Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

It was still very complex after Copernicus.

His system still used circular orbits and epicycles. The only real difference was that he put the sun in the middle instead of the Earth. In fact, it required more epicycles / gave more imprecise results.

The real improvement came when circles were replaced with ellipses by Kepler.

That wasn't entirely accurate, either, but replacing the ideal circles with the law of Gravitation (Newton) fixed that.

Economists have many more than just two cures -- which is why some of them keep harping on regulations and overly protective labour laws in Greece (and the rest of the Mediterranean swamp), their very expensive pension system, and the huge size of their public sector. Krugman doesn't, which is why I have absolutely no respect for him.



Ok, maybe it was Kepler, but the argument still holds: something that we believe is extremely complex could very much become much simpler and obvious in the future. This would require changing the place of the "center". Maybe it mean that money is not what we believe it is, or that banks should not be big companies but some fluid, or that wealth is not really transmitted during a transaction, or whatever. Finance is dangerously complex and may not have to be like that. Every timesomeone explains stock options to me I understand for ten minutes and then forget is definition. This means the model didn't stick, for me at least. (Good mathematical models are very sticky, told once about it one well never forget) So it's a mess and it's worth trying something else.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: