[lisasays]

The thing is, it isn't "people" arguing that -- to an extent that would suffice influence policy, in any case. By itself, this belief contingent (and its effect on public policy) would be quite marginal.

At the end of the day, it's lobbyists, PACs and think tanks connected to specific business interests who are able to work the system, and get these marginal political beliefs converted into legislation (and court appointments).

That's how the term "regulatory capture" applies.

[BoiledCabbage]

> The thing is, it isn't "people" arguing that -- to an extent that would suffice influence policy, in any case.

You also seem to be discounting the fact that plenty of people (for example influential people in SV) have spent a lot of time arguing that regulation is in general bad. That spreads here on HN quite frequently. This is the outcome of that rhetoric.

There is also a political part that champions it, they've and a large part of the voting public believes this. It's not just a few small lobbyists that twisted politicians arms on behalf of their clients. There are politicians looking for places where there are regulations so they can cut them as that's a key part of their platform. People suggest areas and they agree.

You keep making it sound like the concept of cutting regulations is political heresy across the board and lobbyists are having to sneak to get these done. It's widely promoted in a certain sphere and this is what it results in.

[azinman2]

And they convince millions of people it’s the right thing to do, so they keep getting voted in on it. It appeals to existing political mindsets. You can’t ignore the politicalization of it.

[lisasays]

That's exactly how they operate - by trying to convince everyone that it's the inevitable result of the groundswell of public opinion in favor of aggressive regulation.

In reality, it isn't.

[BoiledCabbage]

> to convince everyone that it's the inevitable result of the groundswell of public opinion in favor of aggressive regulation.

This wasn't aggressive regulation - it was removing regulation. Again, regulations would have helped.

The same things we've learned since the 1930s still apply. And when someone rolls back those regulations under claims it's "stifling profit or innovation" we end up in the same spot.

[lisasays]

Typo: meant to say deregulation, of course.