Does Martin Wolf’s “The tragedy of two failing superpowers” conform with FT’s beautiful motto of “without favour”?

Wolf opines about Donald Trump in terms of “a malevolent incompetent” and for this looks for the support of that totally unbiased Jeffrey Sachs who writes about “devastatingly of the ill will and ineffectiveness on display”. “The tragedy of two failing superpowers” April 1.

Sir, if this is what it comes down to, let me be clear that I much prefer the support of a highly incompetent but more principled Donald Trump, against our evidently thousand times more malevolent incompetents, like Hugo Chavez and Nicolas Maduro, than the support given to them by “extremely competent” Barack Obama and Jeffrey Sachs.

Wolf then writes: “For those of us who believe in liberal democracy” Really? Are we to believe that anyone who, for purposes of bank capital requirements, agrees with assigning a risk weight of 0% to his sovereign’s debt and 100% to fellow citizen’s debts, something which de facto implies that bureaucrats knows better what to do with credits for which’s repayment they're not personally responsible for than for example entrepreneurs, could be defined as a believer in a liberal democracy? I don’t think so, to me he would just be a disguised communist.

@PerKurowski

Any populism your populist can do mine can do better; mine can do populism much better than yours.

Sir, Gillian Tett, when discussing populism and populists writes, “Nor is it obvious that Mr Trump will lose in 2020. If you look at recent opinion polls, these offer as much reason for alarm as for cheer.” “Is the populist wave in the west here to stay?” September 14.

Clearly populism is in the eye of the beholder. For instance, if Hugo Chavez had hosted “The Populist Apprentice” he might very well have told President Donald Trump. “You’re fired!” 

As for me Sir, you know very well I opine that one of the worst and most destructive populism ever, was when the expert bank regulators in the Basel Committee told us that with their risk weighted bank capital requirements, our banks would be safer… not caring one iota about how that would distort the allocation of credit to the real economy and, to top it up, base these on that loony idea that what's perceived as risky is more dangerous to our bank system than what's perceived as safe 

@PerKurowski

The 0% risk weighting of sovereigns and 100% of citizens, decreed fiscal irresponsibility.

Sir, Martin Wolf, discussing Trump’s tax cuts writes that America’s longterm fiscal position [has become] fragile”, “Trump’s boom will prove to be hot air” July 10.

Fragile indeed. In 1988 when the Basel Accord assigned America’s public debt a 0% risk weight, its debt was about $2.6 trillion, now it owes around $22 trillion and still has a 0% risk weight. 

Wolf opines “it is not too soon to note where the US is heading. It is hard to imagine anybody standing up for fiscal prudence. The choice is rather between rightwing and leftwing Keynesians. In the long run, that is likely to end badly.”

I fully agree but I must add that the risk weighted bank capital requirements, which so much favors credit to the sovereign over for instance credit to entrepreneurs, created such distortions that made it impossible for markets to send out their timely warning signals.

One can argues as much as one like that the credit risk of the sovereign is much less risky than that of an entrepreneur, but, the other side of the coin of that risk weighting, is that it de facto also implies a belief in that government bureaucrats know better what to do with bank credit they’re not personally liable for, than entrepreneurs.

For instance, does Wolf believe the current fiscal sustainability outlook of for the eurozone sovereigns would be the same if there had been just one single capital requirements for all their bank assets? Would he think French and German banks would still have lent to Greece/Italy as much and at the interest rates they did?

Does Wolf not think the immense stimuli injected by central banks in response to the 2008 crisis, would have been much more productive without the distortions in the allocation of bank credit produced by the credit risk weighing?

Sir, Trump’s tax cuts might not be helpful but, in the great scheme of things Trump is, at least for the time being, a really minor player when it comes to be apportioned blame for fiscal fragility. For instance how is the US be able to get out of that 0% risk weight corner its regulators has painted it into?

Sir, In November 2004 you published a letter in which I wrote: “How many Basel propositions will it take before regulators start realizing the damage they are doing by favoring so much bank lending to the public sector. In some developing countries, access to credit for the private sector is all but gone, and the banks are up to the hilt in public credits.”

