Disclosure 1: Academic interest was quantitative modeling, economics focus. But, I spent my career in engineering support, mainly via advanced computational systems. Engineers go up against nature and learn (that does not diminish hubris, many times). What is the parallel for the Economist, such as our beloved Ben? Losing game there, from the get go. --- I am not anti-market. Rather, I would caution that the gaming basis that has evolved for some types of markets is problematic at its core. I am not burdened by innumeracy, yet I see the extreme focus on numbers as one issue to address. That focus has been exacerbated in the past decade by computational advances, to the detriment of our collective soul. Too, those supposed numeric arguments, and demonstrations, are, again, wanting, leading to necessary discussions about near-zero as the reality (someone always is eating the dirt - the majority - while the few have the cream to themselves - mixed usage by intent). I ran across this site a few times while running after "quants"-related (for one, looking for ethical notions that are getting short-shrift) material. The article from yesterday (02/26/2013) and today drew me in. We need numbers and science. But, they need to be tempered with humanity. In fact, the whole framework related to markets could be halved and still be highly effective in the longer run and in the wider scope. My focus is exploring such a concept with the intent to propose the suitable sandbox whose use would alleviate a whole lot of error, mischief, and pain. --- Disclosure 2: Not after power nor money. Rather, the interest is in defining a sustainable economy and the various roles, such as finance. Naturally, one core item has to be computation about which there is plenty to consider, not the least of which is quasi-empiricism. I'm older than Ben; younger than Warren. These two are archetypes to be discussed as we look at issues related to the (more perfect?) future.