How Free Market Forces Would Regulate Banks

One of my numerous smart and interested students at Towson University (yes, I’m fortunate), a non-economics major named Kristin, has sent me the following question in response to my recent post, “One Reason Governments Should Not Regulate Banks“:

How would you rely on free market forces to better regulate banks?

Here is my reply:

Kristin, it’s good to hear from you. I have part of a chapter on this in my book. Here are the main points:

Because all banks would want to be part of clearinghouse associations to keep down the costs of clearing checks and notes, all banks would have a strong incentive to join clearinghouses. The members of these clearinghouse associations would want some assurance that the OTHER members are creditworthy and sound. Therefore the members would agree to standards of soundness and to periodic inspections by agreed-upon bank examiners. Banks that let their capital or cash reserves drift too low would run the risk of penalties or even expulsion from the clearinghouse association. That whole process is strong regulation.

Deposit insurance, which people would want, would be private, of course, not taxpayer funded. Those who insure deposits with their own money, of course—and these might be insurance companies, bank shareholders (through double, triple, or even unlimited personal liability for their bank’s obligations)—would have a strong incentive to make sure the deposits the insure are reasonably safe. Thus deposit insurers would in effect regulate bank practices by refusing to insure deposits at banks they deemed too risky.

Lastly there is good old profit and loss. Bank shareholders don’t like losses; neither do depositors. In the absence of Federal (read taxpayer-backed) Deposit Insurance and bank bailouts with taxpayers’ money, bank depositors would monitor the practices of their banks (or pay someone to do so). If they started to worry about the soundness of their current bank, they would have a strong incentive to move their money elsewhere. The losses and gains of deposits experienced by different banks with different practices and standards would effectively select in sound practices and select out unsound ones. In the extreme (which has been very rare in actual periods of nearly-free banking), bad banks would rupture—go bankrupt. Loss aversion is a strong regulator, fear of bankruptcy a very strong regulator.

Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email

One Reason Governments Should Not Regulate Banks

A big reason why governments should not regulate banks is painfully illustrated this week in “Banks Battle Weight Issues” in the Wall Street Journal  (July 22). The article focuses on New York Community Bancorp, which is “projected to reach the $50 billion mark by the end of the year if it continues to expand at its current rate.”Continue Reading

Who Has the Wealth of the Wealthy Rentiers?

Prompted by Thomas Piketty’s book Capital in the Twenty-First Century, I ask the question in this post’s title in a recent Freeman article. A slice: Let’s begin with the source of the income of the idle rich in a free economy. (We need this proviso, “in a free economy,” because in an unfree, crony capitalist economy, the idleContinue Reading

St. Louis Government Regulators v. Uber and St. Louisians

Here is a letter to the St. Louis Business Journal: To the Editor: I have been following the contest in St. Louis between Uber and St. Louisian riders, on the one hand, and the forces of darkness, repression, and crony capitalism on the other. I object to the title and first paragraph of your reportContinue Reading

Let Markets Forces Regulate – Taxicabs

In this Freeman article I argue that “the sensible response” to any unfairness to taxicabs from competition from Uber, which has so far avoided government restrictions, “is not to burden Uber the way taxis are burdened, but to unburden the taxis and leave all ride services free to compete.” Two commenters on Facebook were notContinue Reading

Who’s Anti-competitive?

Here’s a letter to the Baltimore Sun: To the editor, The Annapolis mayor’s and taxicab companies’ justifications for regulating Uber conflict with the facts (“Annapolis gives Uber a warning,” July 15, 2014). The mayor “insists that [Uber be] regulated…like…taxicabs…to keep our citizens and visitors safe.” But Uber already checks its drivers’ backgrounds and requires they beContinue Reading

Let’s Free City Ride Services

The Freeman online has published a piece I wrote suggesting that instead of subjecting Uber, Lyft and other ride-sharing services to burdensome taxi regulations, local governments should instead stop burdening taxis with regulations. A slice: If we had free markets for city ride services, that would be the whole story so far. The preferred rideContinue Reading

Immigration Impasse

A cousin recently wrote me to ask what I think of the New York Times opinion piece, “Break the Immigration Impasse,” by Sheldon Adelson, Warren Buffett and Bill Gates. Here is my reply: Dear George, As you might expect, I like this piece. It makes eminent good sense. It’s just nuts—on its face it’s nuts—to send away reallyContinue Reading

Private Ownership is Key – Forest Fire Illustration

Why do national forests burn, but private forests don’t? Something like that was the title of an op-ed I read some years ago (but cannot now find) when the west was suffering a terrible forest fire season. The author, probably Terry Anderson or one of the other fine scholars at PERC, explained that in privateContinue Reading

Private Ownership Is Key – Fracking Illustration

In a characteristically lively and thought-provoking episode of EconTalk (June 23, 2014), Gregory Zuckerman illustrates the tremendous importance of private ownership to human flourishing. At the 37:00 mark of the podcast, Zuckerman, author of The Frackers: The Outrageous Inside Story of the New Billionaire Wildcatters, contrasts the extensive oil and gas production now going onContinue Reading

Contact Dr. Baetjer

Enter your email address: