I have two very simple questions for you:
1) Do you believe it right that the financial sector was, and is still being, bailed out?
2) If not, how do you describe the system producing that result, if not "fundamentally broken"?
1) Do you believe it right that the financial sector was, and is still being, bailed out?
2) If not, how do you describe the system producing that result, if not "fundamentally broken"?
2) "Too busy fighting over local minima/maxima to ever escape them and make core changes, but as a result at least mostly harmless except as a drag force on productivity." We could argue all day about core changes that might fix the system, but we'll never agree on precisely which core changes to make, so they'll never happen. And that still probably works better than the case where the wrong core changes occur.
(And a meta-level comment about search heuristics comes about as close to a political comment as I'd like to get.)
1. Campaign finance reform. Debate the details, but you can't debate that there should be some.
2. Vastly greater oversight/transparency, if not an outright ban of the current lobbying system.
I guess I'll leave it at that.
2) Because bail-outs aren't a fundamental property of "the system".
What non-fundamental properties of the system do you think should change to halt now, and prevent in the future, bailouts and related actions (e.g. corporate subsidies)?