« links for 2008-01-13 | Main | The Brookings Institution on Fiscal Stimulus of the U.S. Economy »

Sunday, January 13, 2008

"Why America Needs a Little Less Laissez-Faire"

Barney Frank says we've gone too far down laissez-faire boulevard:

Why America needs a little less laissez-faire, by Barney Frank, Commentary, Financial Times: As we prepare for this autumn’s election, the results are in on America’s 30-year experiment with radical economic deregulation. Income inequality has risen to levels not seen since the 1920s and the collapse of the unregulated portion of the mortgage and secondary markets threatens the health of the overall economy.

These two economic failures will be major issues in the forthcoming presidential election, and, importantly, there is an emerging Democratic consensus standing in sharp contrast to the laissez faire Republican approach.

There are two central elements of this consensus. Democrats believe that government’s role as regulator is essential in maintaining confidence in the integrity and fairness of markets, and we believe that economic growth alone is not enough to reverse unacceptable levels of income inequality. In the wake of the subprime mortgage crisis, ... it clear that a mature capitalist economy is as likely to suffer from too little regulation as from too much.

With respect to income inequality... Whether because of globalisation, technology or other factors, it is clear that market forces have produced too much inequality and government has not adequately used its capacity to mitigate the impact of these forces.

Conservatives have long argued that government efforts to address these issues would damage the economy. They are, of course, the same people who predicted that there would be an economic disaster after Bill Clinton and the Democratic Congress raised marginal tax rates in 1993, and who opposed other tax increases on upper-income people. Economic growth in the ensuing years was among the strongest in the postwar era. It is now clear that growth in the private sector is consistent with a far greater variation in many aspects of public policy – including taxation and regulation – than conservatives claim. In fact, appropriate ... market regulation is necessary to promote growth, and its absence – as we have learned – can retard it.

As recently as a year ago, one often heard the argument that US financial activity would migrate offshore unless we moved to further deregulate markets. There is little evidence to support this claim. In fact, it is now clear that what has been migrating to the rest of the world are the problems associated with securities based on bad loans – often originated by unregulated institutions in the US. ...

Widespread securitisation ... has turned out to be far less than the unmitigated boon it had once appeared. The market did its job with great efficiency in exploiting the benefits of securitisation but government failed to make good on its responsibilities. The failure of regulation to keep pace with innovation left us with no replacement for the discipline provided by the lender-borrower relationship that securitisation dissolves. Increasing and largely unregulated leverage multiplies the corrosive effect of this change.

In response to the current crisis, it appears that the regulatory tide may, at long last, be turning.

In 1994 a Democratic Congress – the last before the Republican takeover marked the arrival of the deregulators – passed the homeowners equity protection act, giving the Federal Reserve the power to regulate all home mortgage loans. The avatar of deregulation, Alan Greenspan, then Fed chairman, flatly refused to use any of that authority.

In contrast, today’s Fed will soon issue rules using that authority. That represents a significant repudiation of the previous view. While the proposals made by the Democratic presidential candidates differ in detail, they are to a substantial extent consistent with the argument I have made here. Their Republican counterparts continue to advocate the hands-off approach pursued by the Bush administration. As a result, we are likely to have a healthy debate about the role of government in supporting a robust capitalist economy in the 21st century. It is important to note that this debate is not about policy details but represents fundamentally different views about the nature of our modern economy. ...

On the inequality point, we should remove inequities in outcomes, particularly those that arise due to unequal opportunity. But fixing problems after the fact is not enough, there is much more we can do to equalize economic power and to bring about more equal opportunity than we are doing now.

An unequal playing field may cause most of the goodies to roll into one corner, and redistributing the goodies to where they would have gone on a level field is unobjectionable even though those in the corner will complain when you take away their hard-earned wealth. But leveling the playing field has to be a priority as well, it's the best solution in the long-run, and this is where I would like to see more effort.

Until opportunity is equalized, at least more so than now, redistribution may be needed to compensate for the uneven playing field that we have, and there's no guarantee that the outcome will be equitable even with equal opportunity. But we can surely do more - we surely should do more - to help disadvantaged segments of our population to acquire the tools they need to be successful and compete on a more equal basis.

    Posted by on Sunday, January 13, 2008 at 01:18 PM in Economics, Market Failure, Regulation | Permalink  TrackBack (0)  Comments (49)


    TrackBack URL for this entry:

    Listed below are links to weblogs that reference "Why America Needs a Little Less Laissez-Faire":


    Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.