[platz]

> The financial system is a giant message passing algorithm. It is pretty much just a min-sum algorithm [1] whose sole purpose is to answer the question "what should we do?".

no, no no. To even propose that the answer to the question of "what should we do?" can be solved by the financial system is laughable; that is pure free-market absolutism.

The anwer to the question "what should we do?" is _political_ .

Let us not confuse the market with politics.

[nine_k]

I'm afraid you read "what should we do" in much more general sense than the original author. I think that algorithm answers a narrower question of "what should we do to optimize monetary resource allocation", and it only answers within the boundaries you set, for instance, trust and reputation play major roles.

[platz]

Does "optimize monetary resource allocation" include policies such as basic income, that the author referenced?

[platz]

Downvoters, explain your logic please

[ebcode]

I didn't downvote you, but my best guess to why you're being downvoted is that HN skews capitalist, and confusing the market with politics is, in the capitalist p.o.v., how the game is in fact played.

Myself, I don't think that you can untangle (even in your mind) the mess that is the market (financial system, really) from the mess that is the government. They're called "voting dollars" for a reason.

I prefer to just refer to the whole big mess as "The System".

As for downvotes, I don't think they add any value to the site except to encourage groupthink, and you're better off ignoring them. Or take them as a hint that you might be on to something! :)

[danso]

I assume you're being downvoted because you seem to have misread the author's statement and created a strawman argument. He posited that the financial system's algorithm's purpose is to answer, "what should we do?". You seem to have interpreted that as saying that the financial system should answer that problem for society as a whole.

[platz]

> He posited that the financial system's algorithm's purpose is to answer, "what should we do?".

Yes, That is just re-stating what the author wrote, without providing any clarifying information.

> You seem to have interpreted that as saying that the financial system should answer that problem for society as a whole.

Maybe yes that is a maximalist interpretation; what is the alternative interpretation (it doesn't seem to be present in the author's text)?

> move away from min-sum towards sum-product (which often works an order of magnitude better) by perhaps implementing basic income. Etc. Etc.

Referencing 'basic income' here seems like a whole society problem to me, which has nothing to do with the technical implementation financial payment gateways, no?