>>12894711>I don't think going to past is a good argument because if we are sure about one thing is that nowadays we manage money waaaaaay better than people did before. The modern banking system is literally 2,000 years of lessons in how not to fuck up.No, just no. There's an economic crisis every couple of decades. That's fucking up. Furthermore we're not "managing" money better, there's simply more investment options and, if you're rich or a corporation, systems to fall back on such as the Greenspan/Bernanke put.
>Yeah but there is always an absolute true answer.No, there's not. The quality of being "good" or "bad" is entirely subjective.
>Banking is literally the geometric series on steroids and finance is probability theory on steroids.No. You wouldn't need a dozen different models all assuming rational actors if banking was just math, geometry, or probability. It's more analogous to game theory, except the rules aren't consistent for each player.
The fact that you think any of this qualifies as "math" or "science" demonstrates how far removed you are from either. Fuck off back to
>>>/biz/ 
