I'm simply trying to say that there are two (or more) sides to every discussion and argument, and usually there are plenty of good points and bad points for every side.

Arguing for a standing body to help guide/regulate education and certifications could be a potential benefit, especially in the area of life-critical engineering, like software for hospital equipment, nuclear reactors, or space shuttles. Alternatively, a giant regulatory body could result in nothing but additional fees for students and prospective employees if they have any hope of being hired.

Edit: I also find it very interesting that my above remark swung from one to four, and now is down to zero. Difference between gut reactions and thinkers?

He's trying to say that when there's no institution that grades programmers and opportunities are open to everyone, lots of bad programmers surface.

But I don't think it's a useful point, because there is a market and societal use for bad/new programmers and it doesn't really hurt the profession as a whole.