Sub-prime Bail Out

[Aliantha]

Maybe the fact that the government needs to get involved proves there are more stupid people out there affecting the economy than you might think.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Radar

The stock market...and ALL markets could easily exist and would thrive without any government intervention or regulation and would make sure that all trades were fair and equitable because they would be voluntary.

Wow. Attitudes that underly Marxist socialism - from Radar. If Radar has posted accurately, then no stock market ever need exist. We are all honest and equal. We all treat one another with equality and impartiality every time. Stocks would be traded freely on any street without all that market regulation. That only possible if we all live according to principles that permit Marxist socialism.

Why do stock markets exist? Trading of stocks on the street, as in Radar's model, never works. Stocks need a controlled environment (NASDAQ, LSE, the Frankfort Exchange, etc) because stock exchanges only work in the safe and well defined environment of regulated exchanges. Radar says none of the world stock markets need exist. We don't need brokers. We don't need regulations and laws. We don't need all that bureacracy. The problem with this Radar world: stock markets exist because those standards, control and regulation are necessary. Without regulations of markets, then anarchy would reign.

There is a fine line between too much regulation and insufficient regulation. So we have numerous financial instruments with various types of regulation. But in every case, some regulation and laws are always required. No way around that imposed 'level playing field' to make free market economies work.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

I said government. Not private industry. There's a huge difference there. Also, I didn't say refinance, I said 'rent to buy' which means the person has no ownership claim over the house until such time as they've paid the value of the mortgage off, say 25yrs.

That is exactly what tw said. It's a huge difference. Private industry does this; not government. If possible, then private industry is already doing it and doing it far better than any government can.

There are too many homes and not enough people to lease these homes. Appreciate the problem. Lower income people - where so many of these loans exist - have been living well beyond their means.

Is this problem that people are going homeless? For the most part - no. Too many homes are now in this mess; too much product and not enough consumers. A mess that remain ignored while more money games masked the problem. Too many people in debt for so long that it is even appearing on spread sheets many years later.

Don't fool yourself. Spread sheets only report what was happening many years ago. Should we now bring in government welfare to further mask this problem?

Ridiculous is an idea that government will solve a financial problem. Government was already doing that years ago with money games that only made these problems worse. When money games and excessively low interest rates were not enough, then private industry played more money games: sub-prime loans and complex financial instruments. Home equity loans - borrowing money on home prices that were inflated by those money games and sub-prime loans. Meanwhile, everyone ignored the factor that spread sheets cannot measure – risk. Too many homes, too many Americans (at this income level) with massive debts, and America that was spending recklessly at 10% more than incomes (which also means no savings). Aliantha wants government to magically solve all this?

Put homes up for massively reduced prices. Yes, private investors will buy then and rent them at lower leases. Few are willing to do this. Even at reduced prices, few are willing to risk more capital because, well, where is a market?

Aliantha suggests government to, again, fix this market? More damage? Take these homes away from finance companies under martial law? Fine. A government already deeply in debt, going $hundreds billions further into debt, rewarding the companies who only made this problem worse with welfare, and then become landlord of still vacant homes. At what point do we end up with more Bronx slums that take decades to solve? At what point do we turn neighborhoods into 'the projects'?

Problem is not homeless people. But if we do as Aliantha suggests, then economics takes revenge years later - making many more homeless people. The problem is too many houses built for people who never had incomes to support them. Problem agrevated by an economy where the rich are getting richers and everyone else have a lower income. Problem created by the same government policies that Aliantha would further expand? What financial problem will government solve with financial welfare?

What Aliantha recommends creates more inflation AND real estate dependent on government (rather than private industry) while still looking for tenants who just do not exist. Meantime, when does the actual problem get addressed?

Never forget why too many homes exist. To make a recessionary economy look good, government dumped money into the housing market using low interest rates, tax games, etc. Government made things worse. When that still was not enough, then finance companies mortgaged those people further with sub-prime loans. Mortgaged more homeowners with home equity loans as homes values were inflated by those money games. Eventually we ended up with too many homes, an economy fully in recession if not for money being dumped into housing, and now Americans who are even poorer.

It was the cover page of The Economist. A falling brick labeled housing prices.

Worse, add the threat of stagflation, in part, due to these money games. Make this worse by having government step in, dump more money into an economy already under threat of inflation, and create another 'housing market' money game?

This is what bankruptcy does. Solve problems at the source. Same thing saved Chrysler and Ford. Gerald Ford (according to the NY Post) told New York City to 'Drop Dead'. As a result, NYC eliminated and fixed their money games. Why? Threat of bankructcy was the only reason every problem was solved. Every one asked for government welfare and (thank goodness) did not get it. Threat of bankruptcy finally killed off money games.

Let economics take revenge on an economy that has been lying to itself for four and more years. Too many houses and not enough people with incomes to support those homes. The sooner economic pains are addressed, then the less that pain will be long term, AND the faster private industry can solve this liquidity crisis.

Maybe if America was not spending $2billion every month on "Mission Accomplished", then the economy might have funds to minimize this problem without creating more inflation and other money games. Even bridge maintenance is being reduced. Let's not forget the brunt of an inevitable $1+trillion outstanding debt to pay for "Mission Accomplished". We have yet to see the damage created by money games played even in 2002. "Reagan said deficits don't matter".

Deja vue Nam. Money games in the late 1960s and early 70s to coverup a financial disaster and a war that cost $1million per day (as Nixon lied about the war and its costs) meant stagflation in the late 70s, masssive reduction of American standards of living, and everything worse. How to avoid reliving history? People responsible for irresponsible money games - homeowners and financial firms - must suffer the consequences.

[Aliantha]

Aliantha wants government to magically solve all this?

It's not magic. It's simple economic sense.

Aliantha suggests government to, again, fix this market?

The government stands to profit in the long run.

At what point do we end up with more Bronx slums that take decades to solve? At what point do we turn neighborhoods into 'the projects'?

This is the situation already. Did you not read my earlier post? Do you not realize that this is the situation that is occuring already while people do nothing but blame the government and yet you don't want the government to fix it? So you just want someone to moan about but you don't want them to do anything proactive?

Never forget why too many homes exist.

If too many homes exist, there can not be inflated prices. Your statement in this paragraph is false.

Problem is not homeless people. But if we do as Aliantha suggests, then economics takes revenge years later - making many more homeless people. The problem is too many houses built for people who never had incomes to support them. Problem agrevated by an economy where the rich are getting richers and everyone else have a lower income. Problem created by the same government policies that Aliantha would further expand? What financial problem will government solve with financial welfare?

Again I ask, where are the thousands of people going who have had their houses repo'd? Are they moving into the already existing slums which in turn perpetuates the social problems already evident there?


I ask you, why would you not try to keep people in a better situation? If someone has to spend money one way or another, why not do so in a productive manner which will help all concerned.

If you leave a house untennanted for a year, you're losing $5k/annum straight up. Then there are the issues of vandalism. More dollars to spend. Neighbourhood values depreciating because there are too many houses vacant.

Yeah, I can see how people who borrow beyond their means are stupid and don't deserve a hand out, but they're your fellow citizens. They don't deserve to be kicked when they're down either.

If you wanted to send in a private company to do buy ups of these massive numbers of homes, fine. Go ahead, but remember if this happens, there is no chance of these people from poorer circumstances to close the gap.

If you want to preach about the gap between rich and poor widening tw, you should really think your argument over a bit more before you post it. You propose doing nothing? Letting the economy slump. Perhaps reach depression type lows just for the sake of saying 'fuck you Bush'?

Radar suggests doing nothing because those stupid people deserve what they got.

Neither of those suggestions seem to be logical to me. They seem highly emotional responses to an economic puzzle.

[Radar]

Originally Posted by tw

Wow. Attitudes that underly Marxist socialism - from Radar. If Radar has posted accurately, then no stock market ever need exist. We are all honest and equal. We all treat one another with equality and impartiality every time. Stocks would be traded freely on any street without all that market regulation. That only possible if we all live according to principles that permit Marxist socialism.

Why do stock markets exist? Trading of stocks on the street, as in Radar's model, never works. Stocks need a controlled environment (NASDAQ, LSE, the Frankfort Exchange, etc) because stock exchanges only work in the safe and well defined environment of regulated exchanges. Radar says none of the world stock markets need exist. We don't need brokers. We don't need regulations and laws. We don't need all that bureacracy. The problem with this Radar world: stock markets exist because those standards, control and regulation are necessary. Without regulations of markets, then anarchy would reign.

