I did watch the videos you posted. The first two anyway. The problem here is that we need to define "regulations" because it means a lot of different things at a lot of different scales. I am not advocating more government regulations in the way you are referring. In other words, I completely agree that there is a ton of excess bureaucracy wasting time and money all over the place. I don't think we need more and more rules in all aspects of life, I don't think I need to jump through hoops to build a shed on my lawn, and if my local farmer wants to sell me something they grew they should be able to do that without the FDA stepping in and forcing them to comply in a hundred pointless ways so that we all end up paying more just to please local governments. So in that way, I'm with that point of view.
On the other hand, none of what you said addresses the kind of deregulation I have been talking about. Those 8,000 new regulations each year really have nothing to do with Mr. Greenspan's ideological crusade to convince America that the best economic strategy in the 1990's was to leave Wall Street alone, because it would self-regulate. This popular neoconservative philosophy goes back to the Chicago School of Economics, which you are probably familiar with, and Milton Friedman's assertion that no government intervention is desirable for an economy to thrive. Because the U.S. (back then) was not amicable to such an extreme philosophy, the Chicago boys had to test their theories in other countries such as Chile, regrettably partnering with crazed dictators like Pinochet who was given the chance to start his economy carte blanche. In came a bunch of free-market American Theorists and down went the Chilean economy into unheard-of levels of poverty. Fast forward to Reagan who started dismantling all these safety checkpoints, bring in Greenspan to trumpet this point of view and get Clinton to claim that the old laws like Glass-Steagall were no longer relevant, and you basically have a perfect foundation for what became the Derivatives Market and the disaster that followed. For all the free-market talk, it really boiled down to a small group of people twisting the rules to their favor.
Now, what you're saying about cronyism and over-regulation is true, in that arena of life. But that's got nothing to do with what I just described, which is a much bigger-picture issue that favors a small but rich minority with lots of government connections. We're talking about two different things, but your ideological bias prevents you from seeing that the issue isn't either/or, it's situational. In a certain time and place, having a Monarchy might be the best solution to the problem- and, for a certain period of time, it was. If you have a great and honorable king, you can get a lot more good things accomplished than with 100 senators all arguing back and forth. But that doesn't mean Monarchies are the ideal, or morally superior. Same with capitalism. Upton Sinclair wrote a good book, one that detailed facts and spoke truth. Labeling him a socialist doesn't really mean anything, as anyone who expresses a point of view that is compassionate to people being exploited will be called a socialist by free-market capitalists. Socialism isn't morally inferior or superior to capitalism- it's a human invention, a tool, like a hammer, designed to solve problems. Hammers are great for driving nails, but they make terrible pens. If you need to write something, don't go with a hammer. That doesn't mean pens are morally superior to hammers. I have met and befriended people from former-communist eastern block countries who preferred communism to what they have now because it worked better in many ways. I also have good friends who fled that same scene and love being in the U.S. and never want to go back. Both had valid arguments, because they were both focused on different aspects of the same beast.
One more point- I hate the concept of subsidies too, but if you start to dig deeper, you realize there are different kinds of subsidies. One is the kind that gives farmers money for each bushel of corn, which makes no sense. It's a neverending corn welfare system that encourages you to keep playing the game because Uncle Sam is paying you too. Then there are subsidies that are assistance to people starting out- things like tax breaks on people buying solar panels, or money given for agricultural research to develop better farming methods. Yes, these are subsidies, yes, you can say government is "granting favors" I guess, but the difference is these are temporary investments by the government which allow people to lay a foundation that then becomes self-sufficient and ultimately boosts the economy. This is why Germany is doing so much better than everyone else, because their government got their head out of their ass years ago and realized that if they encouraged economic development in a certain direction, it would create a healthy economy based on logical and sound sustainable industries at a time when old methods are dying out. There are lots of examples of governments doing wise, logical things and thinking long-term for the benefit of their country... it's just that, sadly, our government is full of corrupt, short-term thinking people, and as long as you have that, no system you attempt is going to work. Arguing for such a black-and-white ideological sweep is not wise, because you'll eliminate as many good things as you will bad ones. Life isn't that black-and-white and you have to examine each situation for what it is- no one ideology is going to save everything.
Please watch the three short videos posted above. They will enlighten you.
