• Home
  • About CF&P
    • Board of Directors
    • Staff
    • Contact Us
  • Blog
  • News
    • Press Releases
    • Updates
  • Publications
    • Prosperitas Studies
    • Testimony and Speeches
  • Opinion & Commentary
  • Videos
    • Economic Lessons Series
    • Economics 101 Educational Series
  • Donate

Navigate

  • Home
  • About CF&P
    • Board of Directors
    • Staff
    • Contact Us
  • Blog
  • News
    • Press Releases
    • Updates
  • Publications
    • Prosperitas Studies
    • Testimony and Speeches
  • Opinion & Commentary
  • Videos
    • Economic Lessons Series
    • Economics 101 Educational Series
  • Donate
The Link Between Systemic Risk and One-Size-Fits-All Regulation

The Link Between Systemic Risk and One-Size-Fits-All Regulation

Posted on June 22, 2013 by Dan Mitchell

After the financial crisis, the consensus among government officials was that we needed more regulation.

This irked me in two ways.

1. I don’t want more costly red tape in America, particularly when the evidence is quite strong that the crisis was caused by government intervention. Needless to say, the politicians ignored my advice and imposed the costly Dodd-Frank bailout bill.

2. I’m even more worried about global regulations that force all nations to adopt the same policy. The one-size-fits-all approach of regulatory harmonization is akin to an investment strategy of putting all your retirement money into one stock.

I talked about this issue in Slovakia, as a conference that was part of the Free Market Road Show. The first part of my presentation was a brief description of cost-benefit analysis. I think that’s an important issue, and you can click here is you want more info about that topic.

But today I want to focus on the second part of my presentation, which begins at about the 3:40 mark. Simply stated, there are big downsides to putting all your eggs in one regulatory basket.

The strongest example for my position is what happened with the “Basel” banking rules. International regulators were the ones who pressured financial institutions to invest in both mortgage-backed securities and government bonds.

Those harmonized regulatory policies didn’t end well.

Sam Bowman makes a similar point in today’s UK-based City AM.

Financial regulations like the Basel capital accords, designed to make banks act more prudentially,  did the opposite – incentivising banks to load up on government-backed mortgage debt and, particularly in Europe, government bonds. Unlike mistakes made by individual firms, these were compounded across the entire global financial system.

The final sentence of that excerpt is key. Regulatory harmonization can result in mistakes that are “compounded across the entire global financial system.”

And let’s not forget that global regulation also would be a vehicle for more red tape since politicians wouldn’t have to worry about economic activity migrating to jurisdictions with more sensible policies – just as tax harmonization is a vehicle for higher taxes.


financial crisis harmonization Housing Regulatio
June 22, 2013
Dan Mitchell

Dan Mitchell

Dan Mitchell is co-founder of the Center for Freedom and Prosperity and Chairman of the Board. He is an expert in international tax competition and supply-side tax policy.

Find Us On Facebook

Follow Us On Twitter

Tweets by @CFandP
"I write to express support for the Center for Freedom and Prosperity's support of tax competition."
    
~ Milton Friedman, Nobel Laureate ~


 "By fighting against an international tax cartel and working to preserve financial privacy, the Center for Freedom and Prosperity is protecting taxpayers, both in America and around the world."
    
~ Rep. Dick Armey, Former Majority Leader, U.S. House of Reps. ~
  • Home
  • About CF&P and CF&P Foundation
  • Donate
  • News
  • Publications
  • Opinion and Commentary
  • Market Center Blog
  • Videos
© Copyright 2014, All Rights Reserved.