opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
John Stossel
John Stossel
3 Feb 2016
Political Arrogance

After the Iowa caucus results, it looks like Hillary Clinton vs. Marco Rubio in November! They lead the … Read More.

27 Jan 2016
Running on Empty

Cars run on fuel. Politicians run on votes, and they'll do almost anything to get them. That includes … Read More.

20 Jan 2016
Economic Myths

Hillary Clinton: "Of course we want to raise the minimum wage!" Donald Trump: If we trade with China, "they … Read More.

The Nirvana Fallacy


President Obama has ( announced his "sweeping overhaul of the financial regulatory system."

We can debate endlessly whether the Constitution authorizes any president to "overhaul" the financial system. But I want to focus on a different matter: whether any president, with all his advisers, is capable of overseeing something as complex as the financial system.

My answer is no, and it is ominous that a bright guy like Obama doesn't know this. He thinks he must regulate the system because it is so complicated and important. In fact, those are the reasons why he cannot regulate it, and should not try.

As F.A. Hayek said in accepting the 1974 Nobel Prize in economics, "[W]ith essentially complex phenomena, the aspects of the events to be accounted for about which we can get quantitative data are necessarily limited and may not include the important ones." So when regulators set out to redesign an economy, they display not wisdom but a "pretence of knowledge" (

Yet Obama is so confident.

"[W]e will ... coordinate and share information, to identify gaps in regulation, ... solve problems in oversight before they can become crises ... that will allow us to protect the economy ." (Emphasis added.)

What Obama cannot tell us is why these are anything more than words. We've heard them before. Why should we be comforted?

Regulators are human beings with the same shortcomings as everyone else. Even if we assume they have the best motives, on what basis do we believe they could possibly know what they need to know to manage a financial industry that is complex beyond conception — and changing every day in response to new conditions?

Obama speaks as though these facts don't exist. He goes so far as to say, "[W]e're proposing a set of reforms to require regulators to look ... — for the first time — at the stability of the financial system as a whole ." (Emphasis added.)

That is precisely what no one can do. The financial system isn't a machine. It's people — a huge number of them — engaging in countless transactions often on the basis of hunches that are not quantitative and never written down.

How is a regulator to keep tabs on — much less manage — that?

It cannot be done. If he tries, he'll end up stifling competition, innovation and life-enhancing economic growth.

Contrary to the foes of free markets, the choice is not between regulated and unregulated markets. As the French economist Frederic Bastiat long ago pointed out (, the free market is regulated by its own logic. If we have simple, easily understood rules against fraud, then people acting in their self-interest, without privileges or bailouts, generate market forces that create order and make our lives better. The key is market discipline, which government reduces whenever it intervenes.

Is the market perfect? Of course not. The market is people. But the same kind of people will run the regulatory bureaucracy — except they play with other people's money and have brute power in their hands. Here is where Obama's planners commit what economist Harold Demsetz calls "the Nirvana fallacy" ( They compare the real-world marketplace to an idealized regulatory apparatus run by omniscient bureaucrats.

But the latter is not available, so the comparison is pointless. We must choose between two systems, both run by fallible people. The decentralized, competitive market full of free people is hands-down preferable to a centralized body of clueless bureaucrats who can hold a gun to our heads.

Obama says the free market is "not a free license to ignore the consequences of our actions." He's right but doesn't understand why. A genuine free market allows risk takers to fail and suffer "the consequences." Only government can grant "license" to ignore consequences. Government caused the financial morass by doing just that — pushing banks to weaken mortgage lending standards, pressuring Freddie and Fannie to buy up dodgy mortgages and sell them as safe securities, bailing out big banks when they got into trouble and insuring bank deposits — thereby encouraging us not to care if banks are reckless.

Government failed, not the market. Obama's answer? Just like George W. Bush's: more government.

Give me a break.

John Stossel is co-anchor of ABC News' "20/20" and the author of "Myth, Lies, and Downright Stupidity." To find out more about John Stossel and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at




1 Comments | Post Comment
As always, John Stossel has insight uncommon in his profession.

Do we really trust government that gave us Social Security (almost bankrupt), Military Intelligence (isn't that an oxymoron?), and the DMV (enough said) run our economy?

We in Oklahoma are blessed with Tag Agencies instead of the DMV for most motor vehicle business. They are private businesses that contract with the State government to perform this task. Believe me, they are much better than having to go down to the government building and dealing with "public servants". They are a business and treats us as customers.

I am afraid for my children as this administration is hell bent on giving us government run health care, government run economy, and even government run auto manufacturers. Will GM (government motors) build cars the consumer wants or will they build cars the government thinks the consumer should want? We used to call this communism.

During the election, Mr. Obama said that conservatives thinks he's a communist because he is like the boy at school who wants to share his lunch with a classmate who came to school without one. Of course, he is right. That is not communism. It is called sharing and is a highly civilized behavior. It is communism, however, if the teacher should forcibly take his lunch away from him and cut it in half and give half to the poor student without little Barak's consent. Actually, to make the analogy more accurate, she would have to cut the sandwich in 3 and keep one piece for herself.
Comment: #1
Posted by: Stanley
Fri Jun 26, 2009 12:50 AM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right: comments policy
John Stossel
Feb. `16
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
31 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 1 2 3 4 5
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Marc Dion
Marc DionUpdated 8 Feb 2016
Mark Shields
Mark ShieldsUpdated 6 Feb 2016
Brent Bozell

27 Jul 2010 Don't Ask/Don't Tell Should Go

21 Aug 2012 Who Is Paul Ryan?

27 Nov 2013 Thankful for Property