When are you going to become a student of history and stop this nonsense? Greenspan was the chief regulator, but he did not believe in regulation. He had a strong unwavering belief that capital market excesses would self-correct if left to their own devices. He was right, and if left alone the markets would have self-corrected with a consequent upheaval and chaos. The process of self-correction was underway when the consequences were deemed so undesirable (read unprofitable as in money losing) for the major banks, both investment and commercial, that Treasury and the Central Bank stepped in and did not allow the natural, self-correction process to go to completion (read bankruptcy). No one could be more laissez faire in philosophy than Alan Greenspan. His actions clearly showed that. You could not be more incorrect on this one point! [Please carefully read antitrust's post above.]
We are actually in agreement. However we have to agree that there are two kinds of regulation -- good and bad. In good regulation the government's legislative, judicial, and executive branches function as an efficient referee to protect and encourage free markets and hold the capitalists in check, and prevent them from forming monopolies and cartels, and also prevent them from using their capital power to influence regulation. Bad regulation occurs when the capitalists succeed in using their capital to influence regulation and bend it to suit their own goals, which include the prevention of free markets and the formation of cartels and monopolies. In extreme cases, the capitalists may be firmly in control of the government. {Edit} I think it is important to add that a very important feature of good regulation is the absence of over-regulation. Two common forms of bad law come to mind: the first are those where the rules and reporting requirements are far out of proportion to any benefit that might accrue, and the second are those that are far to weak to achieve their desired end. (The latter type of bad law crops up commonly when vested interests interfere with the law making process.)
name calling, generalities , highly defensive, and of course self proclaimed superior understanding of said ideas that's basically the characteristics of an ideological zealot.