@PerKurowski

Why are tariffs on trade with others, worse than tariffs on access to bank credit for your own?

Sir, I refer to Martin Wolf’s spirited defense of free trade and not less spirited attack on Donald Trump for having turned the US into “a rogue superpower, hostile, among many other things, to the fundamental norms of a trading system based on multilateral agreement and binding rules.” “The US-China clash challenges the world” May 22.

Do I disagree? Not really, except noting that at least Trump follows the instinct to protect his own.

But where was/is Martin Wolf when bank regulators, for instance, with Basel II, require banks to hold 8% in capital when lending to their own unrated entrepreneurs, but allow his banks to lend to any other sovereign AAA to AA rated against no capital at all, or to any other foreign AAA to AA rated entrepreneur against only 1.6% in capital?

Sir, anyone who argues those differences in capital requirements are not de facto tariffs on the access to bank credit, have no idea of what they are talking about.

Truth is that since trade is about today, but credit is about tomorrow, I truly believe the Basel Committee and their affiliate regulators are, with their tariffs on the access to bank credit, doing much more damage than a Donald Trump.

But of course you dare not to favor the opinion of little me over that of your own chief economic commentator.

@PerKurowski

Martin Wolf, as part of the elite, should read the “Explanatory Note on the Basel II IRB Risk Weight Functions”, and then tell us ordinary people what he opines of it.

Sir, even if qualifying for degrees of sophistication, when Martin Wolf places a human rights violating dictator Nicolas Maduro in the same list of strongmen as Donald Trump, he certainly seems to have lost it. Nicolas Maduro has now 90% of Venezuela against him and is staying there by brute force, and the elections he won in the past, were fraudulent. Or could it be Wolf still wants to believe that Trump won also because of Putin’s help? “Elected despots feed off our fear and rage”, April 23, 2019.

Wolf argues that the reason president Trump was elected and why is he still trusted by so many, is “partly due to longstanding economic failures, partly to the financial crisis and partly to cultural changes”; and also the willingness of parts of the elite to exploit such emotions, to achieve huge tax cuts and eliminate regulation, something Wolf defines as “pluto-populism”.

Pluto-populism? There’s now more than 30 years since the Basel Accord introduced risk weighted capital requirements for banks that assigned a risk weight of 0% to the sovereign and 100% to the citizen. If that’s not statism that feeds a crony statism what is?

And those regulations based on that what’s perceived as risky is more dangerous to our bank systems than what’s perceived as safe, is utter lunacy, that is unless its purpose is to realize bankers’ wet dreams of being allowed to leverage especially much with what is perceived as especially safe. 

The financial crisis resulted 99% from excessive exposures to what Basel II in 2004 backed by an AAA rated entity, like AIG, which meant banks could leverage a mindboggling 62.5 times their capital with these assets.

And much of the weak response to the immense post crisis stimuli, is the result of “risky” entrepreneurs and SMEs not having competitive access to bank credit, because of having to make up for the fact that banks can leverage much less their capital with loans to them. 

But yet, the monstrous missregulation by the Basel Committee is still not really discussed, and so it is still not really corrected.

I assume Martin Wolf, as the chief economics commentator of the Financial Times must qualify as part of the elite. So Sir, if you think he should live up to the responsibilities that entails, I suggest you dare him to read the Basel Committee’s “An Explanatory Note on the Basel II IRB Risk Weight Functions” of July 2005 and then inform you, and us ordinary people, whether that mumbo jumbo makes sense or not.

But back to Venezuela. Obama agreed to negotiate with Cuba leaving its de facto invasion of Venezuela out of it. President Trump does not want anything of that sort. Sir, I wonder, if Martin Wolf was one of the so much suffering Venezuelans, what do you think he would prefer, an American “strongman” or an American “weakman”?

PS. Here is what I opine of that Explanatory Note

@PerKurowski

In the Fed, more than Trading Floor experiences, we need Main-Street experiences.

Sir, Mohamed El-Erian writes “Let’s not forget some market participants’ growing interest in modern monetary theory, including the view that persistently low yields enable higher central bank financing of government deficits. But such comfort risks being short-lived.” “Attacks by Trump risk damaging the Fed’s credibility”, April 12.

