August 10, 2016
Before we need to concern ourselves with the behaviourism and the market, which is quite some nonsense, unless we want to ordain the markets to behave in some special way, we should concerns ourselves with those whose behaviourism could most distort the markets… like the bank regulators.
So, what behaviourism could cause them to regulate banks without defining the purpose of the banks, more than that of being safe mattresses to stash away the cash?
So, what behaviorism could cause them to believe that what bankers perceived as risky was more dangerous than what bankers perceived as safe?
So, what behaviourism could cause them to believe they needed to tilt so much in favor of the public sector so as to assign the sovereign a risk weight of zero percent and to us, We the People, one of 100%?
So, what behaviourism could cause them to believe the world becoming a better place with the banks avoiding taking the risks of lending, like for instance to SMEs and entrepreneurs?
Why do I ask? Because I have sent FT thousands of letters on this issue, and which they have 99.9% ignored, because, though they might say otherwise, they are not without fear nor without favour.