These regulations included things like monopoly in many industries, truckig, airlines and so on. There are lots of example like this. I'm just absoulty mindboggled by the current liberal idea of literally and regulation is always great and any removal of any regulation always responsable for the next crisis. Even saying 'deregulation' gets view on basically like saying that you are a neonazi.
Simularly the view that all regulation exist for a good reason is also flat-out false. It flys directly in the face of any serious study of political science and the formation of regulation in the real world.
> I'm just abso[lutely] mindboggled by the current liberal idea of literally an[y] regulation is always great and any removal of any regulation always respons[i]ble for the next crisis.
> ...Sim[i]larly the view that all regulation exist for a good reason is also flat-out false.
You're boggling your own mind, since that's a straw man position. I made it clear I didn't hold it ("the thing about regulations is you can always cherry-pick a couple mind-boggling stupid ones..."), and I don't think "liberals" hold it either.
The position I do hold is that to actually evaluate a particular regulation is difficult and requires a lot of thought; and it's easy to to mislead someone into taking an ignorant, broadly anti-regulation stance by cherry-picking examples of bad ones. I've seen a lot of that, and at one time I even found the cherry-picking persuasive.
Deregulatory zeal has a tendency of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Also, some specific cases of deregulation can merely re-introduce negative externalities that some connected group stands to benefit from (to the determent of the public good).
Simularly the view that all regulation exist for a good reason is also flat-out false. It flys directly in the face of any serious study of political science and the formation of regulation in the real world.