I think we are seeing the same facts and coming to entirely different conclusions. I don't want to put words in your mouth or construct a straw man, but I think you are saying that regulation, and the regulators, are OK as long as the regulations are effective, and efficient, and unbiased. That is where my view departs from yours.

People are imperfect and fallible, thus; some number of regulators are stupid, some are corrupt, and some are both stupid and corrupt. It follows that there are going to be regulations that are based on graft or ignorance and these are now enforced upon us by the power of the state.

Even if regulators were brilliant and uncorruptable, there is an inefficiency inherent in central planning that impedes that market. No central planner has, or can have, all of the information necessary to make the optimal decisions that each actor in the economy would make for himself.

I believe, therefore, that regulation is always some combination of stupid, corrupt, and inefficient. That is not to say that there should be no regulation. The constructive role of the government should be to enforce contracts and to prevent theft by fraud or force--essentially, the government enforces the rules. The inefficiencies imposed by the limited gov't are, hopefully, worth it due to the rules based order imposed by the visible hand of gov't.

Once the gov't begins to change the rules in an ad hoc way, it always favors the established over the upstart, and it favors big money over the little guy. Giving more regulatory power to the government just makes the big businesses bigger and makes the marketplace less free.

Again, I don't want to mischaracterize what you'd say, but I think you are saying that with more talent and resources ($$$) the regulatory regime will be improved. I'd say that giving the regulators more leverage just allows them to (negatively) affect the market in new and more far-reaching ways.

WW