What a sad bunch of “progressives”, and what a sad bunch of “free-market supporters”, you both groups are

Current capital requirements for banks favor the access to bank credit of “The Infallible”, like the sovereigns and the AAAristocracy, those already favored by markets, because they are perceived as “absolutely safe”; and thereby discriminate, odiously, against the access to bank credit of “The Risky”, like the small businesses and entrepreneurs, those already discriminate against by the markets, precisely because they are perceived as “risky”.

What a sad bunch of “progressives” you are, not caring about widening the gap between “The Infallible” and “The Risky”

What a sad bunch of “free-market supporters” you are, not caring about how the current bank regulations distort.

“Oh but it is all to make our banks safer” Bullshit! Our banks are never ever threatened by what is perceived as “risky”, only what is considered “absolutely safe” cause major crises.

"The ‘Mistake’ that shall not be named” Journal of Regulation and Risk - North Asia 

To download the whole Journal of Regulation and Risk - North Asia, Volume V Issue II Summer 2013: here

God make us daring!

Is not the interest that is not earned on public debt because of public policies a tax?

In terms of taxation, who is affected by a higher real tax rate?

Someone earning 5 percent in interest on public debt and, supposing a tax rate of 20 percent, then has to pay 1 percent in taxes, resulting in net earnings of 4 percent, or, 

Someone only earning only 3 percent on public debt, because of QEs, lower capital requirements for banks when lending to sovereign, and other fancy stuff causes lower interest rates on public debt.

You tell me, or better yet, tell them! on public