Editor's note: In the Reith Lecture this week, Niall Ferguson talked about The Darwinian Economy. The programme is available to listen to online or to download and keep - PMcD

    There will always be greedy people around banks," says Niall Ferguson "after all they are where the money is - or should be."

    "But greedy people will only commit fraud or negligence if they feel their misdemeanour is unlikely to be noticed or severely punished."

    In the second Reith Lecture in his series The Rule Of Law And Its Enemies economic historian Prof Niall Ferguson tackles the subject of financial regulation - and the need to drastically prune it.

    Prof Ferguson argues that the financial crisis that began in 2007 had its origins in over-complex regulation.

    Many economists - and members of the public - disagree and believe lax regulation was a major cause of the financial crisis. They blame President Clinton's repeal of the restrictive Glass-Steagall Act in particular.

    But they have misunderstood the problem, says Ferguson. He says the major events of the crisis would still have happened even with Glass-Steagall in place. Instead, he says, misconceived regulation was a large part of problem.

    Because de-regulation is not bad. It is bad regulation that is bad. Banks were key to the financial crisis - and banks were regulated, he observes.

    The more serious failing, Ferguson continues, is the feeling of impunity within the banking industry. This is not an issue of deregulation, but non-punishment. There was a failure to apply the law. The list of people jailed for their role in the USA's sub-prime crisis is "laughably short," says Prof Ferguson.

    Extra compliance is not the solution, he says, because adding rules upon rules upon rules removes the need for banks to simply ask themselves "are we doing the right thing?"

    Plus, the principal beneficiary of tighter regulation will not be the economy - but the legal profession. Lawyers, he says, will gain lucrative business explaining to financial institutions what the increasingly dense rules mean.

    Simplicity is the best defence for taxpayers and citizens, says Niall Ferguson, as it is the only way to ensure a complex financial industry becomes less fragile. Discretion should replace compliance. Combined with this should be strong central banks, run by people of wisdom and experience - and proper punishment for those who break the rules.

    • Do you believe we should have more - or less - financial regulation?
    • Is enforcement of regulation a problem?
    • How do you prove an investment bank was knowingly irresponsible - versus making a bad investment decision?
    • Is it just too late to simplify the banking sector?

    Listen to Niall Ferguson's Reith Lectures

    Download Niall Ferguson's 2012 Reith Lectures

    Follow Radio 4 on Twitter and Facebook

    Niall Ferguson's second lecture, The Darwinian Economy, will be repeated on Radio 4 on Saturday, 30 June at 22:15 BST.

    The third lecture in the series, titled The Landscape of the Law, will explore the rule of law in comparative terms - and its role in the development of countries such as China. This will broadcast on Radio 4 on Tuesday, 3 July at 09:00 BST.

    Tagged with:


    This entry is now closed for comments.

    • Comment number 21. Posted by fallingTP

      on 9 Jul 2012 12:58

      "throroughly debunked by more weighty intelectuals from Chomsky and Zizek to Klein."

      Klien an "intellectual" really. Her writing lacks intellectual rigour; instead she draws largely on fiction constructions and the building of conspiracy theories. Her analysis is absurdly flawed; almost laughable.

      • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 21: 0
      • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 21: 0
    • Comment number 20. Posted by PC incorrect

      on 8 Jul 2012 15:37

      In one of Niall Ferguson`s lectures he says that the current debt situation was caused by the "Baby Boomers".
      Well I suppose I`m one of these as I`m 65 but as I`ve only ever borrowed a small amount of money for a mortgage (1974) I resent being included in the cause of UK`s debt crisis. When we were younger you had to jump through hoops to borrow money. It`s only this younger generation that borrow money for fun!!
      When Gordon (the pension thief) Brown became Chancellor and his side kick Ed Balls, suddenly we started being bombarded with leaflets through the door advertising easy money.
      Along with the greedy banks luring people into mortgages and loans that they could not afford, the younger lot fell for that hook line and sinker.
      Now it`s the baby boomers who are saving the day by reluctantly having record low interest on their life time savings and struggling to make ends meet.

      • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 20: 0
      • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 20: 0
    • Comment number 19. Posted by Steve

      on 3 Jul 2012 09:22

      I thought this lecture inconsequential and displaying the same hypocracy that the lecturer beleives is the root cause of the fall in standards of our leadership. For example, a celebrity's (Jimmy Carrs') taxation arrangements were mentioned. But it is a very obvious and simple fact that those taxation laws were completely legal and ridiculously over-complicated because our legislators have made them exactly that. But the media censure was directed at the celebrity, and not the legislators that enacted those exact regulations. The lecture then went on to state that it was up to us, the civil society, to bring about change, but then went on to state that it was not willing to criticise the prime minister or our legislators.
      Really? So, its up to the civil society to bring about change, but without directing censure towards those who are responsible for institutional failures. Such complacent hypocracy is startling coming from a lecturer who really should be sufficiently aware to know better.
      Perhaps the next lecture will describe how to bring about change by just wishing for it terribly hard.

      • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 19: 0
      • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 19: 0
    • Comment number 18. Posted by Verynaughtyboy

      on 3 Jul 2012 09:01

      The financial crisis had its origins in the boom bust business cycle, the monopolisation of capital and the desire of governments to use credit, however dodgy, to get us out of the last crisis. Regulation would not have sorted this. To that extent alone Ferguson is right. The problem is that Capitalism has a shelf life and it is already past its sell by date for the majority of the worlds people. It is not environmentally sustainable either, a point that he glossed over in his first lecture. Neo liberal solutions have been throroughly debunked by more weighty intelectuals from Chomsky and Zizek to Klein. However, centrally managed economies have failed misserably. We can no longer sustain economic growth and survive as a species on this planet but we do need to manage an economy that delivers more equality of wealth and opportunity and a more even quality of life for all. How to do this should be the real debate. A market economy is clearly not the answer.

      • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 18: 0
      • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 18: 0
    • Comment number 17. Posted by Frederick Robinson

      on 1 Jul 2012 16:47

      Llistening to this second lecture a second time, I found, I have to admit, one or two things which, if I do not wholly agree with them, at least I incline more towards. Nevertheless, with both listenings, a nagging....something....intervened between the argument and my grasping of it. I thought at first it was a visceral dislike, on my part, of the Professor's dogmatic/pedantic spelling the message out, as if he were talking to uncomprehending children (I exclude from this, his more-normal tone when answering questions -apart from his needless rudness over Occupy). What coluld it be...? Gradually it dawned on me that what I was hearing was the tones of the National Theatre. The National Theatre of Brent. I began to expect that at any moment his alter ego would butt in with 'Wall-to-Wall Badgersett' (to be corrected by his stage-whispering original ego with: 'No! Walter Bagehot!!', only to persist in mispronunciation). He did, though, make one or two intentional pleasantries, witnessed by forced laughter from the audience.

      • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 17: 0
      • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 17: 0
    • Comment number 16. Posted by barry

      on 1 Jul 2012 13:10

      Delighted to see Professor Ferguson give due weight and praise in his Lecture to the relevant work of the great Victorian, Walter Bagehot. For much more on the life and work of Bagehot, go to the new website: www.bagehotlangport.co.uk.

      • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 16: 0
      • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 16: 0
    • Comment number 15. Posted by RichardGB

      on 29 Jun 2012 09:53

      When organisations are in trouble, they often go back to first principles - as for example the Church did during the Reformation. Robert Townsend in his excellent management book "Up the Organisation" has a chapter on "The man from Mars"., in which he suggests looking at the situation as a complete outsider. Our Martian would start by asking why we have banks, capital markets and stock markets; the answer he would get is similar to Bob Diamond's responses in an interview with the BBC: to create a strong economy by financing individuals, companies and governments so that they can grow and prosper, thus creating wealth and better living conditions for all. (possibly rather simplistic but I'm sticking to very basis principles - Martians aren't very financially sophisticated)

      On that basis issuing, buying and selling bonds and shares is our way of doing that and it works well. But I fail to see how much of the dealing and the vast majority of financial instruments contribute to those objectives. How does short selling help a company? How do the computerised micro second share dealing programmes help the economy? I know little detail about derivatives but I'm aware that they are inherently unstable (ironically something that stock markets dislike) and that they played a major part in the recent crash. However I fail to understand how they do anything to help the real economy. By "real economy" I mean the one that grows, extracts, makes or sells real things - not the financial world of wheeling and dealing. So why are they allowed? They are simply there to make money. Of course companies make money as a result of what they do but there is a real product or service. The money that is made by the financial tacticians is either not there at all (too often in the recent past) or is taken out of the real economy, since you can't create money apart from by quantitative easing (now there's a euphemism). This is not what the banks and markets should be doing.

      I think our Martian might be rather puzzled to see that we have developed a financial system part of which now does the exact opposite of what is was set up for, and that we are not even talking about doing anything about it. Well that's not quite true; we are formalising it by suggesting that one part of a bank should be set up to meet the objectives of real wealth creation and the other part will be set up to trade, gamble and operate financial systems that give no help to the real economy and have recently helped to cause many of our problems. Unbelievable? No - it's what is proposed, and as was said by Merryn Somerset Webb, the firewalls won't work; so effectively we are doing nothing.

