Market Indifference

Behavioral economics and behavioral finance are among today's most popular approaches. As their names suggest, these fields analyze human behavior by bringing economics and psychology together. Both initiatives challenge orthodox economic theory, which does not emphasize psychology to this extent, instead approaching human behavior as purely rational and mathematically predictable. They represent the latest stage in a search for answers, a quest that began with the realization that neoclassical assumptions do not fully reflect the real world.

When we look at financial markets—comprising sub-markets of capital and money markets such as the stock market, bond market, and derivatives market—we encounter an interesting situation. Although this phenomenon appears in all economies, it is much more prevalent in developing countries. In financial markets, both those who manage transactions and those who invest naturally pursue the interests of their business and their capital. Over time, this pursuit takes precedence over many other issues and becomes almost the most significant determinant of life. Meanwhile, even if conditions in the country have deteriorated and societal values have begun to erode, these concerns are consistently pushed to the background.

Consider Businessperson A, a person raised by modern world’s standards, respectful of the law, patriotic, and pro-secularism. Let's assume A does not vote for the current government and neither likes nor supports their actions. A generates income from trade and industrial ventures, while also investing in financial markets, guided by Investment Advisor B. Advisor B shares similar perspectives and a comparable background with A, and professionally manages the finances of individuals like A.

In this environment, A and B will chase roughly the same outcome. While A wants to continue profiting from their investment, B wants A and others in similar positions to earn more so that B can continue to make a living. Even if A and B are unhappy with the current government's actions, they will prefer that this government does not change and that the existing political environment persists, despite their disapproval. This is because the disruption of this political environment—the fall of a government or the search for a new one—would create instability, leading to losses in financial markets across stocks, exchange rates, interest rates, and other returns.

A and B are thus in a state of great contradiction. On one hand, they want the departure of a government they dislike and complain about for damaging the social, cultural, and legal environment. On the other hand, they do not want to face the financial losses that would result from the vacuum created by that government's departure.

In the last few years, the global system has experienced massive and frequent shocks, incomparable to the past. It is highly likely that similar shocks will continue in the coming period. The cumulative impact of various global shocks, such as the ongoing effects of the global crisis, the election of Trump, economic sanctions against Russia, the war in the Middle East, Brexit, North Korea's missile tests and threats, political instability in Europe have marked recent years. The ongoing war involving the US, Israel, and Iran has only exacerbated these tensions, adding fuel to an already volatile global landscape. In addition, every country experienced its own shocks, some large and some small. Global and local shocks occurring within a relatively short period have driven financial markets into serious fluctuations in the past.

Although the disruptions, collapses, and loss of balance in politics, foreign policy, economy, and finance caused by such frequent shocks have significantly affected A and B, they quickly set these effects aside and sought ways to continue generating profit. Having experienced loss of money and business in previous economic crises, A and B do not want to go through them again; yet, they absolutely do not support the government's approaches. To ensure there is no market volatility—or that such volatility does not cause financial loss—they reluctantly support a government they do not believe in or like, and sometimes even vote for that government's party. While they continue to make money from this system, they simultaneously live through the paradox of dreaming of buying property or depositing money in a foreign bank to settle in another country and raise their children in a better environment. I call the analysis I am trying to put forward here "Market Indifference."

---

Notes:

This analysis applies not only to financial markets but to all markets. I used financial markets as an example because they are constantly before our eyes.

The characters A and B are examples, and there are countless such instances worldwide. Although the contradictions they face are seen globally, they are much more common and impactful in developing economies.

The number of people like A and B may not occupy a large place in a country's population. However, their decisions significantly influence the market. If they take a negative stance and the market subsequently collapses, the impact on society can be very high and widespread (business closures, layoffs, wage cuts, etc.). Therefore, their influence is important enough to drive anxiety in the rest of society.

In countries that have become full-fledged consumer societies, especially after the global crisis, the pursuit of earnings and the effort to maintain them seems to have risen to the primary rank of importance in people's lives.

One of the main reasons why markets have not completely collapsed despite such large and frequent shocks in the last few years is that this contradiction people experience between their earnings and their thoughts is generally resolved in favor of earnings. As long as it is resolved this way, it is possible to see that markets become much more resilient against collapsing due to shocks.

The fact that markets and the people within them (either to profit or to intermediate) have gained resilience against shocks is a good development in terms of preventing quick market fractures. Conversely, it is a negative development that this resilience has provided a level of comfort bordering on indifference. This is because indifference is an approach that prevents the correction of mistakes and deficiencies.