The current state of economics

I was listening to the radio to commentators on economics, and one of them was claiming that government regulation was bad and offered as proof the fact that credit swaps were not traded on a stock exchange. Trading them outside the stock exchange was called regulation and placing them for trade on the stock exchange was called deregulation. Well, guess what? Stock exchanges are regulated. In fact it was their regulated qualities that were sited for why they were desirable. (I'm for outlawing credit swaps altogether.)

One despairs. Listening to people talk about economics could make you cry and pull out your hair. I'm convinced whether or not things go well is just a coincidence.

I would like to propose a criterion for judgment. How will the product or behavior act in a bear market?

• How will we feel about all these dicey mortgages when the unemployment rate is rising?

• How desirable will credit swaps be when they are called upon to actually do something when businesses start to fail?

Think worst case scenario. I think it would be best to consider these things in advance.

In the conversation of these radio economists regulation seems to be equated with all government action by the public sector. We aren't proposing that all people appointed to government office are wise, or that decisions by government employees are naturally superior to those made in the private sector. Think Alan Greenspan.

I'm sure the average person has in mind that logical rules for economic activity will be set up and enforced, such as one assumes occurs at the SEC, and that this is what one means by regulation.

One begins to wonder if it is possible to know anything at all about economics.