El-Erian leaves me a bit confused. Does he think the “modern monetary theory” could be any source of comfort even if short lived? I myself consider it a prime example of a dangerous fake theory, probably concocted by redistribution profiteers, and that because it offers such an “Easy Street” has simply gone viral. If we had any respect for Edmund Burke’s holy intergenerational bond, we should all do our utmost to destroy it.

Then El-Erian speaks of the need of the Fed to have a “‘feel’ for markets — that is… officials on the Federal Open Market Committee who have been properly and comprehensively exposed to operational responsibilities on trading floors.”

He is surely right that some of the members of FOMC should have that experience but, even more important than that is the experience from Main-Street, like when entrepreneurs want to access bank credit. 

Had there been just one single of those in the Fed, he would most surely have asked: “Colleagues, why do you set the risk weighted capital requirements higher for that which is perceived as risky, and which precisely therefore have such difficulties getting credit from the banks, and so therefore are quite innocous to our bank system?” 

Had that question been posed with enough firmness in requiring a clear answer, the 2008 crisis would not have happened and the world would definitely look better than now.

@PerKurowski

The selection of independent central bankers should not be politicized, but neither should the criticism of the candidates be

Sir, you argue that Stephen Moore nor Herman Cain seem to be “remotely qualified to sit in the monetary cockpit of the world’s reserve currency”, “Trump must be stopped from packing the US Fed”, April 6.

Sir, you might very well be right, I know very little about those candidates but I do know that those who have been sitting there for the last decades were perhaps not sufficiently qualified either. 

The 2008 crisis was caused by the distortions in credit allocation produced by the risk weighted capital requirements for banks. To then having central bankers to inject huge amounts of stimulus by means of QEs and ultra low interest rates, without removing those distortions, does show they don’t have a sufficient understanding of what they are up to. Sir, what they have achieved is only to kick the crisis can forward and upwards. Let us pray it will not roll back too hard on us, our children or our grandchildren.

Sir, to be sincere, I do believe that FT’ team, with its silence, has lost any right it could have to throw first stones in the matter of who are suited or not to man the Fed, or any other central bank for that matter.

You argue: “The merest hint that Mr Powell is doing Mr Trump’s bidding is enough to corrode the Fed’s independence.” Sir, for the umpteenth time, when the Fed and other central banks, in 1988, Basel I, approved of risk weighted capital requirements for banks that assigned a risk weight of 0% to the sovereign and 100% to the citizens, they went statists and gave up their independence.

In truth they did exactly what a Hugo Chavez or a Nicolas Maduro would want a Venezuelan central banker to do, namely to be act under the presumption that any bank credit to the government is managed better than a credit to the private sector.

Look back three decades; have you seen any president anywhere who objects to such a Sovereign Debt Privilege?

Greece, a Eurozone nation that takes on debt in a currency that is de facto not its domestic printable one, was even more crazily assigned a 0% risk weight, and ECB knew about it, and kept silence on it. I do not remember you thinking ECB’s bankers as inept.

@PerKurowski

Excessive “intellectual gravitas” can sometimes be just as dangerous, or even more, than an insufficient one.

Sir, James Politi writes: Greg Mankiw, a respected Republican economist, did not mince words when he posted his reaction to Donald Trump’s nomination of Stephen Moore for a seat on the Federal Reserve board saying: “Steve is an amiable guy, but he does not have the intellectual gravitas for this important job.” “Donald Trump’s Fed nominee faces broad backlash” March 25.

That reminded me (again) of Edward Dolnick’s “The forger’s spell” (2009), which makes a reference to Francis Fukuyama saying that Daniel Moynihan opined: “There are some mistakes it takes a Ph.D. to make”. 

The intellectual gravitas of all those at the Fed and of all their colleagues in the bank regulatory sphere, primarily in the Basel Committee, came up with: risk weighted capital requirements for banks based on the utter nonsense that what’s ex ante perceived as risky, is more dangerous to our bank systems than what’s perceived as safe. 

An outrageous example of it is how Basel II, in its standardized risk weights, to that so dangerous because it is rated AAA to AA, they assigned a meager 20% risk weight, while, to that which is so innocous, because it has been rated a below BB-, they smacked with a 150% one.

