Debate: Do We Need More Regulation … Or Less?

The Issue Is Not Really Regulation … It is a Malignant, Symbiotic Relationship Between Government and Wall Street

In a new debate at Bloomberg, Jeff Madrick – Senior Fellow at the liberal Roosevelt Institute – argues we need more regulation.

Chris Whalen – the top independent bank analyst in the country, and a diehard conservative – argues we need less.

But they both agree that we need more transparency.

And the government could enforce regulations and laws already on the books … like basic fraud law

Indeed, as Jarrod Penwell notes, regulation is disproportionately applied too the little guy:

There is both too much regulation and too little regulation. Small firms are aggressively regulated. This makes it difficult for them to become significant competitors to big firms. Meanwhile big firms are not regulated at all. It is called a small-target bias.

The pattern is the same at most federal agencies, including the DOJ, SEC, FINRA, EPA, FDIC, FHA, FTC, etc. All of these agencies demonstrably exhibit a tremendous small-target bias. In order to demonstrate this yourself, take a look at any of these agencies’ enforcement actions over any significant period of time.

Moreover, the whole left-versus-right melodrama is a fake dichotomy. Specifically, conservatives tend to view big government with suspicion, and think that government should be held accountable and reined in. Liberals tend to view big corporations with suspicion, and think that they should be held accountable and reined in.

In other words, conservatives hate big unfettered government and liberals hate big unchecked corporations, so both hate legislation which encourages the federal government to reward big corporations at the expense of small businesses.

No wonder both liberals and conservatives are angry that the feds are propping up the giant banks – while letting small banks fail by the hundreds – even though that is horrible for the economy and Main Street.

Indeed, the government helped and encouraged the giant banks to get even bigger, and then has hidden their insolvency and shielded them from the free market, and helped them grow even during the severe downturn. In return, the big banks and giant corporations have literally bought and paid for the politicians.

The Dodd-Frank financial legislation wasn’t a compromise where things landed somewhere in the middle between liberal and conservatives ideas. Instead, it enshrines big government propping up the big banks … more or less permanently .

A 2010 Rassmussen poll found:

70% [of all voters] believe that the government and big business typically work together in ways that hurt consumers and investors.

(and see this).

Conservatives might call it “socialism” and liberals might call it “fascism” – they are the same thing economically.

Indeed:

The corrupt, giant banks would never have gotten so big and powerful on their own. In a free market, the leaner banks with sounder business models would be growing, while the giants who made reckless speculative gambles would have gone bust. See this, this and this.

It is the Federal Reserve, Treasury and Congress who have repeatedly bailed out the big banks, ensured they make money at taxpayer expense, exempted them from standard accounting practices and the criminal and fraud laws which govern the little guy, encouraged insane amounts of leverage, and enabled the too big to fail banks – through “moral hazard” – to become even more reckless.

Indeed, the government made them big in the first place:

As MIT economics professor and former IMF chief economist Simon Johnson points out today, the official White House position is that:

(1) The government created the mega-giants, and they are not the product of free market competition

***

(3) Giant banks are good for the economy

And given that the 12 Federal Reserve banks are private – see this, this, this and this– the giant banks have a huge amount of influence on what the Fed does. Indeed, the money-center banks in New York control the New York Fed, the most powerful Fed bank. Indeed, Jamie Dimon – the head of JP Morgan Chase – is a Director of the New York Fed.

Any attempt by the left to say that the free market is all bad and the government is all good is naive and counter-productive.

And any attempt by the right to say that we should leave the giant banks alone because that’s the free market are wrong.

The [corrupt, captured government “regulators”] and the giant banks are part of a single malignant, symbiotic relationship.

Indeed, both progressives and conservatives – in America and all over the world – are demanding an end to the crony capitalism which is destroying our economy.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
  • gozounlimited

    Could this earth be more f’d up? Can anyone think any more ?…. this earth is turning into a giant ass-hole ready to deflate and piss itself all over the universe … and you ask …
    Debate: Do We Need More Regulation … Or Less?

    Don’t take it personally ….

  • Jarrod Penwell

    There is both too much regulation and too little regulation. Small firms are aggressively regulated. This makes it difficult for them to become significant competitors to big firms. Meanwhile big firms are not regulated at all. It is called a small-target bias.

    The pattern is the same at most federal agencies, including the DOJ, SEC, FINRA, EPA, FDIC, FHA, FTC, etc. All of these agencies demonstrably exhibit a tremendous small-target bias. In order to demonstrate this yourself, take a look at any of these agencies’ enforcement actions over any significant period of time.

    • H.

      The government agencies are not afraid of small companies / banks. They dont bear the legal and lobbying clout that huge “institutions” have. The regulators are pretty much the same people that work at the banks, brokerage houses, etc. A revolving door of control (not influence peddling – because the fed is a private bank, does not answer to government)

  • wunsacon

    How about this statement:

    “We have just the right amount of government. But, it’s doing the wrong things.”

  • wunsacon

    George,

    Unfortunately, the left-right dichotomy exists, along several dimensions.

    I know enough left-wingers who blame crooks and/or crooked policy in the public and private sectors. But, I hear much less complaint from right-wingers about the private sector. It’s seems they give them a nearly-free pass, as though they’re unaware of who pays the lobbyists’ checks and who’s *never* going to disappear as long as younger motivated-by-money-only sociopaths can (a) *dream* of becoming the next generation of robber barons and (b) thanks to the power of the corporation to occlude personal responsibility and thanks to the annulment of the 90% top-tax rates we used to have, *know* they can make that happen.

    And social issues are not a small matter either. The right-wing draws a lot of support from religious people who want to impose their beliefs on everyone. Whether plutocrats and lobbyists believe in these things or not, they cater to these American Christian jihadists just the way the US Empire catered to the mujahideen in Afghanistan as a way to fight the Soviets. (Will the “enemy of my enemy” strategy ever die?)

  • James Crow

    Basically a philosophical debate upon the proper placement of the deck chairs on the Lusitania to reflect feng shui…elections are a complete total fraud. The “politicians” aren’t listening to anyone who didn’t pay their way to office. We’re poised for a very unsavory meltdown here and across most of the world. And those in power are letting you and me and everyone who might be paying attention know this. Still you debate the undebate-able. You’d better be enjoying your Friday lest you feel the rug being pulled out from under your feet with gusto. Do you really want the Mayan calendar to be “wrong” oh blogoman?

  • iakovos