You are reading Economic Forces, a free weekly newsletter on economics, especially price theory, without the politics. Economic Forces arrives weekly in the inboxes of over 8,000 subscribers. You can support our newsletter by sharing this free post or becoming a paid subscriber:
while all of this makes sense, the premise that banks are fragile because of regulations is “cart before the horse” kinda logic. the universe doesn’t owe bankers a successful business. if the bankers cannot operate under those conditions, then either (a) they should not have started a bank or (b) if they bank was already operating when some of these regulations were imposed, then they should have recognized their inability to operate under such conditions and either sold their banks or closed up shop. where one could argue that this would have put pressure on the economy since lending would quickly drop with less banks and options for borrowers, then regulators & legislators would then be forced to change/modify the regulations to stimulate the economy. i just can’t buy, “the regulations made me do it” sort of argument 😉
while all of this makes sense, the premise that banks are fragile because of regulations is “cart before the horse” kinda logic. the universe doesn’t owe bankers a successful business. if the bankers cannot operate under those conditions, then either (a) they should not have started a bank or (b) if they bank was already operating when some of these regulations were imposed, then they should have recognized their inability to operate under such conditions and either sold their banks or closed up shop. where one could argue that this would have put pressure on the economy since lending would quickly drop with less banks and options for borrowers, then regulators & legislators would then be forced to change/modify the regulations to stimulate the economy. i just can’t buy, “the regulations made me do it” sort of argument 😉