Hello sky
You probably won't be surprised to learn that I see something totally different here.
It seems apparent to me that the cause is not deregulation but rather, excessive regulation. You may or may not remember some of my rants prior to and during the bailout debacle, where I basically said that this sort of thing was bound to happen. The first crisis wasn't brought about due to lack of government intervention, but because of it.
The problem comes when the government removes incentive by lessening the penalties for failure. You are correct in saying that an unregulated market is governed by selfishness. Indeed, a great many things are. So why would it surprise anyone when selfish individuals take the opportunity to profit and then let the state cover their failures with everyone else's money?
The beauty of a truly free market (which admittedly, must have limited, but strong, anti-fraud and anti-theft regulation) is that these people can't pawn off their failures. They get stuck with them unless they can sell them to someone else. If a business disappoints customers, it loses customers and it goes out of business. . Of course, in America's heavily-regulated economy, that doesn't always apply. Just look at General Motors or American Airlines. Both cost the taxpayers billions that they otherwise wouldn't have because the Feds stepped in to help them out with our money.
The key to the market is incentive (selfishness, if you prefer). The freedom to fail or prosper is the incentive. Remove or hinder either, and the market becomes ineffecient. It doesn't cycle the way it should. You wouldn't interfere with an ecosystem and expect it to function normally would you? The market is no different. It has good times and bad times, but it always grows.
Finally, remember that this country has not had a truly free-market economy that was largely independent of government since the second founding of the
federally-sponsored central bank, which immediately set about mucking up the money supply and interfering with prices.
I know that you are aware of the dangers of plutocracy, so I'm confused as to how you could ever speak about deregulation as if it were a bad thing (except from an environmental perspective, of course, which is another discussion.) I mean, that would be combining the fiat powers of state over policy and money with extremely wealthy businessmen. How could it be any more plutocratic?
What system, exactly, would you like to see? A link is ok if you have typed it out before
