There was then a slow rebound in 2004 to 4

The current financial crisis is an opportunity for many commentators sing the usual refrain on capitalism chronic instability and the need for a strengthening of the regulation of the markets known indeed, incorrectly, regulation of financial markets. This was the creed affirmed by the French President in his recent speech of Toulon. It is but a different lesson that should make the current crisis, namely that better regulation is through the free functioning of markets by their regulatory and non.

The essential cause of this crisis is indeed from the extraordinary variability of us monetary policy in recent years. However it is of course decided by public authorities and non-determined by the market. Therefore, the Fed has evolved from an interest rate of 6.5 in 2000 at a rate of 1 in 2003. There was then a slow rebound in 2004 to 4.5 in 2006. During the period of low interest rates and easier credit, the world has overwhelmed liquidity. To take advantage of this wonderful opportunity of easy profits, financial institutions have granted credits to borrowers of less and less reliable, as shown by the "sub-prime" crisis When it returned to more normal interest rates, the excesses of the past appeared at the big day. It is the bursting of the "bubble".

But the harmful consequences of this policy have been exacerbated by several phenomena. First of all, the sense of responsibility for the risk is blunted because he is implicitly admitted that the authorities would not occur important if bankruptcies (that in part confirms the current behaviour of the authorities). In particular, two major providers of "subprime" credit, Fannie May and Freddie Mac originally created by the American State benefited from privileged State guarantees that led them to take very excessive risks.

Moreover, the financial regulation itself is the source of perverse effects. It is the obligation imposed on banks by the Basel II agreement to maintain a ratio of own funds equal to 8 of their assets. Before the tremendous opportunities created by the policy of low interest rate of the Fed, the banks wanted to develop maximum credits, while now the ratio imposed by the regulation. For this purpose, they have sought to circumvent the regulations as it always does by getting rid of some of their stock to other organizations, for example investment fund and SIV (Special Investment Vehicles). Part of the credits granted by banks have thus disappeared from their balance sheets, allowing them to increase their loans in apparent compliance with regulations.

Of course, can be considered as desirable that own funds are "adequate" to the loaned funds. Indeed, in the 19th century, represented the own funds of banks usually 60-80 of their budget: bankers lent the funds that belonged to their shareholders and high (and desired) ratio of own funds constituted a great guarantee of stability for shareholders as for customers of the banks. The bankers were of real capitalists that of the owners of capital. They were responsible for as such.

At this time, it was thought possible basing economic development on credit and not on own funds. Moreover, much of the credit comes of an ex nihilo creation of expansionary monetary policy, and not a voluntary savings. Simultaneously, due to the decline of capitalism himself often to interventionism State so that the big banks are more directed by capitalists, owners of the capital, but by managers who, supporting themselves the risk of the shareholder, are tempted to maximize short-term profits.

In the capitalist world in the 19th century, more stable than today's financial world, bank credit was the result of the decisions of the shareholders of the banks. In the world state of our time, the opposite is happening. Is arbitrarily imposed a ratio of own funds which is that mimic a true capitalist world, but this led to the emergence of asset bubbles. Credit institutions maximize the amount of credits and then try by manipulations to comply with the regulatory own funds ratio. A regulation which imposes a result will never replace the free play of the decisions of beings (i.e. capitalist) responsible for humans. It is based the constant appeals today for greater regulation of financial markets.

Of course, can blame financial institutions have not been more careful. This is the result of the institutional structures of our time we remembered. But it also reflects the fact that information can never be perfect: a capitalist system is not fully stable, but it is more stable than a centralized and State system. That is why, instead of stigmatising alleged instability of financial capitalism, should be stigmatizing the extraordinary imperfection of monetary policy. It is regrettable that managers large banks have not been more lucid and have better assessed the risks they took in a world where monetary policy is inherently destabilizing. But this is precisely and especially this character destabilizing of monetary policy to be deplored. So stop the trial made wrongly to capitalism and are instead looking for the way to free financial markets in State right-of-way.