I agree that the generic idea of "deregulation" is sometimes not to blame but I do want to point out that the Marquette decision is basically the lynchpin in th

I agree that the generic idea of "deregulation" is sometimes not to blame but I do want to point out that the Marquette decision is basically the lynchpin in this particular case AFAIK -- usury laws AKA consumer protection regulation (which is the regulation that was bypassed/minimized in this sense) already differed from state to state, but that wasn't enough incentive for banks to move their headquarters. Intranational competition/racing to the bottom is fine within the bounds of regulation -- capitalism is a powerful force but in my opinion the job of the government is to set the guard rails. The EU problem is an international problem which is why it's so much harder to solve. You can't force another nation to charge certain % for taxes but there are other things you can do. Unfortunately most of the actions you can take to disincentivize that behavior aren't quite so friendly, so the politics intensifies and countries go for what they can get away with. The control dynamic is different compared to intranational regulation. There's certainly competition between states and companies but it's always when the guard rails bend/break that we see explosions in a certain kind of activity and then the repercussions 5-10 years later. It happens over and over again in history -- regulations that reduce corporate tax rates, roll back environmental protections, etc -- it happens across party lines, and there's usually a happy/boom period for a while for some market participants... Then the chickens come home to roost. The addition of regulation can do it too, of course, and some of the time the ambitions are noble, but to me the removal of regulation that was well established (for a good reason) and the subsequent ill effects always feels the most avoidable.