And now, 10 years after a crisis that broke out because of excessive exposures to AAA rated securities, or to assets to which an AAA rated entity like AIG had issued a default guarantee for, the intellectuals with gravitas, persist in their mistake.

Sir, I do not know Stephen More but, if he possesses common sense, some experiences on Main Street and the willingness to question, then his possible lack of intellectual gravitas should be welcome, as something of that sort is much needed to guarantee diversity able to help block some of the incestual thinking processes.

@PerKurowski

The Fed and bank regulators have done many times more harm to the real economy than the political leadership, President Trump included.

Sir, Rana Foroohar writes:“It is clear that the power of monetary policy to support the real economy has diminished. In lieu of better political leadership, the key task for central bankers in the years to come may be to roll up their sleeves and do the gritty work of bolstering not the markets, but Main Street.” “Central bankers refocus on Main Street” December 31.

That’s not likely to happen. The Fed and bank regulators have clearly evidenced they are not up to that task. Without the slightest consideration to how banks are to serve the real economy, and its needs for development, with their risk weighted capital requirements for banks, they blocked “the risky” Main Street’s access to bank credit, in order to favor all that which was perceived (or decreed) as safe… like residential mortgages (and the sovereign) 

Now every one of them will eagerly be trying to escape his or her responsibility, by blaming Donald Trump, who in many ways is acting as a perfect godsend scapegoat.

PS. “We are almost 10 years into a recovery cycle — the time when economic slowdowns typically occur”. That might be so, but it still sounds so expertly besserwisser. 

"Paga-peo" a Venezuelan name for a scapegoat

@PerKurowski

President Trump seems to be on route to become one of the greatest “paga-peos” (scapegoats) in history.

Sir, Gillian Tett writes that for her “money, there is another, darker, way to interpret this week’s [extreme volatility in US equity markets]. Two years into Mr Trump’s presidency, global investors are questioning the administration’s financial credibility…Steel yourself to cope with further turbulence triggered by Mr Trump”,“Expect more turbulence from Trump’s Fed fight”, December 28.

Indeed, president Trump is to be blamed for some of it, but the truth is that had the markets been more normal, not so much bubbled-up, he would only cause some ripples never Tsunamis.

That Trump has given indications to fire Jay Powell, the Fed chair, is bad in as far as it interferes with the necessary independence and credibility of a central bank. But, that said, let me also hold that, if a central banker or a regulator believes that what bankers perceive as risky is more dangerous to bank systems than what they perceive safe, and therefore use credit distorting risk weighted bank capital requirements, as they’ve done for a long time, that is a clear justified cause for their removal.

Venezuelan historians sometimes recount that in old days the refined ladies of the society always used to keep a young slave close by. Whenever they let out noisy and smelly gases, they would hit the slave hard and loudly on his head spelling out “Boy/Girl!” whichever applied. These useful blame-takers, scapegoats, were known as “paga-peos”, literally “fart-payers”.

Sir, President Trump clearly produces some gases himself, but he could also go down in history as one of the greatest paga-peos ever.

When booming equity markets, house prices and unsustainable debt levels everywhere, built up with easy bank credit, huge liquidity injections and ultra-low interest rates come crashing down, as they must, sooner or later, those who are much more to blame for it, could all jointly point at President Trump and shout “He did it!” and Ms. Tett might smilingly nod in agreement.

PS. Though in Spanish here you will find more interesting details about the “paga-peos” tradition and about how it can be used with even worse intentions.

@PerKurowski

Hercules Poirot, as a bank regulator, would be much more watchful of the “safe” than of the obvious risky.

Sir, Gillian Tett reminds us that “Any fan of Agatha Christie mystery books knows that distraction is a powerful plot device: if there was a commotion in the kitchen, detective Hercule Poirot would look for a body in the library, or other clues being hidden in plain sight, amid the noise.” “Federal Reserve attack is just a distraction”, November 30.

