One of the constant refrains in the debate over regulating derivatives is that if we do anything to tamp down on this massive market for customizable derivatives that are built-to-order by the five largest banks, we'll do some terrible damage to the economy. Or something.
But look at the graph atop this post: The real explosion in customized derivatives came in the aughts, and in particular, after 2005. Why after 2005?
There are a couple of theories, but the most convincing is that the bankruptcy reform bill gave derivatives favorable treatment during bankruptcy proceedings. That made them a better investment than other types of financial products, and so demand exploded.
That's all in the game. But then, what reason is there for believing they're crucially important to a healthy and balanced economy. Was the economy of the 1990s really so bad? Was the period between 2005 and 2008 such a wondrous time for the American middle class? Have there been structural changes to the nature of American prosperity that customized derivatives -- and lots of them -- are necessary in 2010 while they weren't back in 1996? Maybe there's a good answer to that question, but I haven't really heard it.
By Ezra Klein
May 3, 2010
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/05/was_the_economy_of_the_90s_rea.html