4 ms·
This really creeps me out you know. Money has a first person ontology. Paper, metal, gold or bits are money because we believe its money. But if the reported nu
by rick_2047 16y ago
This really creeps me out you know. Money has a first person ontology. Paper, metal, gold or bits are money because we believe its money. But if the reported numbers for the bank’s exposure were regularly billions of dollars adrift of reality then now can I believe that what I have is not going to disappear in a glitch or is created because of a glitch.
Disclaimer:I am not an economist nor do I earn anything right now. So if this is an uneducated or miss educated comment please fill free to give references.
- jacquesm 16y agoIt's really no surprise. If a bank is processing data all the time in various, non-connected systems then the only way to know the actual state is to stop accepting input and to let all processes synchronize to the point where you can total things up. Anything else is going to almost certainly miss a bunch of stuff that is in the midst of being updated on one system, but not yet available on another, or counted double.
- shrikant 16y agoThis is largely why 'real-time business intelligence' in banking is a pipe dream, and currently, any vendor who claims to do this is a snake-oil salesman.
- adw 16y agoClassic example: the entire clearing system is eventually consistent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clearing_(finance) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clearing_(finance)
- gaius 16y agoAlso see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuous_linked_settlement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuous_linked_settlement
- boredguy8 16y agoShared belief that large tangible objects have value is not fundamentally different from shared belief that small bits in a system have value. Shared agreement is what keeps the whole thing going.