I have probably disagreed with you more than anyone else on the site, but now and then you say something with which I could not agree more. When we see social problems, it's common to expect government to make it better. That's their job, right? That may even be their intention, but intentions and results are two different things. Responsible regulators know that it is possible to mess things up by interfering. To tread carefully, they might seek advice before acting. Who do they seek advice from? The experts, of course: the largest, most-connected industry insiders. (Sometimes the regulator saves a step by being an industry insider.) Even if they do not seek advice, special interests have incentive to lobby for favorable legislation, while the negative effects are too broadly spread to attract organized dissent. The result, too often, is regulation that benefits the best-connected insider, at the expense of their competition, customers, taxpayers — everyone else. So when you suggest that we regulate marketing drugs, regulate wages, regulate real estate investment, regulate corporate finance, regulate Amazon, regulate farming, regulate legal financing, regulate horse shit, you may well be advocating for the entrenchment and perpetuation of these special interests and their unfair advantages.an ever increasing arms race ... that ends up being very profitable for the banks
Regulation or not, the thing we mainly need to keep in mind is outcome. I just had a conversation with mk earlier today about how frustrating it can be that NIH typically seems more concerned with mechanism than outcomes in what they choose to fund. Same applies to regulation. There can be good ones and bad ones, but what should define either isn't how "fair" the playing field is, but what the end product looks like. Imagining the world we would like to live in then thinking of ways we can make the world conform to that vision is a better strategy than ensuring rules are strictly adhered to.