There are many explanations for the crash. Some blame it on greedy bankers and investment strategies that shunned trust and integrity. Others blame it on cheap money and low interest rates. But the most obvious culprit is deregulation.
As I pointed out in a blog entry last month, the tough regulations introduced after the Great Depression kept the US market steady for decades. The crash is the price we now pay for unregulated financial innovation.
It's a point taken up this week by The Economist.
When things were going well, everyone loved it because businesses and households had access to cheap loans. But regulators were struggling to keep up.
The more important question is whether the new wave of regulation will help grow the economy. It's a point summed up well by The Economist:
"Liberalisation happened for many reasons. Often, regulators were simply trying to catch up with the real world-for instance, the rapid development of offshore markets. In addition, deregulation provided things that voters wanted, such as cheap loans. Each financial innovation that came along became the object of speculation that was fuelled by cheap money. Bankers and traders were always one step ahead of the regulators. That is a lesson the latter will have to learn next time.
"Amid the crisis of 2008, it is easy to forget that liberalisation had good consequences as well: by making it easier for households and businesses to get credit, deregulation contributed to economic growth. Deregulation may not have been the main cause of the rise in living standards over the last 30 years, but it helped more than it harmed. Will the new, regulated world be as benign?"
no comment untill now