Lord Eatwell, a Cambridge don and Labour peer has said in the Guardian that greater transparency is the mantra of the ignorant. With apologies to my noble friend, I think his analysis mistaken.

Of course transparency is not the answer to the current crisis. By itself transparency achieves nothing. And of course he is right that the big issue is systemic risk (risk he helped create as an adviser to Labour on economic policy, I'm afraid to say).

But he's entirely wrong if he thinks the three issues he think should be addressed (systemic risk assessment, pro-cycle provisioning and change in regulation so that it focuses on the function and not the nature of an institution) can be even approached without an increase in transparency.

Right now we cannot identify systemic risk because the system is hidden from view, and deliberately so.

Pro-cycle provisioning requires an accurate assessment of the cycle. Insufficient information on both the cycle and the nature of provisions is available to allow that right now.

And when the nature of an institution is hidden by orphan entities, the use of the secrecy space and more then there is no chance of what he ask for happening.

So, respectfully, Lord Eatwell is falling into the economists trap of assuming he has enough data when he has not. Transparency will provide the data we need to address issues.

And he really shouldn't think we're ignorant when we ask for data: none of us want it for its own sake. We all want it for its value in use. An economist, of all people, should understand that.