Isn’t there a bias something like: “If something actually happens, then people believe that it was foreseeable before it happened.”?
I think you’re correct (and also) governments should be judged more by how well they protect against extreme circumstances than how well they do in the no-disaster, short term.
However, an opponent of your ideas might make an argument that if they believed the probabilities of collapse implied by the market before the collapse, it would have been a waste of time and effort to make plans for such worst-case scenarios.
Isn’t there a bias something like: “If something actually happens, then people believe that it was foreseeable before it happened.”?
I think you’re correct (and also) governments should be judged more by how well they protect against extreme circumstances than how well they do in the no-disaster, short term.
However, an opponent of your ideas might make an argument that if they believed the probabilities of collapse implied by the market before the collapse, it would have been a waste of time and effort to make plans for such worst-case scenarios.