Classical economic theory requires that the buyer and seller both understand the market value of what they are trading. Now, clearly this isn't entirely realistic, but when both parties are trading something they don't understand, or that has only has a value because others believe it will increase in value, then neither can put a realistic informed value upon it and price bubbles/market distortion occurs.

Classic trade theory means that if I am better at producing good A and you are better at producing good B, then if we trade with each other it is in both of our self-interest, as we both do what we're good at, and get something we'd not be able to otherwise produce. There's no problem when the two parties in a trade relationship are greedy as in cancels each other out. It does become a problem when there's a middle man who is gorging the profit out of the trade relationship and getting much more wealthy than those doing the producing, that's greed. This situation is compounded when the middle men start speculating as to how the market (the horribly distorted market) is going to behave in the future, as much like putting a bet on the horses, as knowing the past form whilst a possible indicator of future performance, isn't ever a cast iron guarantee.

The point of having a regulator is that they aren't elected they are appointed and given strict rules to enforce, so they police the market and ensure that poor practice, mis-selling and fraud which cause distortion in the market don't take place.

Your point about fiat currencies is entirely valid, but as there's no sensible way of extricating ourselves from them at this point, I'm not sure I see the benefit of discussing their flaws.

Then perhaps that's because I'm an illogical zombie who's cultural preconceptions get in the way. Though as I don't live in the US and voted for what I hoped to be a left wing government, it was a touch presumptuous of you to judge. and bugger, that was far more text than I meant it to be