i guess i could clarify my position on regulations. regulations usually come in spurts like E. coli scares, accounting scares, etc. with accounting, arthur anderson would have felt it in the market place, but no, the government had to give them the death penalty. what the government could have done was not allow them to continually consolidate and foster a little good ol fashion competition. without providing a number, i feel most regulation feels good, but does little except raise cost. i find the lack of regulations in the "natural" medicine arena a little hypocritical as well. that crowd is usually all over pesticide use, transgenics etc, but when it comes to their turf, heaps of irony bubble to the surface. i constantly remind myself the reason we fought for independence was that regulations (taxation) cost exceeded the revenue or benefit generated from them in the first place. regulations i'm for are the one's for pesticide application, which, in general, have been effective, particularly the part about math, dilutions, calculating how much you will need for the application, cleaning up, and sanitation areas. the government seems especially adept at making regulations and then violating them, like fannie mae and the housing situation. there is NO WAY people should be able to purchase a house without some sort of equity or risk, ie 20% down and a monthly payment not to exceed 30% of gross income. now that was a good regulation, but who was the biggest violator and propgator? why the government, and they passed all that risk on to taxpayers, where in the free market, even if lenders would have gone astray of this, the market would have corrected this a lot faster and with clearer consequences. not only that, but housing prices would be reflective of their true value. but we can't have that either, because the government generates revenue from an ever increasing property tax value. kinda like social security. the longer we allow a bigger percentage of our working capital to be tied up into this mess, the harder the fall is going to be. i guess in one respect, it will present an opportunity, just like in 1932-35, when the private sector was experiencing a boom in growth compared to the government, contrary to popular knowledge. a funny regulation in science is that companies can no longer give out novelty gifts like pens, coffee mugs etc, cause it might "sway" people's thinking. the abuse targeted was doctors receiving gratuities, of which stanford is obviously a benefactor and abuser in the past, including the president of the university in the form of expensive sailboats etc. how to corral this as oppossed to zero tolerance? fuel competition, rather than consolidate continually. but the government won't, because it's easier to "control" fewer companies. they are after the 50 employees or less companies. when they are gone, there is no more engine.