The Naive Conceit Of Bank Regulations

Investors.com ^ | February 19, 2010 | JOHN TAMNY

[Kaslin]

Past troubles within the U.S. financial system continue to generate a great deal of feverish commentary from allegedly wise minds in the economic commentariat about how to fix what was broken. The general view is that something must be done in terms of legislation and regulation to ensure that another banking crisis of the kind that occurred in 2008 never happens again.

In a Wall Street Journal opinion piece last Tuesday, Princeton professor Alan Blinder observed that "doing nothing to safeguard the financial system after what we've been through would be a disgrace."

The same day, former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson wrote in the New York Times it's critical "we learn from the financial crisis and put in place reforms to avert a repeat of 2008 or something even worse."

Blinder's and Paulson's musings speak to a broad consensus on the left and right that more government is needed to save the banking system. Unfortunately for both sides, the calls for more regulation will not work for ignoring greater realities about talent, incentives and the certain truth that failure of any kind is a key economic input, along with a clean form of regulation itself.

Implicit in the argument for more or better financial regulation is the naive assumption that the kind of person willing to work for the government has the skills necessary to regulate a financial sector that, by virtue of its profits, attracts some of the greatest minds in the world.

[Toddsterpatriot]

Aren't you hear arguing that the Federal Government was right to backstop citibank?

No.

[Ron Jeremy]

You apparently have a problem with basic logic. goodnight.

[Toddsterpatriot]

I simply understand that the Treasury doesn't save money if they allow a panic to destroy the economy.

Goodnight.

[element92]

Goldman Sachs can borrow at the Fed’s
discount window.

that has to stop