> All markets do is express the collective opinion; in the short term as a voting machine, in the long term as a weighing machine.

I prefer the concepts and rigor from political economy: markets are both preference aggregators and coordination mechanisms.

Does your framing (voting machines and weighing machines) offer more clarity and if so, how? I’m not seeing it.

▲

acivitillo 4 days ago | parent [-]

His framing is that markets are collective consensus and if you claim to “know better”, you need to write a lot more than a generic post. It’s so simple, and it is a reminder that antirez’s reputation as a software developer does not automatically translate to economics expert.

	▲	xpe 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		I think you are mixed up here. I quoted from the comment above mine, which was harshly and uncharitably critical of antirez’s blog post. I was pushing back against that comment’s snearing smugness by pointing to an established field that uses clear terminology about how and why markets are useful. Even so, I invited an explanation in case I was missing something. Anyone curious about the terms I used can quickly find explanations online, etc.