3 ms·
Simplicity is kinda nice, but it's not very indicative of a good solution all the time. Especially given the counterintuitive results behind fiat currencies an
by rtpg 8y ago
Simplicity is kinda nice, but it's not very indicative of a good solution all the time.
Especially given the counterintuitive results behind fiat currencies and the relatively low correlation between all the moving parts, it's difficult to even say if the simpler model is better because the complicated model has so many side effects.
I don't understand how my car works but it sure works better than my easy to understand bike.
- freeflight 8y ago> I don't understand how my car works but it sure works better than my easy to understand bike. That's an interesting comparison: - The car might work better by certain metrics (speed, distance, force) but the bike can still outperform it in some situations (high traffic, cost efficiency on shorter distances, terrain) - If the car breaks I'd need help fixing it, with the bike, I could probably fix most issues myself. That's why both, cars and bikes, do coexist as each of them fills a specific need/niche. Trying to apply this to monetary systems sure seems difficult to imagine, but maybe something like that might be the actual solution?
- rtpg 8y agoYeah after posting I thought about this too. It's not that a car is "better", but it's better in certain instances. A simpler solution is better in cases where you want many participants to operate the "backend" (the printing of money/distribution of money, so to speak). The biggest issue is that if your model is too simple there could be an easy way to game the system.