Beware when issues, no matter how important, like climate change, become mostly discussed because of their distraction value
Sir, Martin Wolf, after taking on a history tour argues: “A positive-sum vision of relations between the west, China and the rest has to become dominant if we are to manage the economic, security and environmental challenges we face”. That said Wolf frets our chances our small “given the quality of western leadership, authoritarianism in China and rising tide of mutual suspicion”, “Unsettling precedents for today’s world”, November 27.
Indeed, use history to illuminate the present, but never allow it to hide it. In the same vein let’s also include the caveat of not using any of those challenges to distract us from other just as important issues, like the very delicate state of our financial system.
Consider the following facts:
1. As a response to the 2008 (AAA securities) and the 2011 (Greece) crises, by means of QEs and similar, there were/are huge injections of liquidity.
2. Since the distortions produced by the risk weighted capital requirements were not eliminated, our banks have dangerously overcrowded all “safe” harbors, like sovereigns and residential mortgages.
3. As a result the rest of market participants had to take to the risky oceans like highly leveraged corporates debts and lending to emerging countries.
4. To top it up plenty of other high debt exposures abound, e.g. student and credit card debts.
5. Finally there are huge unfunded social security and pension plans all around the world.
And I refer to ”distraction” because everywhere we turn, we find regulators and central banks frantically looking for excuses to talk about other things, so as not have to answer some basic questions like:
Why do you believe that what bankers perceive as risky, is more dangerous to our bank system than what bankers perceive as safe?
Do you understand that allowing banks to leverage differently different assets distorts the allocation of credit to the real economy?
Do you understand that the other side of the coin of decreeing a zero risk to sovereigns, just because they can print the money to repay, is that it implies bureaucrats know better what to do with bank credit they are not responsible for, than for instance entrepreneurs?
EU you assigned a zero risk to all eurozone sovereigns’ debts even though none of these can print euros. What do you think would have happened to the USA’s union, if it had done the same with its 50 states, even though none of these can print US$ on their own?
Sir, when an architect takes on a project, he usually signs a contract by which he assumes personal responsibility “for the facility and its systems' ability to function and perform in the manner and to the extent intended” Should not bank regulators sign similar contracts?
@PerKurowski
Posts
