It's hard to build up to complex solutions when we (society, broadly defined) seem unable to agree on the basic facts.

I don't know for sure if the past was better or worse when it came to reporting the truth. Given the limited number of news outlets, radio stations and tv stations historically, there were at least a limited set of reporting to agree on (independent of the accuracy of that reporting). This was probably very helpful in enabling more complex solutions.

Every complex solution will add an additional layer of complexity on top of everything, thereby making the problem worse. If society, as a whole, becomes so complex that the processes that keep it rolling are no longer transparent, then we'd end up in a situation where we can't see the forest for the trees.

The list of objective facts regarding any major issue is short. The list of subjective facts is infinite. When anyone can blast the world with their subjective facts, the objective facts are lost in the noise.

It's not one, though.

I just read "The end of Alchemy" which goes through the history of our financial system and how it came to be and it doesn't sound like we historically were any better off. So not sure exactly what they are referring to with regards to these narratives.

Furthermore, I wouldn't agree that complex solutions are needed for complex problems unless we talk technically.

A big part of the issues we are having is that the policies we do have are so complex that they can be used by those who have enough money to speculate and interpret against the intent of the laws.

If anything we need simple rules and a system of ongoing interpretation on top which ensures that interpretations the law stay within the spirit of the law.

Also it wasn't a long read at all :)

  much worse periods

Do pay attention to that.

Whilst I agree, one thing that the author doesn't address is that people were very worried after the collapse of the market (Reconstruction), after WWII (the spread of communism, McCarthysim), and other such calamities.

The difference betwixt those times and now is fundamentality societally-based and the nature of the calamity.

Almost no one works at a company for twenty years, anymore; which means reliance on things like 401ks (in the states). When the crash hit in 2008, it wiped a large portion (if not almost all) of their life's savings. So, for people to be especially worried going forward isn't without merit.

The problem is that the complex solutions, these days, haven't even considered, much less addressed, the working class heroes.

I cannt blame people, one bit, for being more prone to being receptive to the narratives of another economic collapse; especially, if you've ascribed your personal losses to not listening the first go-round.

Of course, most countries came up with differing solutions for the crash, and that's one thing to consider: Even though the impact was global, the response was more local (country versus world). Iceland, for example, jailed the bankers[0]. The states bailed them out[1].

I don't have an answer and I don't even presume to begin to have a notion of what to do; however, telling people that they should just wait for a complex solution isn't going to go very far, when the solutions proferred so far haven't positively affected them in the slightest.

(Apologies for the rant.)

[0] - https://www.huffingtonpost.com/stefan-simanowitz/iceland-has...

[1] - https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikecollins/2015/07/14/the-big-...

only if they panic sold. if they held for a few more years, they would have recovered most, if not all of their losses.