Peter Bernstein draws a conclusion from the current problems in the financial markets:
The subprime mortgage mess, the huge leverage throughout the system, the insidious impact of new kinds of derivatives and other financial paper, and, at the roots, the vast underestimation of risk could not have happened in a planned economy.
Oh really? Another story from today’s New York Times reports:
The banking giant JPMorgan Chase, for instance, has 70 regulators from the Federal Reserve and the comptroller’s agency in its offices every day. Those regulators have open access to its books, trading floors and back‐office operations. (That’s not to say stronger regulators would prevent losses. Citigroup, which on paper is highly regulated, suffered huge write‐downs on risky mortgage securities bets.)
Goldman‐Sachs, which was largely unregulated, mostly avoided losses related to the mortgage market through prudent hedging. Citigroup, which was highly regulated, suffered such losses. Expect state control without the promised payoff in a planned economy.
There’s a larger point here that Bernstein neglects completely. A prosperous society requires risk taking. Bernstein is correct: historically a planned economy has prevented such risk taking. Not surprisingly, such societies have not been prosperous, to put it mildly.
More important, they have not been free societies. Preventing the downside of risk requires control over people’s choices. Seventy bureaucrats reviewing your trades. More generally, the best and the brightest continually uttering imperative sentences. Stay away from that cake! Avoid that derivative! Think correct thoughts! The risk‐free society will be a society filled with hectored serfs.
Right now, at this moment of hysteria, the political class suffers from availability bias. Like Bernstein, they see only the downside of risk and conclude the necessity of the planned economy. A more complex and nuanced view would see both sides of risk and the enduring value of liberty.