Indeed, but she could rest assure that Poirot, if cast as a bank regulator, would laugh at his current colleagues who show so much concern with what seems obviously risky, like when they in Basel II assign a risk weight of 150% to what’s rated below BB-, and so little about what seems very safe, like giving only a 20% risk weight to what’s rated AAA and is, therefore, if wrong, truly dangerous for the bank system.

Ms. Tett argues here that President Donald Trump “uses weapons of distraction more effectively than almost any leader before him”

She could be right but also, when GDP and inflation data are fraught with may uncertainties or outright errors, to hear the Fed discussing the “neutral rate”, could also be an intent to distract from the fact that they find themselves in that “dark room” deputy Fed chair Rich Clarida is quoted to have mentioned, and so that they therefore have not the faintest idea about what’s going on, and much less about what to do. 

Sir, when not knowing the answer to a question, proceeding to with a firm voice give an answer nobody is guaranteed to fully understand, also qualifies as a high quality distraction.

PS. That 20% risk weight of the AAA to AA rated, translated to a capital requirement of only 1.6% (8%*20%) which meant the banks were allowed to leverage mindblowing 62.5 times with such assets (100/1.6) which translated in to the cause numero uno for the 2008 crisis. 

@PerKurowski

Aren’t all nations, one way or another, tarred with a similar brush of nationalism?

Sir, Harriet Agnew and David Keohane report that, on the centenary of the end of the First World War, Emmanuel Macron railed against nationalism as a “betrayal of patriotism”, in an implicit rebuke to his US counterpart. “Macron attacks nationalism in Armistice Day rebuke to Trump” November 12.

Macron said: “By saying ‘Our interests first. Who cares about the others?’ we erase what a nation holds dearest, what gives it life, what makes it great, and what is essential: its moral values.” Is that not beautiful? Of course it is!

My problem though is that precisely these days I have been writing that the ending of the First World War, and the Versailles treaty, should provide an opportunity to reflect on the armistice conditions that are imposed on sovereigns, when they have to capitulate because of excessive loads of public debts. This especially because it is usually not only the defeated sovereign’s fault. 

If we look behind most odious debts, we will find surely find odious credits. In the case of eurozone sovereigns, like Greece, odiously dumb regulations too. Assigning a zero risk, as the European Commission did to a nation that is much indebted in a currency like the euro, which is not really its domestic (printable) currency, made absolutely no sense. That meant for instance that German and French banks could lend to Greece against no capital at all, and so, naturally, these banks could not resist the temptation of offering Greece too much credit, and Greece could not resist the temptation of taking on too much debt.

But what happened? The recent armistice conditions imposed by EU authorities required Greece to take on debt, much of it in order to repay German and French banks, leaving it with about a €345 billion debt, more than €30.000 per each Greek, in a currency that as I mentioned is de facto not their own. 

Sir, so I ask is that not just another Carthaginian peace? Viewed this way, no matter how right what Macron preaches is, does he really have the right to throw the first stone on “moral values”? Aren’t all nations, one way or another, tarred with a similar brush of nationalism?

Sir, this is no minor issue. Since Italy would most probably not walk the plank like Greece, the future of the Euro, and of the European Union is at stake… and that is something that those who might rightly defend the Remain against the Brexit, should at least out of pure precaution consider.

@PerKurowski

What’s a rule-based global system worth when the rules are crazy and rulers do not want to discuss these?

How would an ordinary European citizen answer the question: Is Greece a trustworthy borrower? Whatever his answer, what would you think he would say if he was then informed that the European Commission, for the purpose of bank capital requirements assigned Greece, and all other eurozone members, a 0% risk weight? As it is easy to understand that helped to cause the tragic over-indebtedness of Greece and of many other sovereigns, like Italy. 

Sir, you now write, “The Armistice anniversary is a time to reflect that the peace and stability of Europe will require responsible German leadership” “Drawing lessons from the inferno of 1914-1918” November 10.

So let me ask you do you really think The European Commission, the European Central Bank, the European Parliament, all of them, had, responsibly, the lessons of the Versailles Treaty in mind, when they imposed armistice conditions on that capitulating eurozone sovereign debtor of Greece?

