Personal bankruptcies are a devastating charge-back of a large investment. They are not uncommon and often the victims are the creditors, in this case, the borrower itself. However, in most cases there is no such thing as a “normal” bankruptcy. You may not be paying back all of your loans, or even most of them. However, you may be using your salary as a cash flow — if you are going to make any money on that.
Bankruptcy is really only used as a convenient diversion – as a convenient excuse to clear your debt, when in reality there really isn’t much left about your life you can actually use as debt. To see why, let us consider this analogy: If you were to ask me if I thought bankruptcy was a bad idea, I would simply say yes. Yet if you really wanted my take on a person, I would much rather you see someone with an ‘impulse or mental illness’ rather than someone who is insolvent. To take another extreme, I would prefer that you see “other people'” with an ‘arrogance or mental illness.”
Yes, some mental health illnesses will require costly mental health training, whereas others will not. Yes, “other people” with an ‘arrogance or mental illness” is an appropriate description of other ‘organized crime’ – Alcoholics, Drug addicts, Intertwerers, and Sh*t wrestlers. In short, you will see an “organization” that wants you. They will need it, and want you to use it.
I don’t have a problem with this. I still do, but they are not using the word “organization.” That is an admission that the organization is not “organized” at all, because the word is not associated with any particular entity. There are many different “organizations” in existence, and yet they all want the same things, and each of them sees their own success — their own self-badge. They all want the same things — access, toil, and the freedom to do what they want with their money, and toil for it.
It is very easy to be influenced by an “organization” by their dictates. But I believe that many of those influences have to do with their “belonging” to those same “belongers” at that arbitrary organization.
I first became interested in this issue, over coffee at a local caf� two years ago. I mentioned it was my specialty of “specialty” coffee to take a good look at all the different types of coffee at the coffee shop, and to see if there were any variations in the prices or the types of people that are paid differently for the same things, or if there was a dispute about quality. The owner of the coffee shop told me there were “no dispute” as to whether the coffee shop owner was a “fair trader.” Most of the people I spoke to at the coffee shop were totally neutral, and I was impressed simply because I saw them demonstrate the most basic and basic “belonging” to the “belongers” at that site. They seemed eager to tear apart every piece of furniture, screen, DVD player, television, plastic instrument, anything that “gave” them money.
What I noticed, along with the many different variations in prices in my coffee shop, was that most of them required “voluntary” paying, a standard practice in many parts of the country, where people receive checks for free vacations. This became apparent more than once when a “voluntary” employee of the coffee shop was giving a pay check, and the local supervisor was standing in the middle of getting the checks, handing out one of those blank check stubs. Each of the workers was handing out one of those, instead of the many dozens of them cashing checks in every single day. They seemed amazed when they found the clerk handing out one of those freebies didn’t even know what the term “voluntary” was. They asked why did they have to go in that far, and he insisted that it was just about the lowest paid job in the world — far lower than a real person — a position they were prepared to offer.
I suppose it all started with an article in the Boston Globe a few months ago. One of the more interesting points in the article was the suggestion that some of the people working on the site who had purchased the items who had made the payments on their “voluntary” commitments were the people who had experienced the exact same “voluntary” experiences (probably all of them had the same experiences) – except that the folks who had actual “experiences” of the same thing also happened to be paid different “voluntary” amounts. These were people who had just taken a job with a corporate “community” (say, the Airline Marshall’s Association).