Is it just me? Or have you noticed that the NCUA's behavior over the last 12 to 18 months has seemed a bit - shall we say - strange? All this anger, angst and resentment; the peevishness, pout, and pique; the temper tantrums and tirades - a peculiar, regulatory rendition of the "terrible twos"? |
| Really bad; childish, too! (RBC2) |
And then in addition, there was that inexplicable risk-based capital (RBC #1) rule? I mean even for the inside-the-beltway-knows-best mentality, that was an unparalleled, major show of farce!
 |
| No comment - period! |
Here are the eight symptoms, see what you think...
 |
| Deliberately ODD ? |
2) Performs actions deliberately to annoy others.
3) Angry and resentful of others.
4) Blames others for their mistakes.
5) Argues often.
6) Frequently loses temper.
7) Spiteful or seeks revenge.
8) Touchy or easily annoyed.
The good news is that there is one cure for this consistent pattern of ODD behavior...
CONGRESSIONAL LEGISLATION !
Let's make sure NCUA gets the therapy it needs - OK?
2 comments:
Do a google search on the following:
Istituto Bruno Leoni
7th Mises Seminar
Sestri Levante – 9-10 October 2010
Slavisa Tasic
Are regulators rational?
Two quotes seem relevant to your thoughts:
1. In mainstream economics literature there is a near complete absence of the concern that regulatory design might suffer from the lack of competence. Among the critics of regulation,the dominant concerns are that regulation may unnecessarily stifle market transactions and thus negatively impact economic growth, or that regulation may be designed to
benefit organized interest groups.
2. On the positive side, cognitive biases help explain the propensity to regulate, regulators’ internal justifications for it, and the direction in which regulation is likely to move. In this preliminary account, it argues that our biases probably carry the level of regulation beyond the
optimal level. On the normative side, the input of cognitive psychology calls for a more
careful approach to regulation. It reminds us of human fallibility, and jointly with the economics of collective decision-making warns us that government intervention is the area where such mistakes are more likely to occur than in private decisions. It calls for a humbler approach to government intervention, especially on the ground that we are less smart and the market order is more complicated than it appears on the surface.
Forget the clowns. Call in Nurse Ratched.
Post a Comment