned from my pc.
But on to Chrome. After a day of browsing and testing, Chrome is looking… fast! The interface is very minimalist, but most all the features are still there, even if a few of them are buried. Even with a few extensions (google voice and gmail checkers, adblock), the browser window is a very lithe affair. The “omnibar” (combined search and address bar) works well enough, but it’s not obvious what service you’re using to search with; Google is the default, of course, but I find myself preferring Firefox’s discrete search box with its obvious selection of search engines.
The big deal about Chrome is still the speed. On my machine, it benchmarks 80%-300% better than Firefox. With HTML5 video fully-enabled, youTube, vimeo, etc., show blazing smooth lag-free playback, although I do note a touch more pixelation. But that speed! My box is no powerhouse, but Chrome and public DNS make for a seriously snappy browsing experience.
I am, however, noticing a little trouble here and there. For instance, my WP admin page shows a few render goofs, minor mangled buttons, etc. Also, the trade-off for Chrome’s multi-threaded approach seems to be a slightly greater static memory usage and a tendency to keep the CPU at full-blaze. Not enough to fail on, but evidence that Chrome is still very much a bleeding-edge browser, based on truly new technologies.
Firefox, for me, is not usurped, just shuffled a bit to the side; I’ll still be using Firefox for critical work, content creation, and alongside other CPU-intensive tasks. But it’s that raw speed, combined with the uncluttered interface and large viewing pane, that may well keep me using Chrome for casual browsing.

« Older entries § Newer entries »