There is a fine line between too much regulation and insufficient regulation. So we have numerous financial instruments with various types of regulation. But in every case, some regulation and laws are always required. No way around that imposed 'level playing field' to make free market economies work.

You're taking a huge leap and claiming I've said things I didn't. I said markets could exist and thrive without any government regulation. Without regulations on these markets, anarchy would most certainly NOT ensue. To claim that without government regulations, the markets wouldn't be regulated privately is laughable. To claim the markets wouldn't be held to standards, including standards that require honesty in trading, is on the verge of retarded.

Markets would exist without any regulation at all. They would be organized, held to standards, and regulated privately. We would still have brokers, and traders, etc. because most people would feel more confident trading stocks with these people than with a guy trading stock certificates from the trunk of his car. What would the problem be with going to a store on the street to buy stocks? I don't see one.

Without government intervention the playing field is always level. It's government that makes things unfair and tilts the playing field. Government regulations allow politically influential businesses to gain an unfair advantage over new start-ups or prevents new businesses from starting up at all.

[Radar]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

Again I ask, where are the thousands of people going who have had their houses repo'd? Are they moving into the already existing slums which in turn perpetuates the social problems already evident there?

They are moving into apartments. They aren't homeless and they haven't lost their jobs. They just can't afford their homes anymore.

Originally Posted by Aliantha

I ask you, why would you not try to keep people in a better situation? If someone has to spend money one way or another, why not do so in a productive manner which will help all concerned.

I am trying to keep people in a better situation. A situation in which they have personal and economic freedom without the government meddling in our markets. A situation in which those who make poor economic decisions don't look to government to bail them out.

Originally Posted by Aliantha

If you leave a house untennanted for a year, you're losing $5k/annum straight up. Then there are the issues of vandalism. More dollars to spend. Neighbourhood values depreciating because there are too many houses vacant.

The house isn't vacant for a year in most cases. In fact it's not vacant until the hose is already lost and repossessed by the bank. Then the bank sells the house and are willing to lose 5k to sell a house they may have already gotten 100k on. But this isn't an issue in America because houses do not stay vacant for a year. In fact they don't stay vacant for 6 months before they are sold.

Originally Posted by Aliantha

Yeah, I can see how people who borrow beyond their means are stupid and don't deserve a hand out, but they're your fellow citizens. They don't deserve to be kicked when they're down either.

Expecting them to live with the consequences of their decisions without having their "fellow citizens" pay for it is not kicking them when they are down. When they lose their house, someone else will snap it up at a better price.

[Aliantha]

The house isn't vacant for a year in most cases. In fact it's not vacant until the hose is already lost and repossessed by the bank. Then the bank sells the house and are willing to lose 5k to sell a house they may have already gotten 100k on. But this isn't an issue in America because houses do not stay vacant for a year. In fact they don't stay vacant for 6 months before they are sold.

This is not what your news services (various) are reporting. It's also contrary to what some other posters have said in this thread. This is the main reason for the views I hold. A large proportion of untennanted houses is bad in anyone's books, regardless of whose fault it is.

The whole point is that if an economy is not growing - regardless of how slowly which of course is generally preferable to rapid growth - then it's slumping. If the economy slumps because of massive slumps in the housing industry, particularly the US economy, the whole world suffers.

This is the reason for my interest in this problem.

Ultimately, it's your country and you and your fellow citizens will do what you want without consideration for how those actions affect the rest of the world (seemingly), but people from other countries will definitely be affected by what is happening in your country right now.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

If too many homes exist, there can not be inflated prices. Your statement in this paragraph is false.

Having run prices so high with low interest rates, sub-prime loans, and other money games; homes around here are selling for $30,000 less and are still too overpriced.

Welcome to the conundrum of why a liquidity crisis exists. Your logic assumes no liquidity crisis. Your post makes the same mistake that bond rating agencies made - measure risk only in terms of capital. Too many homes can exist AND prices remain inflated. Many cannot sell their home for what it is really worth. Why? Liquidity crisis. Please appreciate the difference between capital and liquidity. Appreciate why so many financial experts making $hundreds of thousands annually also did not grasp the concept. A problem that should have been obvious four years ago when this problem actually existed.