      A friend who works in the Merchant Banking sector told me that merchant banks are back operating in exactly the same way as they were before 1998 and I was interested to hear on the BBC programme "More or Less" that Goldman Sachs were called in by Greece to re-engineert their debt by hiding 75% so that they could gain entry to the Euro. Presumably the Germans and others put the telescope to their blind eyes when checking the documentation. With organisations set up to undertake that type of financial engineering and duplicity we are going to continue to have financial crises as long as they are allowed to do so. So at least part of my solution to the current problems is to ban derivatives and short selling (the latter I believe is sometimes done for short periods of time.)

      There was also an excellent BBC play about dead goat futures some time ago which was a brilliant allegory on the futility of what is happening in the financial world.

      Most of this was written before the Libor scandal which only underlines the need for radical reform and the futility of relying on firewalls.

      Am I the only person who has suggested such radical reform?

      • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 15: 0
      • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 15: 0
    • Comment number 14. Posted by MairifaeInsch

      on 28 Jun 2012 18:47

      I find it strange that a Scotsman should think 'England' and 'Britain' are interchangeable.

      • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 14: 0
      • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 14: 0
    • Comment number 13. Posted by androo

      on 27 Jun 2012 13:33

      I’m disappointed at Niall’s pessimism regarding banking reform per Kotlikoff (see the UK campaigning website postivemoney.org which is more or less what Kotlikoff argues for). With this reform regulation becomes automatically simplified. Niall says he deals with the world as it is, well ok, but if he does think positvemoney type ideas have legs then a Reith lecture is a good platform to put them into the public arena as they still very much are not there. Too timid then.

      Tinkering and trusting in wise men (women) is not going to cut it - Niall must know that. He must also be aware, as a historian, that from time to time radical reform is possible and that sometimes there are revolutions – who’s to say the Europe’s revolutions are all behind it. Failing to put the alternatives out there when given the chance is disappointing. Of course I could be less charitable toward Niall and see him as a Neo-Classical Economist (NCE) apologist and appeaser and therefore part of the problem who should therefore have rocks hurled at him too.

      I agree that legislation and regulation around the banking system is hugely over complex and mainly benefits lawyers. But there is a parallel in the tax system too, maybe he’ll discuss that in one of the lectures that remains. For now I will speculate that Niall is an advocate of a flat tax +/or consumption tax regime. These probably will be simpler (than the present system) but I think are inherently unfair as they fall as heavily, indeed more heavily on the poor and than on the better off. In short they are regressive. So what we have is the complex tax systems of today which try to tax mobile individuals and ephemeral companies but are most successful at taxing ordinary working people. The attempt to make this system “fair”, given the political push and shove, within the NCE paradigm give us a Tolleys guide to the tax system over 11,500 pages long (in 2009 – longer now I believe – it’s not just us almost everywhere else has similarly complex tax systems – not least the US). Moreover this NCE mandated system taxes Economic activity and worse taxes it heaviest in the most marginal locations resulting, for example, in the UK’s London centric economy. This system is a charter for parasitic Tax Accountants and Lawyers and makes either liars or fools of all of us.

      Alternative tax system is Landvaluetax as proposed by Henry George in Progress and Poverty some 140 years ago and buried by the NCE consensus (Mason Gaffney - http://homepage.ntlworld.com/janusg/coe/!index.htm Corruption of Economics). UK nearly got a landvaluetax in 1909/11, the attempt being thwarted by the House of Lords (I now understand the Liberals pre-occupation with changing that institution).

      Taken together these two reforms (postivemoney and landvaluetax) take the Ponzi and too big to fail problem out of the financial system and vastly simplify and regularise the tax system.

      Niall isn’t the only reasonable sounding man out there who thinks things should change he’s just one who perhaps has acceptable ideas for today’s plutocrats, timid politicians and lazy minded and confused voters (of course I know that's a terrible thing to say).

      Will they be allowed to get away with maintaining social order until the debt is paid down enough for the merry go round to start again and with just enough reform to limit the worst excesses, for a bit, when the upturn finally arrives. I hope not, but Niall may be right that that’s the best we can hope for – that seems to be what he’s offering us.

      I also like Steve Keen and his “Debunking Economics” and especially his idea for “the other jubilee” http://www.debtdeflation.com/blogs/.

      • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 13: 0
      • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 13: 0
    • Comment number 12. Posted by foxjones

      on 27 Jun 2012 12:53

      Those who listened carefully to this lecture will have noted that it contains a fundamental self-contradiction. After claiming that "bad regulation" rather than "deregulation" is (was) responsible for the banking crisis, he then goes on to delineate a process that can only be described as....wait for it...deregulation. He doesn't say so, of course, because that would counter his purpose which is essentially political
      Krugman described Fergson as a "poseur...who hadn't bothered to understand the basics (of economics)". He is largely right.

      • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 12: 0
      • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 12: 0
    More comments

    More Posts