August 03, 2018
Sir, with respect to Bank of England’s interest rate increase you explain it with “The decision had all the hallmarks of a committee that has decided that it will only be comfortable when rates are at a higher level that feels more natural”, and so sees what it wants to see, and so you argue “It is far better for central banks to be more clearly and dispassionately guided by the data” “A rate rise and a Bank of England false step” August 3.
Of course, except those for some special reasons need blissful blindness, it is better for most “to be more clearly and dispassionately guided by data”.
But let me ask you Sir: What data, during the last decades have you seen that in any way shape or form could support the current pillar of bank regulations, namely that what is ex ante perceived as risky is more dangerous to our bank systems ex post, than what is perceived as safe?
None? Might it then not be that you are also too passionate about hoping to make our banks safe at no cost, so as to understand the data, or the lack of it? Or are you perhaps so passionate you do not even want to see any data that contradicts it.
Yes, I am obsessive about the distortions in credit allocation that the risk weighted capital requirements for banks cause, but Sir, you are just equally, or even more, obsessive with ignoring it.
@PerKurowski