Don't Panic! Defending Cowardly Interventions During and after a Financial Crisis

Abstract

How should we regulate the U.S. financial system after the financial crisis when we face the task with a radically inadequate understanding of what went wrong and what effect proposed regulations will likely have? This paper explores three quite different approaches to regulating in the face of severe uncertainty: the libertarianism of Friedrich Hayek, the conservatism of Michael Oakeshott, and the liberalism of John Maynard Keynes. Each man thought deeply about the problem of how uncertainty affects human affairs, but each came to different conclusions about how to address such uncertainty. The paper outlines the core, immensely useful insights of each theorist. The paper then outlines the even more useful and persuasive critiques that each launches at the other two. From

Rethinking Financial Rewards for Whistle- Blowers Under the Proposal for a Directive on the Protection of Whistle-blowers Reporting Breaches of EU Law

“…78 Business school students should be educated in the consequences of wrongdoings in the financial sector and in which way they impact the real economy and society. 79 Instead of providing financial rewards, the State may opt to design a new model of education that will enhance new core values in the business sector for the common good.…”