Numerous options exist for homeowners. Hold properties in hope prices might rise, or earn enough money by doing two jobs for five years to pay off their loans, or get enough money (liquidity) to eventually sell at a loss, or just suffer through bankruptcy, or ... numerous options. But the only acceptable options also must be painful for years. Emotion or empathy only makes reality worse.

No way around this reality: economics takes revenge when we solve money games with more money games, as you have advocated. That pain is good and necessary. Not in the short term. But the responsible person is only concerned about 10 years from now. How many obvious examples do you need - including NYC, Ford, and Chrysler? Or Baring, Northern Rock, AT&T, IBM, Apple Computer, Enron ... The music industry in denial for so many years needs some horrific threats of bankruptcy.

Almost nobody is going homeless. They are now living in two bedroom apartments or living in post WWII densities. They are suffering in 1000 or 1700 square foot homes. Good. Still living quite well but suffering a severe reduction in living standards because of their mismanagement.

What is the proactive action? Learn from history. As Gerald Ford is paraphrased to NYC - "Drop Dead". That is the proactive situation; the best solution. Anything else is classic bleeding heart liberalism that Urbane Guerrilla so criticizes AND actually rewards the wrong people. Who would prosper most from your solution? The rich financial houses that created this mess by playing money games so that their failures stayed off spread sheets for maybe four years. You want to reward them with government welfare?

Why were the seventies so bad? Rather than address the problem, we did bleeding heart solutions. Nixon used price controls. Gerald Ford even distributed campaign badges that said WIN. (Whip Inflation Now). Therefore stagflation only got worse. Everyone suffered even more. What did we do to finally fix the American economy? Interest rates went to 14% and 22%. Only then did the American factory worker stop getting poorer. How can this be? Raising interest rates on everyone that high make everyone's life miserable. Of course. We all suffered. Our economy had been playing money games to mask lies from top government and industry criminals. It took 20+% interest rates to create enough pain; finally fix the economy.

Welcome to what we knew was coming when some here instead mocked The Economist for what was obvious.

Best thing that can happen to those who were not fiscally responsible? Five tough financial years where household budgets are made daily. Anything less would have meant even destruction of Ford and Chrysler - everything sold to fiscally responsible foreigners. It takes something that vicious to educate even our so called financial geniuses who make big bucks by playing money games rather than doing things productive. They go by titles such as stock brokers, bond traders, and equity analysts.

It is only a liquidity crisis; not a capital crisis. Shame on anyone who treats it like an accident by recommending welfare. Like car crashes, this liquidity crisis is directly traceable to human brains that must witness or suffer pain before they decide to learn. That sometimes means five years working two or three jobs.

Bankruptcy threat must be that vicious to change mindsets. Would you rather wait for people to actually become homeless? This liquidity crisis is almost trivial; will be solved in only a few years IF we don't aggrevate it with corporate welfare. Aliantha, your solution would only be corporate welfare to those who created this problem by not doing their jobs. Your solution would mostly enrich those finance firms.

[Aliantha]

Well again, I wouldn't involve a finance company.

And with regard to market value of homes. The market sets the value. You may want $30000 more than someone is willing to pay for it, but if that's all people will pay, then that's what it's worth.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Radar

You're taking a huge leap and claiming I've said things I didn't. I said markets could exist and thrive without any government regulation. Without regulations on these markets, anarchy would most certainly NOT ensue. To claim that without government regulations, the markets wouldn't be regulated privately is laughable. To claim the markets wouldn't be held to standards, including standards that require honesty in trading, is on the verge of retarded.

What are toy industry benchmarks begging for? Government regulations. Standards so that their 'fly by night' peers must also protect kids from lead paint and date rape drugs. The most responsible American toy manufactures - those who voluntarily announced dangerous toys as soon as the problem was discovered (ie Mattel) want regulations to create a level and productive free market.

If stock markets could exist without regulations, then nobody needs a stock market. All trading would be on the street. Why do stock markets create so much trading and capital investment? To repeat what you avoid: because without those regulations, then stock trading will halt due to the anarchy. If what you are saying had any truth, then all stock markets would fail completely. Stock markets would have no purpose. Why do stock markets exist? Why do commodity exchanges exist? Because productive trading cannot exist without regulations - a standard, level, safe, and predictable trading floor (virtual or real). Anarchy (also called widespread criminal activity) would create near zero trading.

