Right of way

A long time ago, when there were not too many cars on our roads, the rules of priority were simple: the one coming from the right went first. It was simple, effective and inexpensive from an infrastructure point of view: a few licks of paint on the road and that was it.

Then, at some point, it was decided that the priority to the right was too outdated to cope with the increasing number of cars. So, traffic engineers were expensively trained and paid to study our roads. This time coincided as if by magic with the emergence of companies that sold traffic lights. Without further ado, we began to equip all our intersections with such equipment, to the great delight of the manufacturers of road signaling equipment. And to the great misfortune of the taxpayers.

It worked for quite a few years. At least until we had gone around all the intersections. But when it was over, the engineers started twiddling their thumbs and looking at each other like squints. And then one day, we said to ourselves that we could make the car go around a roundabout and this time give priority to those coming from the left. It worked on the other side so it must have been at least as good on the right. Everyone was happy, we were giving the engineers more work, the civil engineering companies were going to have a field day dismantling all the lights and building beautiful buildings in the middle of the intersections. In short, there was work for many years. But the taxpayers continued to tax.

And then one day, an engineer came across his grandfather's old books and rediscovered the priority to the right. And then they started to dismantle the roundabouts, and put back the little white lines that had been erased a hundred years earlier.

What is the moral of this story?

First of all, man is by nature hyperactive, but very inefficient. Most of the time he would do better to do nothing to achieve a result that is as good, or perhaps even better.

Secondly, we should be wary of great theorists, specialists, professors, advisors, politicians, etc. Not that they are incompetent or dishonest, but they have been formatted to produce analyses, studies and solutions. If they allowed themselves to say only "it would be better to do nothing", they would be seen as clowns and would lose clients, voters, students, etc.

Trump is the epitome of a hyperactive, hot-headed, no-winner. On the contrary, he creates more problems than he solves. But it was precisely this big mouth and this agitation that got him elected.

The world of work is also littered with examples of great useless and counterproductive air-shaking. We create, we destroy, we recreate and so on, according to the changes of managers, and their moods.

In the stock market, it's exactly the same. It's very difficult for us to close our eyes and do nothing. However, in the vast majority, buy&hold is the most profitable and least expensive solution in terms of time and money.

Following CNBC gurus or using an investment advisor most of the time only serves to fuel the wealth of those who are supposed to fuel yours.

So next time you're wondering, let others get excited, and give them priority...