The COVID paranoia is back, and politicians are on the bandwagon. The other day, UK added (back) tests to arrivals, France is doing the same, EU’s President is talking about mandatory vaccination rules, and markets plunged. Countries are now beginning to coerce their citizens into getting a booster, even though many experts think the new Omicron variant will be resistant to current vaccines. And we already know the current vaccines are not much better than about 50% at infection prevention, especially against the Delta variant. “Oh, but it is good at reducing the hospitalization and death rate” you say, and “that is good enough”. Yes, I agree, and in fact I am neither a sceptic nor an anti vaxxer. I have had my double dose and have made an appointment to get my booster shot next week. My point today is not about the vaccine, but about our politicians’ ability (or lack thereof) to lead with common sense rather with demagogic “vote influencing” policies. This is a recurring theme in my thoughts and a damaging shortcoming in our society.
As soon as there is news of a new variant, governments jerk up to reaction and restart limiting people’s freedoms and rights in the name of security and safety above all. But what about the financial markets? Should there not be some restriction to the markets: short-selling, derivatives, complex algorithmic trading and so on? “No! Stock markets do not propagate infections” you say. Well, biological infections maybe not, but what about psychological and paranoiac reactions and opportunistic greed? Is there any doubt that the market has behaved erratically since the pandemic? And much of it is due to a combination of pandemic fears coupled with greed driven shorts, derivatives, and algorithm-driven trading? Much of which has had disruptive effects on the markets, which supply millions of working people’s pensions? Meanwhile, let’s not forget that traders and bankers generally (although exceptions exist from time to time) make their dough whether the markets go up or down, and the pandemic has shown that the rich have gotten richer.
If limiting people’s freedom is necessary to protect the societal well-being, so it must be limiting the convoluted stock market instruments. And if we feel that despite the disruptive effects, we should not limit stock market’s freedoms, why are we doing it to people’s freedoms and rights? Is that less worthy of protection and respect?
To end this post, I am including the paragraph below which is Benjamin Franklin’s (a great man) response to a governor’s veto of taxing the colonial owners:
In fine, we have the most sensible Concern for the poor distressed Inhabitants of the Frontiers. We have taken every Step in our Power, consistent with the just Rights of the Freemen of Pennsylvania, for their Relief, and we have Reason to believe, that in the Midst of their Distresses they themselves do not wish us to go farther. Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
Paris, December 2, 2021,
Zeejay