Sir, you know that I consider requiring bankers to hold more capital against what they perceive as risky than against what they perceive as safe a total lunacy. Yet, those who imposed the risk weighted bank capital requirements global rule do not even wish to discuss it. Yet, “Without fear and without favour” FT has not dared to ask for an explanation.

The only explanation we have been given about the standardized risk weights imposed on bank by the Basel Committee; those that allow banks to leverage only 8.3 times with assets rated below BB-, and a mind-boggling 62.5 times with assets rated AAA, is “An Explanatory Note on the Basel II IRB Risk Weight Functions” of July 2005.

That document, which totally ignoring conditional probabilities equates ex ante perceived risks with ex post dangers also states, “The model [is] portfolio invariant [because] taking into account the actual portfolio composition when determining capital for each loan - as is done in more advanced credit portfolio models - would have been a too complex task for most banks and supervisors alike.”

Sir, I must tell you, if that’s the rule-based global system Donald Trump might now be threatening, we should at least be thankful for him shaking up many things that need to be shaken up.

I do not like autocrats in my country, but neither do I like them among the global order rules setter.

PS. In the case of the 0% risk weight of sovereigns in the Eurozone that is made even crazier by the fact that de facto the Euro is not their domestic currency.

PS. Where do I come from? Here is an extract of, “The riskiness of country risk”, September 2002: “What a difficult job to evaluate risk! If they underestimate the risk of a country, the latter will most assuredly be inundated with fresh loans and leveraged to the hilt. The result will be a serious wave of adjustments sometime down the line. If a country becomes bankrupt due to your mistake, it could drag you kicking and screaming before an International Court, accusing you of violating human rights. If I were to be in the position of evaluating country risk, I would insure that the process is totally transparent, even though this takes away some of the shine of the profession and obligates me to sacrifice some of my personal market value.”

@PerKurowski

The people in the poorest part of the US have no reason whatsoever to blame Trump for their desperation… yet.

Sir, Rana Foroohar writes,“It never ceases to amaze me that a man I consider the most venal and rapacious president in history has managed to sell desperate people in the poorest parts of the US on the idea that he is their saviour”, “America’s vote marks a culture shift” November 5.

Why would that be surprising? The people in the poorest part of the US have no reason whatsoever to blame Trump for their desperation… yet.

Foroohar writes,“Most Americans, liberal and conservative, are united in their definition of what constitutes “just” business behaviour — they believe it is about spreading the wealth, and improving worker pay and treatment.”

Really? Would most Americans, liberal and conservative, not believe that what constitutes “just” business behaviour — is first and foremost to create that economic growth that could generate opportunities for them?

Foroohar concludes, “It would be wise for both politicians and business to focus on those ideas that bring people together, rather than those that drive them apart”. 

What does she mean by “And business”? Except for some truly minuscule exceptions we have not seen any ordinary business dedicating itself to driving people apart. That is normally very bad for business. What we sure have seen is way too many politicians, activists and journalists, being in the business of polarization… many of them even very happy of being able to exploit Trump in order to improve the profitability of their franchise.

What would they all be doing, and writing about, was there no Trump? They better thank their lucky star.

@PerKurowski

Most of those who either preach or negotiate free trade are just like a Peeping Tom in a nudist camp.

Sir, Alan Beattie, referring to the possible escalation of trade wars writes: “At the time the WTO is most needed, its failings become ever more manifest. Without reform, the organization itself will suffer severe, possibly fatal, collateral damage from the US-China struggle” "A global trading system under fire” October 22.

Beattie also quotesPascal Lamy, a former head of the WTO: “Whether we like Trump or not — and I do not like Trump, I think he must be credited with one thing, which is to have put this issue of WTO reform on the table.”

Having been busy denouncing failed and dangerous bank regulations, I have not followed WTO for more than a decade but, back in 2006 and 2007, I remember Grant Aldonas, Fred Bergsten and Martin Wolf already opining strongly on the need for WTO to reform.

The reforms requested were not only about efficiency… they were about the real core of free trade.

For instance Grant Aldonas held that the success of any reforms, depended on “WTO negotiators recognizing where the conventional mercantilist approach has taken them [so as to] turn around, head back up the road and chart a new course to achieve the development goals that were their original destination” “Why trade negotiators need driving lessons” May 3, 2006.

