Felix Salmon nails it in a post titled "All bank regulators are captured":
The fact of the matter, however, is that all regulators are captured by banks. Or, to be a little more precise, all legislatures are captured by banks, and all regulators do what the government tells them to do.
In countries like Canada and India, there’s a very small number of strong, well-capitalized banks with a vested interest in maximizing barriers to entry. So they’re happy with very tough standards. In Europe, national banking systems are also concentrated, so in theory they could go the same way. But European banks are more likely to have cross-border and global ambitions, and in any case as a matter of contingent fact they’re not very well capitalized. So they get the regulation they want — which allows them to grow fast without having to raise lots of expensive new equity capital.
And then there’s the US, which is pretty much unique among major economies in having thousands of pretty vibrant small banks. Those small banks have a lot of political clout in Congress, and they hated Basel II, because they’re not nearly sophisticated enough to take advantage of it. So they essentially bullied Congress into keeping the old Basel I standards, for fear that otherwise they would be at a massive competitive disadvantage with respect to the big US banks like JP Morgan Chase. Congress obliged, and used the FDIC as its chosen mechanism for blocking the adoption of Basel II in the US.
Cross-national differences in regulations are not due to one country's regulators being somehow wiser than the rest. It has to do with different organizations of domestic interests within (and across) countries. These lead to different policy outcomes.
Does that make the FDIC particularly virtuous? No: it makes the FDIC just as beholden to the banks as any European regulator. Look at the banks’ contributions to the FDIC insurance fund, for instance: they fell to zero, for no good reason, just because the banks didn’t like making those payments.
Paul Krugman does not in a post titled "Crats, Maybe, But Not Much Techno":
But it’s more than that: these alleged technocrats have in fact systematically ignored both textbook macroeconomics and the lessons of history in favor of fantasies. The European Central Bank has placed its faith in the confidence fairy, while imagining that it can run policy in a way that has never worked in several centuries of central bank experience. Meanwhile, the European policy elite has simply wished away the clear evidence that the euro zone needs to make an adjustment that is virtually impossible unless inflation targets are raised.I contend that Paul Krugman does not know technocrats. He knows people who have different priorities than those he dislikes in the government and punditocracy. He claims that his side are the true technocrats -- untainted by avarice or bias -- because that gives them a moral authority that they would not otherwise have. But Krugman's preferred "technocrats" are just those who prioritize labor over capital, to use a short-hand, while those he decries have the opposite preference. As Salmon notes, capital generally wins, but in varying ways that reflect their varying preferences in disparate places.
The point is that I know technocrats, and these people aren’t — they’re faith healers who are making stuff up to suit their prejudices.
"Textbook macroeconomics" presupposes a political system that is dedicated to the pursuit of utilitarian aims, a "socially optimal" mix of outcomes. But there is no universally agreed upon social optimum. There are only different, competing interest groups with different, competing preferences. Rousseau was wrong about this. There is no General Will, only the Sum of Private Wills. Some interests are narrower than others, as OWS has figured out, but that's really the only difference.