i understand the premise behind your '50 dollar' point. i don't see the connection, however. maybe some of the traders were jaywalkers too, but just because the software can't catch their jaywalking actions doesn't mean they can't catch the jaywalkers that try to make illegitimate derivatives.
This is the point I've been making which you don't seem able to get. The people who use this software are too smart for the software and their needs are far too diverse to capture with software. If you want to supervise them, you need to employ other smart humans.
I get it perfectly, and I never suggested a wholly technical solution. Yes, you absolutely employ other smart humans (or ideally, set up the system so that there's a competitive interest in checking each others work.) I don't see you challenging the legitimacy of the trading tool's effectiveness at making derivatives when it too needs smart humans using it to work; why are you challenging the safety mechanisms on that basis?
The former is a good idea and it's likely the software already did that
and i want to re-emphasise they are just brainstormed ideas. as in the racecar developer saying to himself "i bet a restraint system might help the mortality rate in crashes". that's still a far cry from the professionally designed and tested crumple zones etc that we now have as a result of applying a scientific process to the task. i don't know what form the security mechanisms of a loan-packaging software would entail until that work is undertaken. as for "already did that", i don't consider such a boolean value. i consider how WELL they did that; a shade of grey. lying to the software is exactly what the safety system (and its educated userbase) should be engineered to attempt to detect.
In summary.... Software tools can't ever compensate for that.
I don't disagree with anything in your summary, but I wasn't trying to propose any theories on what caused the financial crisis. I was simply suggesting this tool is rife for abuse as-is, and the author was conscious of that. Your defeatist attitude towards human nature and its ability to use tools to solve social problems is duly noted, but not shared.
Anyone who developes a vehicle, no matter how fast or slow it travels, has some priority higher than safety. Period.
developing a prototype and launching a national production line are two very different things. which do you think an INDUSTRY STANDARD peice of software is more similar to? This was not a tool a trader built for personal use, this was intended from the beginning to have total or majority market share. the safety obligations of something intended for broad systemic use is much higher than something done one-off and for personal use. Agreed there is always some risk; the inevitability of risk is not an exuse to ignore it and fail to minimize it.
Nothing on Earth can compensate for that sort of high flying hubris, certainly not a software tool.
and the bill of rights is just a goddamned peice of paper. it's inconceivable that a dried hunk of animal skin with symbols inked on it can help society be more civilized. people will disregard the document and that's all that can be done about the situation. ...or is it?