FT, Liikanen, what is so great with avoiding the bank crisis of tomorrow, if our economies meanwhile have to die?

Making Europe´s banks safer, is a good but clearly insufficient objective, since you must also make them better in allocating efficiently resources. And in fact, the Liikanen Group, when established, included also the mandate to promote financial efficiency. 

But, on that, there is not a word in the Liikanen Report. And the truth is that you cannot achieve an efficient allocation of resources while some petty bank regulating bureaucrats persist in discriminating against what is perceived as “risky”. Sincerely, since those ex ante perceived as “risky” have never endangered banks, again I must wonder why the regulators seemingly hate them so much. 

And FT also eludes the issue of the need for efficient resource allocation completely, in “EU sets out vision for safer banking” October 4. 

What is so great with avoiding the banking crisis of tomorrow if the price for it is our economies crumbling? You also seem somehow to think that, as long as the taxpayers do not have to pay for the crisis, the crisis is ok and will not have serious consequences. FT, come on, take off the blinders!

Does procreation include the possibility of adoption?

Sir Clive Crook with “Let the rich go forth and multiply” has really fired up my interest in reading Gregory Clark’s upcoming “A farewell to Alms: A brief Economic History of the World”, August 10. Besides of course forcing me to look up the meaning of “alms” it also left me with the question of whether this generous procreation of the rich so that it spills over into the less fortunate development method does also extend to Angelina Jolie’s adoptions of poor children.