Quello che si deve evitare è il "panico".
Se si pensa che domani , per fare un esempio, un dato strumento lo compri a meno, oggi lo vendi (anche se tu non sei per niente impanicato).
Sull'efficacia degli interventi delle BC in questa crisi, ovviamente, ho letto anche pareri differenti.
Quello che deve essere assolutamente evitato è il panico sullo SP500.
Leggevo (a tratti, lasciando le formule matematiche) ieri un articolo complicatissimo : in queste giornate sullo SP500 sono state le "macchinette" (semplifico) a salvare dal panico che, su certi livelli, continuavano a ricoprirsi. L'essere umano (è un mammifero) si fa più facilmente prendere, comprensibilmente, da questo sentimento.
In tema di banalità, eccone altre, ma da tenere a mente :
Assume you have a room with 100 people. If two people suddenly sprinted out of the room, most of the others probably wouldn’t make much of it. But if half the people in the room suddenly ran outside, the other half will probably do the same thing.
They might not know why the first 50 people left, but the second half will just assume something major has happened. That could be a fire or a bomb threat or something along these lines.
The key is to determine the tipping point that compels people to act. Two people fleeing isn’t enough. 50 certainly is. But, maybe 20 people leaving could trigger the panic. Or maybe the number is 30, or 40. You just can’t be sure. But the point is, 20 people out of 100 could trigger a chain reaction.
.
.
People assume that if you had perfect knowledge of the economy, which nobody does, that you could conceivably plan an economy. You’d have all the information you needed to determine what should be produced and in what number.
But complexity theory says that even if you had that perfect knowledge, you still couldn’t predict financial and economic events. They can come seemingly out of nowhere