I mostly agree, and wanted to add some thoughts. First, people use the hammer of centralized control just as they sell after the market has taken a big fall -

I mostly agree, and wanted to add some thoughts. First, people use the hammer of centralized control just as they sell after the market has taken a big fall - because of fear. In both cases, it's the wrong action. Fear and greed are the two major reactions that humans have, at it'e hardwired into our brains. Discussion is a much higher brain function that is easily overruled by those functions. Hence crazy regulations upon crazy regulations. Secondly, the Epipen issue exists because of the FDA. There is no such thing as a free market for drugs - it is COMPLETELY controlled by the government. Personally, I think the CEOs can set whatever price they want. Our response should be demanding that the FDA promotes competition instead of killing it. This would allow for more rational pricing. To me, in a free(er) market, drug prices would look like Intel chip prices - high at the beginning to offset heavy capital costs, and then lowering over time. Obviously patent protection comes into play, making it less free, but this could be addressed as well. One other example that we're going to see play out in the coming months is the Dodd-Frank regulation. There are an amazing amount of constraints on banks, when many of them could be eliminated by two rules: 1 - a bank has to eat the first 20% of losses on a loan, even if it sells it; 2 - if your bank goes under, the top two layers of management cannot work in or for the industry for the next five years. That would largely get rid of the bad actor problem, since the punishment would be significant.