Skip to main content

Taleb tries not to say "I told you so"

In the dead slot of the BBC Radio 4's Today programme, after 8.45 when everyone is arriving at work, there are often interesting debates about the issues of the day.

Today Nassim Nicholas Taleb was one of the guests and, as he has done before, he spoke out about the systemic risks that bankers did not realise that they were undertaking.

He also made the point that in the 1982 Emerging markets crash the Bankers lost all the money that they ever made, and then they did it again in the 1991 Savings and Loans crash. In other words, most of the banking system has not, in the long term, been a profitable business. He added that with each successive crash, risk has become concentrated in a smaller and smaller number of banks. As a result the problems have grown larger.

The answer is clear- if not simple- the ecology of the global banking system needs to change and become more diversified. Single risk should not be concentrated in the system. Diversity is critical in order to reduce the concentration of risk.

The problem is that the regulators are now simply trying to cope with the crisis that is happening now- they are not focusing on creating a more diversified ecology of banks- indeed, far from it. The primary result of the crisis in the UK has been the concentration of ownership of bank assets into only six super-banks. This, of course presupposes that size alone is the biggest guarantee against failure, whereas the loss of Lehman, Merill, etc. shows that this is certainly not the case.

The fact is, that in trying to address the problems of today, the state is now creating a regulatory environment which is likely to concentrate systemic risk still further. In the way the state is dealing with the crisis of 20o8, they are creating the conditions for a still bigger crisis in 2018 or so. This can not be said to be even a Talebian "Black Swan"- it is actually quite easy to forecast.

Listen again to Taleb's words of wisdom (and Evan Davis' continuing mispronunciation of his name) on the Today website at 08.45 on the running order.

Comments

Newmania said…
Interesting to see the European banks in an even worse state than the US . I am not at all convinced our system is secure C.It is rumoured that a household name insurer is about to go. This has a very long way to go

Popular posts from this blog

Waiting for the Barbarians

What are we waiting for, assembled in the forum? The barbarians are due here today. Why isn’t anything going on in the senate? Why are the senators sitting there without legislating? Because the barbarians are coming today. What’s the point of senators making laws now? Once the barbarians are here, they’ll do the legislating. Why did our emperor get up so early, and why is he sitting enthroned at the city’s main gate, in state, wearing the crown? Because the barbarians are coming today and the emperor’s waiting to receive their leader. He’s even got a scroll to give him, loaded with titles, with imposing names. Why have our two consuls and praetors come out today wearing their embroidered, their scarlet togas? Why have they put on bracelets with so many amethysts, rings sparkling with magnificent emeralds? Why are they carrying elegant canes beautifully worked in silver and gold? Because the barbarians are coming today and things like that dazzle the barbarians. Why don’t our distingui...

Liberal Democrats v Conservatives: the battle in the blogosphere

It is probably fair to say that the advent of Nick Clegg, the new leader of the Liberal Democrats, has not been greeted with unalloyed joy by our Conservative opponents. Indeed, it would hardly be wrong to say that the past few weeks has seen some "pretty robust" debate between Conservative and Liberal Democrat bloggers. Even the Queen Mum of blogging, the generally genial Iain Dale seems to have been featuring as many stories as he can to try to show Liberal Democrats in as poor a light as possible. Neither, to be fair, has the traffic been all one way: I have "fisked' Mr. Cameron's rather half-baked proposals on health, and attacked several of the Conservative positions that have emerged from the fog of their policy making process. Most Liberal Democrats have attacked the Conservatives probably with more vigour even than the distrusted, discredited Labour government. So what lies behind this sharper debate, this emerging war in the blogosphere? Partly- in my ...

Lib Dem v. Tory (Round 2)

The Liberal Democrats stand for a distinct political ideology. It is an ideology built around both socially and economically liberal precepts. In as far as our ruling Labour government can be said to have an ideology at all, it coincides with Liberalism only incidentally. Labour stands for pragmatism, and where it does not there is still a core of values that are collectivist and not individual. Sometimes people are prepared to claim the moral high ground for policies of social solidarity and redistribution of wealth. Liberals may argue in favour of equality of opportunity, we can not argue in favour- as Socialists do- of "and equal society". The reason is simple: Socialism does not work. If one places equality above freedom, then eventually we get tyranny. This is why, while we may argue in favour of a more equal society as being a stronger society, the tools that we may use to gain -in our view- socially desirable outcomes must rest upon freedom above all else. As PJ O'...