4 ms·
> none of the participants in the financial system have ever been interested in designing a financial system I agree to some extent with the view that we shoul
by samhw 5y ago
> none of the participants in the financial system have ever been interested in designing a financial system
I agree to some extent with the view that we should see systems as emergent phenomena arising from countless participants none of whom understands or intends the entire thing, but you can go overboard with that. There are clearly some participants who have taken a 'God's eye view' and tried to re/design an entire system (Bretton Woods, Dodd-Frank, Visa/Mastercard, &c).
- whatshisface 5y agoBreton Woods and Visa/Mastercard were top level designs... But they were designed to make money. (For the US and Visa/Mastercard respectively.) Nobody has ever taken the "god's eye view" with the intent to be nice.
- samhw 5y ago> Nobody has ever taken the "god's eye view" with the intent to be nice. I second what the other guy said: this is an interesting point. But I'd also second the point about not knowing their intent (more with Bretton Woods than Visa/Mastercard; the latter is obviously fair enough). Also, I think it's telling that you left out Dodd-Frank when making that point, because it pretty clearly undercuts it.
- mistermann 5y ago> Nobody has ever taken the "god's eye view" with the intent to be nice. This is a really good point. There are some kinda exceptions[1] now and then, but there are many reasons why they tend to not work (not short term profitable being one of the main ones). Despite that, it seems we're pretty short even on good ideas lately, like our culture has lost the ability to dream big about positive things (we're excellent at doomsday dreaming, especially about our political outgroup members). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckminster_Fuller https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckminster_Fuller
- squabble 5y agoHow do you know their intent?