I reckon it's a human condition issue, bare metal type shit. People, in general, simply can't possess the merits of blind trust and must be scrutinized. This st

I reckon it's a human condition issue, bare metal type shit. People, in general, simply can't possess the merits of blind trust and must be scrutinized. This striated opinion on a spectrum of trust, and in time resolution in to facts. Dialectics of account. Naive interventions only stand to exacerbate the condition, by my reckoning, and I don't suspect there is a real way to make smart interventions at scale. I think the best resolution is to have modular multi-scalar and largely decentralized modes with far more outgrowths given the capacity for representation of their given polity. But even in that case it doesn't fully rectify the problem, because at the basest levels information is imperfect in practical terms. It is in those terms that experts and professionals tend to be lost to public account - that is to say that making wide sweeping claims and saying it was some unexpected event that overturned their predictions frees them from being held accountable, and that is where trust is lost. If you tell me in 10 years that SPY will have gained 60%, versus if you said "Look I don't know, I can't tell you where the price is going to end at close today, let alone in 10 years, but historically the odds look good, that's not without caveats, the fed, the government, the people are all constantly evolving against their peers and there's a lot of novel forces, so you could end up with negative yields." The latter case is, let's say hypothetically, realistic, and thus eschews liability. Now if the former case turns out to be true, certainly the latter form will be lambasted for the potential gains lost. In the latter coming to fruit, will the financier be celebrated? Will the former be able to excuse himself, despite bad calls?