The only reason stock, bond, commodity, etc markets exist is because that is where the regulations exist and are enforced. Even the private markets demand certain government regulations so that their trading is secure, honest, and liquid.

Name one trading exchange that exists without government regulation? Smuggling? What happens when smuggling markets become legal - conform to laws? Trading increases. Everyone is wealthier. People stop getting shot down in the streets. Name that market that thrives better due to zero regulations? It does not exist. If you knew markets would be better with zero regulations, then why do you not list 100 of them? Because they do not exist. A certain amount of regulation always results in a more productive and profitable market.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

Well again, I wouldn't involve a finance company.

But everything you have suggested can and must involve those finance companies. Who is the at the center of these problems? Who holds those defaulted properties? Who prosper most if these defaults are removed from their books? Everything you have posted is corporate welfare for the most irresponsible financial institutions.

And with regard to market value of homes. The market sets the value. You may want $30000 more than someone is willing to pay for it, but if that's all people will pay, then that's what it's worth.

I should not have to use the word again - liquidity.

My $200,000 home is now worth $100,000. But I cannot sell it for $100,000 since my mortgage is $150,000. I cannot pay my mortgage, cannot sell my house for market value, and my neighbors are in the same position. To sell my home would make me homeless. My home must sell for $150,000 because of a liquidity crisis. I have no choice. Either that or bankruptcy. The market value is only $100,000. But it cannot be sold at that price. Again. Liquidity crisis. Please stop using economic concepts (law of price and demand) that assume no liquidity crisis. Stop making the same assumptions that those big shot finance experts also made to create this problem.

Those simplistic economic rules of supply and demand are based in assumptions that do not exist here. Again, I keep using the word because your posts ignore its significance - liquidity.

[Aliantha]

Originally Posted by tw

But everything you have suggested can and must involve those finance companies. Who is the at the center of these problems? Who holds those defaulted properties? Who prosper most if these defaults are removed from their books? Everything you have posted is corporate welfare for the most irresponsible financial institutions. I should not have to use the word again - liquidity.

The gov buys the houses from the finance companies at their current market value (much lower than the going rate) and then sits on the asset while recieving 'rent' until such time as the 'tenant' leaves. Then the house is either sold at a profit, or re-rented.

It's very simple really, and creates a lot of jobs in the process.

My $200,000 home is now worth $100,000. But I cannot sell it for $100,000 since my mortgage is $150,000. I cannot pay my mortgage, cannot sell my house for market value, and my neighbors are in the same position. To sell my home would make me homeless. My home must sell for $150,000 because of a liquidity crisis. I have no choice. Either that or bankruptcy. The market value is only $100,000. But it cannot be sold at that price. Again. Liquidity crisis. Please stop using economic concepts (law of price and demand) that assume no liquidity crisis. Stop making the same assumptions that those big shot finance experts also made to create this problem.

Those simplistic economic rules of supply and demand are based in assumptions that do not exist here. Again, I keep using the word because your posts ignore its significance - liquidity.

You shouldn't have been stupid enough to buy a house that you couldn't afford. Shame on you.

[DanaC]

Shame is all well and good but it doesn't stop people being made homeless.

I couldn't give a rats behind for who's at fault. What concerns me is the social cost of largescale repossessions.

Yesterday morning I visited a constituent. Her husband was laid off work. When you are in rented accomodation and unemployed the benefits system will assist you with rent. If you own your house, however, the benefits system will not assist you to maintain your asset. They put the house on the market but the recent slump in our area means they were not able to sell. They were also not able to keep up with the mortgage payments and on the 1st of this month their house was repossessed and they were evicted. Now this woman, her husband, their 13 year old son and 17 year old daughter are all living at a friend's house. It's a one bedroom terrace, in which lives their friend, her partner and a teenage son on the sofa. There are now seven people living in a one bedroom house.

They keep trying to bid for association (ex-council) housing on the open letting system...but when more than one person bids, the winner is decided by points...points which increase with length of time on the list. This family stand no chance of getting a house through that system for about 6 months. Though the benefits system will assist with rent, they do not cover moving expenses, downpayments and deposits. Since pretty much all their meagre savings went on trying to stave off the repossession of their home, they cannot pay those costs and are therefore unable to take on a private tenancy. They've been offered hostel places, which would break up the family and have them living in different towns. Their son would have a journey of several miles to get to school.

