is here.

Until you address the factual issues: that the roots of this crisis were in unregulated markets, instruments and practices, and that government sponsored entities failed because of the wider failure, and not the other way around, I don't see how you possibly have a point.

In other words, as long as it remains clear that this is rooted in lack of regulation and de-regulation, you can't make an argument that regulation caused it, or that pro-regulation agencies/parties are to blame or that improved and expanded regulation won't fix the problem.

in theory, you're right that more regulations might fix things. Of course, "in theory," my free market ideas are right, too.

Historically, every economic crisis we have had in this country that wasn't rooted in agricultural boom-and-bust originated from unregulated speculatory bubbles (and the tech bubble wasn't a financial crisis). The only question is: how much of an effect did subsequent regulatory efforts have? Given that we have not had a financial market crisis since 1929 until now, and are having one just after a 20-year-long period where novel unregulated financial markets were invented out of wholecloth and post-1929 regulations on the financial industry were dismantled seems to scream loudly that despite your religious zeal about the matter, my thesis bears up to reality whereas yours doesn't.

But I don;t expect that to dent your android armor. My thesis that there were no WMD in Iraq, that Saddam had no relationship with Al Qaueda, that Iraq was not a threat to the us- all of those were borne out by reality, and god only knows what argument du-jour you have ready to deploy about how I'm wrongwrongwrong.

So I doubt that the observable fact will dent you.

Yeti