In a letter, I agreed stating “Currently trade negotiations, instead of opening the doors to the greener pastures we all wish for, feels more like someone corralling you in, to brand you.”

Grant Aldonas later also suggested a “plurilateral agreement among all WTO members willing to move directly to free trade on a global basis”, “A fresh free trade agenda for Doha”, July 13, 2007.

Again I agreed: “Just like in a nudist camp, we need to separate the real nudists from the Peeping Toms. Only this would allow us to conform a true and honest free trade core. It is clear that many of those who profess a belief in free trade fake it, since how could you otherwise explain the sort of perverse satisfaction many show from entering into negotiating processes that hinders the free trade from really advancing. The true spirit of free trade does not stand a chance against these saboteurs and who are simply too scared of taking off their protections, but want to enjoy the view anyhow.”

When Martin Wolf in April 2007 opined “If free trade is really as good as we say it is, then why should we negotiate about it”, I responded: “Indeed,you do not go to a nudist camp to play strip-poker!”

Sir, most of those holier than thou free-traders bashing President Donald Trump for imposing restrictions on trade, are just like a Peeping Tom preaching the merits of nudity, for other.

WTO bureaucrats also help make WTO inutile, as a result of many of them being engaged, primarily, in the protection of their own turf.

Protectionism comes in all colors and shapes. Those tariffs and subsidies imbedded in the risk weighted capital requirements for banks, are many times more costly to the world than any trade tariffs Trump can come up with.

PS. I myself must confess that, even though I am in principle all for free trade, I often find myself worrying about that all deficits and surpluses are not made equal, some are better, some are much worse.

@PerKurowski

EU bank regulators have clearly proven themselves to be a source of systemic risk

Sir, Jan Toporowski writes that the “White House…represents a much more serious systemic threat to European banks. European governments and the ECB need to rethink how European banks are funded and regulated.”, “Threat to European banks of US political agenda”, August 14.

That could be but, foremost, it is the EU that needs to rethink how European banks are regulated. The 0% risk weight that for the purpose of bank capital requirements was assigned to Greece was, without any doubt, what caused that country’s excessive public debt tragedy. And did any EU authority offer to help Greece in order to compensate for that mistake? No! Not even the slightest “We’re sorry”. They do not even acknowledge their mistake… they just keep on blaming Greece.

@PerKurowski

A Universal Basic Income is a prime free market oriented “instrument of national togetherness”

Sir, Janan Ganesh writes about how the fact that “America has a large, complex and redistributive state…with some public assent”, has moved the floor for many traditional republicans, and has favored Trump”, “The end of the Republican free-market ticket”, August 2.

If you are a democrat or a republican who do not belong to the establishment, and who do not like the idea of having to court bureaucrats for any assistance that might be needed more and more, how do you deal with that?

As a Venezuelan, nauseated from seeing how its government has handled centralized oil revenues, I pray for all citizens to be in their own hands, using the free markets to decide what to do, than for them to be in the hands of odious redistribution profiteers. And so I do favor a Universal Basic Income.

And I believe an UBI could also signify a very important unifying bridge sorely needed in a world with so much polarization.

Of course since redistribution profiteering or the exploitation of crony statism exist in all political camps, we should expect all its enemies to circle their wagons and do what they can to stop UBI from reducing the value of their franchise. One of their first lines of defense, is helping to push an UBI into promising way too much, so that it clearly become fiscally unsustainable. Another one is arguing that would exacerbate social laziness.

I have no idea where long-term a UBI would lead us, but I wish we could start with one small enough to help everyone to get out of bed, but not so large so as to allow anyone to stay in bed. Around the corner, or probably in many ways even here, we will need decent and worthy unemployments, and UBI must surely be part of the toolbox for that. 

As a UBI does in fact represent a Societal Dividend, it should appeal to both those who want more free markets and those who focus more on social responsibilities. That sounds very much like an instrument for the centre-left-right to embrace the free market and “the state as an instrument of national togetherness”.

http://myubi.blogspot.com/2017/01/my-universal-basic-income.html

@PerKurowski

Where would America be today had not bank regulators distorted credit and central bankers kicked the crisis can forward?

