Economic systems failing in the past is not evidence that the current paradigm will fail and it’s certainly not evidence that it will fail because it’s fiat. Economic systems in the past have failed for countless reasons that had absolutely nothing to do with the dominant paradigm of the economic setup.
> The rules for that govern economic systems SHOULD be concrete… The rules for money should be transparent, mathematical, algorithmic.
Why?
I’m not being pedantic when I ask this, Why?
If there’s one thing we all should have figured out by now, it’s that humans, society, stuff, and the almost unlimited amount of chaotic ways these interact with each other, we should have learned by now that we have to be fluid, we have to be agile, we have to be ready to adjust. Why should the rules be rigid and unable to adjust for the almost infinite ways wrenches can be thrown in to the gears?
Are there still a large number of people who don’t yet understand the complexity of human nature and everything we touch?
Look, I live, work, and play in a technological wonderland. Along with the people in this community, I’m about the furthest away from a luddite that one can find, but we’d be foolish if we failed to recognize how early in the iterations we are from letting math be the sole decider of infinitely complex societal interactions. If we don’t recognize this yet, we’ve somehow let hype get in the way of an accurate analysis.
> Economic systems failing in the past is not evidence that the current paradigm will fail and it’s certainly not evidence that it will fail because it’s fiat.
If the reason for failure is hyperinflation, then it is a pretty concrete pattern relating to a debt crisis.
> Why?
Because state monopoly over money is not a free nor fair, and leads to an eventual weakening of money.
> The rules for that govern economic systems SHOULD be concrete… The rules for money should be transparent, mathematical, algorithmic.
Why?
I’m not being pedantic when I ask this, Why?
If there’s one thing we all should have figured out by now, it’s that humans, society, stuff, and the almost unlimited amount of chaotic ways these interact with each other, we should have learned by now that we have to be fluid, we have to be agile, we have to be ready to adjust. Why should the rules be rigid and unable to adjust for the almost infinite ways wrenches can be thrown in to the gears?
Are there still a large number of people who don’t yet understand the complexity of human nature and everything we touch?
Look, I live, work, and play in a technological wonderland. Along with the people in this community, I’m about the furthest away from a luddite that one can find, but we’d be foolish if we failed to recognize how early in the iterations we are from letting math be the sole decider of infinitely complex societal interactions. If we don’t recognize this yet, we’ve somehow let hype get in the way of an accurate analysis.