The husband has worked his whole life, since the age of 16. She used to work but was forced into inactivity by ill-health.

It could be argued that they bought too much house, given the lack of fall-back should the worst occur. They had a three bedroom house in a cheap part of town. Not exactly greedy.

Again, I don't really care about the moral dimension of credit. All I care about is that there are seven people living in a one bedroom house, and a family in crisis because the raft they built wasn't strong enough to weather the storm.

[Undertoad]

My $200,000 home is now worth $100,000. But I cannot sell it for $100,000 since my mortgage is $150,000.

And yet I live a half-hour away and my $200K home mortgaged for $210K has risen in value to $300K in the last 3 years. And the only way I could afford to stay here was through a crappy high-interest ARM.

I am very thankful they decided to loan me money. Of course before they did they sent out their guy to look at my place and my neighborhood and put a value on it.

You shouldn't have been stupid enough to buy a house that you couldn't afford. Shame on you.

This is correct IMO. The price paid every month didn't change. The value of the house did, but this is what happens, and a house is a long-term investment.

[Radar]

Originally Posted by tw

What are toy industry benchmarks begging for? Government regulations. Standards so that their 'fly by night' peers must also protect kids from lead paint and date rape drugs. The most responsible American toy manufactures - those who voluntarily announced dangerous toys as soon as the problem was discovered (ie Mattel) want regulations to create a level and productive free market.

The toy industry does a very good job at regulating itself. They VOLUNTARILY recall toys that do not meet their high standards. Mattel is a great company and is certainly not responsible when people in China don't stick to the standards they've laid out, but they immediately recalled toys and took a hit on their reputation. Government regulatiosn don't give "confidence". Also, claims of "date rape" drugs are false. GHB is not a date rape drug. It's a party drug used by ravers. From what I understand these toys didn't even have GHB on them, they had another chemical that metabolized into GHB when inside the human body.

Originally Posted by tw

If stock markets could exist without regulations, then nobody needs a stock market.

That is 100% False.

Originally Posted by tw

All trading would be on the street.

Again, entirely false. Most people don't want to buy or sell stock with a guy working from the trunk of his car. They want to work with reputable businesses.

Originally Posted by tw

Why do stock markets create so much trading and capital investment? To repeat what you avoid: because without those regulations, then stock trading will halt due to the anarchy.

That is an outright lie. Without government regulations stifling business, the stock markets would continue to exist, see triple their current trading volume, and would have much greater returns on investments.

Originally Posted by tw

If what you are saying had any truth, then all stock markets would fail completely. Stock markets would have no purpose. Why do stock markets exist? Why do commodity exchanges exist? Because productive trading cannot exist without regulations - a standard, level, safe, and predictable trading floor (virtual or real). Anarchy (also called widespread criminal activity) would create near zero trading.

Why do farmer's markets exist? To have a central place where people can buy vegetables from many farms. Stock markets exist so investors have a single place where they can buy or sell stocks from various companies. These would still exist. Trading would easily continue without any government regulations. The trading floor would be MORE predictable, safe, level, and held to better standards without government involvement. Government regulations don't prevent criminal activity, they promote it.

Originally Posted by tw

The only reason stock, bond, commodity, etc markets exist is because that is where the regulations exist and are enforced. Even the private markets demand certain government regulations so that their trading is secure, honest, and liquid.

You're batting a thousand. You are wrong again. You may want to read the writings of famous economists (Several have won the Nobel prize in economists) like Robert J. Barro, Walter Block, James Buchanan, Donald J. Boudreaux, Richard M. Ebeling, David Friedman, Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek, Robert Higgs, Israel Kirzner, Ludwig von Mises, Murray N. Rothbard, Mark Skousen, Thomas Sowell, Vernon Smith, Mark Thornton, Richard Timberlake, and Walter Williams. Perhaps then you wouldn't be so clueless when it comes to economics.

Originally Posted by tw

Name one trading exchange that exists without government regulation?

Farmer's Markets, Computer Fairs, Swap Meets, etc.

Also, remember that not having government regulations is not the same as being unregulated. Self-regulation in the markets is what is called for. Government regulations CREATE uncertainty, unfairness, etc. in the markets.