I think this is actually an argument for more accessible markets. Retail investing was not offering vehicles to the average investor who wanted to invest belie

I think this is actually an argument for more accessible markets. Retail investing was not offering vehicles to the average investor who wanted to invest believing that house prices would fall. I wondered to many professional and non-professional investors how t invest against the housing market to no avail. If people had understood how to "bet" against house prices then I am confident the bubble would have deflated more gently and earlier. The easiest retail position to take is a "long" purchase of an investment instrument. What is needed is the knowledge of and retail accessibility to bubble-deflating investments. How far should this go? Anyone should be able to own and even construct derivatives. Such a market would bring along a host of educational material and means to understand the provenance of your derivatives and the counter-party risk. Obviously this accessibility and transparency would benefit professional derivative investors as the pool of clients, information, transparency, and alternative parties and views with which to trade expands. But this is impossible as long as the notion of "qualified investor" exists. If Greenspan and traditional economics has any hope of being correct then what is needed is to enlarge the pool of "qualified investors" to simply everyone. We need not more regulation but less but for the requirement that the prospectus be accurate, intelligible, and anyone that sells "investments" must do business with anyone has the purchase price. Taleb says market-based black swans are becoming more common. The question is: are they common enough to make a profitable business out of suppressing them?