WARNING: WAY OT!!
Victor--
<<< Re further regulation, the stock markets are basically auctions.>>>
True enough. But even in auctions there is order and regulation designed to protect both buyer and seller. Imminently practical for all concerned, given the human tendency to take advantage when given half the chance.
<<<Would you call for regulation of how high someone can bid at auction for a Monet, or a Picasso?>>>
Perhaps I'm missing something, but I don't see the validity of the analogy between an art auction and the equity marketplace. The stakes are radically different. In an art auction, you have wealthy people attempting to buy things they really don't need, though they may want. The potential repercussions of the activity there will have little or no effect on the global economies and the lot of the worlds peoples. In the stock market, on the other hand, the magnitude of capitalization is huge, the number of participants large, and therefore what occurs in these markets can and will have a significant downstream impact on the world's economies and the lives of people.
JMHO, but I agree with what I see to be the "prime directive" of the Constitution: "to provide for the common welfare." If that means more regulation, so be it. The basic problem here is familiar----that unopposed power will invariably have undesirable, self-destructive consequences to society, and even to those wielding that power. Checks and balances are fundamentally brilliant, in my book.
Again, JMHO; your results may vary.
Cheers,
Walkingshadow |
