The Blue Monday fiction is nothing when compared to Basel Committee’s risk weighted capital requirements fiction.

Sir, Tim Harford writes, “Given that it is pure fiction, the “Blue Monday” meme is showing surprising longevity”, and he asks “Why do such ideas endure? What do they tell us about our attitude to science, evidence or the truth itself?” “The pseudoscience of Blue Monday hits trust” January 26.

But really, what’s the significance of some falling for an innocous Blue Monday fiction, when compared to that fiction that what's perceived as risky is more dangerous to our bank systems than what's perceived as safe? 

The first one might cause some to travel on not a really adequate date for them, the latter, when translated into risk weighted bank capital requirements for banks, distorts the allocation of credit to the real economy; only guaranteeing especially large crises, because of especially large bank exposures to something perceived as especially safe that turns out to be especially risky, held against especially little bank capital.

Harford refers to Onora O’Neill in that “we should be aiming for a better ability to trust what is trustworthy and to mistrust what is not”. In the case of journalists he says that “the non-experts among us could do more to keep ourselves well-informed.”

Since the information on bank regulations is out there readily available for anyone who cares to look at it, that should suffice to answer his question on whether “we should be more trusting, or more sceptical?”

Sir, Skepticism 101 courses are much needed. May I humbly suggest you and Harford could benefit from taking one of these?

@PerKurowski

Imposing a marginal minuscule cost per web-ad-message could perhaps help level the playing field for the boring truths against the much more fun fake news.

Sir, Tim Harford expresses it clearly when he writes, “Fake news itself does not pose an existential threat either to democracy or the free press. What does pose such a threat is a draconian response from governments.” “There is no need to panic about fake news” January 5.

Indeed but Basic Skepticism 101 courses are still much needed. I have for decades objected to that draconian response from regulators that states: “We will make your banks safer with risk weighted capital requirements”, which they based on the loony idea that what’s perceived as risky is more dangerous to our bank systems than what is perceived as safe. 

Of course that is as fake as a regulation can be. Not only does it distort the allocation of credit to the real economy but it also puts bank crises on steroids. As for now, that only guarantees especially large crisis, because of especially large exposures, to what is especially perceived as safe, against especially little capital.

Hartford also worries about “that there is far too little transparency over political advertising in the digital age: we don’t know who is paying for what message to be shown to whom”. I agree but one important cause for that is that there is no marginal cost to be paid by those spreading news and ads on the web.

If every ad messaging on the web forced the messenger to pay a minuscule amount per message, then we would be more carefully targeted, meaning wasting less of our limited attention span, and it would be less easy for fake-more-fun-news messengers to compete with “real” not-as-fun-news outfits, if there now is such a thing.

PS. If those revenues help fund an unconditional universal basic income, then it would be even better. 

@PerKurowski