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.
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.
> 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.
In reality, it isn't.