Martin Wolf, expressing concerns we all deeply share asks, “Who lost “our” America?” and he answers: “The American elite, especially the Republican elite… They sowed the wind; the world is reaping the whirlwind. “How we lost America to greed and envy” July 16.

I respectfully (nowadays not too much so) absolutely disagree. That because supposedly independent technocrats generated the two following events:

First, in 1988 regulators with their so sweet sounding risk weighted capital requirements, promised the world a safer bank system, but then proceeded to design these around the loony notion that what was perceived as risky was more dangerous than what was perceived as safe. That distorted the allocation of bank credits in favor of the "safer" present and against the "riskier" future. That must have stopped much of any ordinary social and economic mobility.

Then in 2007/08, instead of allowing the crisis to do its natural clean up, central bankers, starting with the Fed but soon to be eagerly followed by ECB and other central banks, just kicked the can forward, favoring sovereigns and existing assets. Just as an example, with their repurchase of the failed securities backed with mortgages to the subprime sector, they saved the asses of many investors and banks (many European) while very little of that sacrifice flowed back to those who, in the process, had been saddled with hard to serve mortgages.

Martin Wolf, and you too Sir, would benefit immensely in trying to imagine how the world would be looking now, without that unelected and inept technocratic interference! What had specifically Republicans, or Democrats, to do with that interference?

As I see it if that had not have happened Trump would not even have been thinking of running as a candidate.

PS. An aide memoire on some of the mistakes with the risk weighted capital requirements.

@PerKurowski

Jesus said, “Put out in the deep”. Regulators tell banks “Fish in shallow waters… preferably from the shore”

Sir, Martin Wolf writes, “Mr Trump’s narrowly transactional approach, driven by ignorance and resentment, risks disaster” “Donald Trump’s war on the liberal world order” July 3.

I agree there is room for serious concern with respect to what President Trump might do but, for the time being, for the umpteenth time, much more than what he might be sabotaging the liberal world order, bank regulators already did.

This Sunday, in the Swedish church in New York, they read us how Jesus invited the Apostles to "put out into the deep" for a catch: "Duc in altum" (Lk 5:4). "When they had done this, they caught a great number of fish" (Lk 5:6).

With their risk weighted capital requirements for banks, more perceived risk, more capital – less perceived risk, less capital, the regulators de facto told our banks to fish in shallow waters… preferably from the shore.

To assign a 20% risk weight to a corporation rated AAA to AA, and 100% to an unrated corporation 100%, and "generously" permitting the possibility of risk weighing small entrepreneurs with only 75%, has absolutely nothing to do with a liberal world order.

Moreover to assign a 0% risk weight to sovereigns and one of 100% to citizens, reads just like a communist world order.

“Armoured by ignorance”? Indeed, those regulations guarantee excessive exposures to what is especially dangerous as it is perceived, decreed or concocted as safe; against especially little capital… in other words it dooms our banks to especially severe crises.

Good job Basel Committee!

@PerKurowski

A major difficulty for EU is that what caused the last crisis, and attempts against its economic dynamism, shall not be named

Sir, Judy Dempsey writes that Merkel’s “conservative bloc would not buy into an agreement that would require Germany to spend more to bail out badly run economies” “Macron and Merkel will struggle to present a united front” June 19.

Have Merkel’s “conservative bloc” been told that their bank regulators assigned a risk weight of 0% to Greece and so that therefore Greece got way too much money?

Have Merkel’s “conservative bloc” been told that their regulators require banks to hold more capital against loans to German unrated entrepreneurs, than against loans to any EU sovereign?

Sir, I am sure that if central bankers and regulators were hauled in front of some really independent authority, and asked to comprehensibly explain so much of the crazy things their risk weighted capital requirements for banks entail, that would help clear the air and lead to much more constructive discussions in the EU about its future.

Who knows, perhaps such real discussions that would at long last hold some EU technocrats accountable, could even tempt a reversal of Brexit.

http://perkurowski.blogspot.com/2016/04/here-are-17-reasons-for-why-i-believe.html

@PerKurowski