3 ms·

I agree with you completely. I feel that if we rewrite the finance system we'll end up with a different mess. I'm only pointing to a problem not offering a solu

I agree with you completely. I feel that if we rewrite the finance system we'll end up with a different mess. I'm only pointing to a problem not offering a solution. It's all adhoc design with no theory. If finance consisted of a bunch of axioms and theorems then we could find a algorithm that can optimize such a system. However finance like software is in the domain of design. As such we construct and create such systems with no quantitative formula for creating better systems or even defining what a better system is... What formula can quantitatively measure how much better capitalism is vs. communism? Or Vice versa. None. So you, are basically fully correct. A rewrite without formal theory on what is a better "finance" is like throwing darts blind folded. We only know the previous iteration didn't work, and we have no idea if the new design will function. In terms of probability, likely it will be nowhere near the perfection we strive for.

arcticbull 7y ago
I'm suggesting if you studied finance you may have a different opinion. I haven't so I can't say for sure, of course, but it's hard to point in at a complex system from the outside and demand change without understanding it in the first place. It's like me walking into an operating room and demanding we "restart medicine" because it's "too complex." I'm not a doctor, who am I to say?
- crimsonalucard3 7y ago
  A Fair point. I'd prefer if arguments run on their own logical merits rather than my credentials. That being said I have studied extensively the anthropology, history and origins of finance. I have also studied economics. I have not studied advanced accounting, how to read a finance statement or tax law. I would say from this perspective I don't know finance but from other perspectives I know it well enough to comment on things finance guys just don't know about.
- crimsonalucard 7y ago
  A Fair point. I'd prefer if arguments run on their own logical merits rather than my credentials. That being said I have studied extensively the anthropology, history and origins of finance. I have also studied economics. I have not studied advanced accounting, how to read a finance statement or tax law. I would say from this perspective I don't know finance but from other perspectives I know it well enough to comment on things finance guys just don't know about. Also I never commented on "restarting finance." I said no such thing. I commented on high level issues that are obvious like over complexity. That being said you can very well comment on aspects of medicine even though you aren't an expert. Medical costs and quality are out of control in the united states. Surely as a consumer of medicine you can comment on it even though you're not an expert. Would you leave all the "experts" to exclusively control the costs? Well doing so results in the broken medical system we have in the United States today. A three day hospital stay in the US costs 30,000k. Medical experts charge you this because they know the cost better. Is it logical to defer to them? No. Not being an expert on something does not preclude your judgement from being correct. You also have the advantage of not being as biased as the expert.
  - arcticbull 7y ago
    > I commented on high level issues that are obvious like over complexity. What about it is more complex than necessary?
    - crimsonalucard 7y ago
      I’ll give one example. I’m sure you can think of many more. Tax law is part of finance and is a system that is overly complex. If tax law contains loop holes then by definition it is too complex. Loop holes are created unintentionally when a creator of law adds a rule to a system. The loop hole is an instance of complexity added unintentionally and is therefore an example of unneeded complexity within the system. If a system has unneeded complexity it is then over-complex. Do you want more? A forensic expert was used to dig through the complexity of the GE fraud. There are plenty of examples there as usually such experts are necessary when a system is complex and in the case where complexity is deliberately created to hide fraud: overly complex.

arcticbull 7y ago

I'm suggesting if you studied finance you may have a different opinion. I haven't so I can't say for sure, of course, but it's hard to point in at a complex system from the outside and demand change without understanding it in the first place. It's like me walking into an operating room and demanding we "restart medicine" because it's "too complex." I'm not a doctor, who am I to say?

crimsonalucard3 7y ago
A Fair point. I'd prefer if arguments run on their own logical merits rather than my credentials. That being said I have studied extensively the anthropology, history and origins of finance. I have also studied economics. I have not studied advanced accounting, how to read a finance statement or tax law. I would say from this perspective I don't know finance but from other perspectives I know it well enough to comment on things finance guys just don't know about.
crimsonalucard 7y ago
A Fair point. I'd prefer if arguments run on their own logical merits rather than my credentials. That being said I have studied extensively the anthropology, history and origins of finance. I have also studied economics. I have not studied advanced accounting, how to read a finance statement or tax law. I would say from this perspective I don't know finance but from other perspectives I know it well enough to comment on things finance guys just don't know about. Also I never commented on "restarting finance." I said no such thing. I commented on high level issues that are obvious like over complexity. That being said you can very well comment on aspects of medicine even though you aren't an expert. Medical costs and quality are out of control in the united states. Surely as a consumer of medicine you can comment on it even though you're not an expert. Would you leave all the "experts" to exclusively control the costs? Well doing so results in the broken medical system we have in the United States today. A three day hospital stay in the US costs 30,000k. Medical experts charge you this because they know the cost better. Is it logical to defer to them? No. Not being an expert on something does not preclude your judgement from being correct. You also have the advantage of not being as biased as the expert.
- arcticbull 7y ago
  > I commented on high level issues that are obvious like over complexity. What about it is more complex than necessary?
  - crimsonalucard 7y ago
    I’ll give one example. I’m sure you can think of many more. Tax law is part of finance and is a system that is overly complex. If tax law contains loop holes then by definition it is too complex. Loop holes are created unintentionally when a creator of law adds a rule to a system. The loop hole is an instance of complexity added unintentionally and is therefore an example of unneeded complexity within the system. If a system has unneeded complexity it is then over-complex. Do you want more? A forensic expert was used to dig through the complexity of the GE fraud. There are plenty of examples there as usually such experts are necessary when a system is complex and in the case where complexity is deliberately created to hide fraud: overly complex.