>For centuries. No. Millennia. We might have had other, confounding factors during that time period. And while he did mention "deregulation", he also indicated

>For centuries. No. Millennia. We might have had other, confounding factors during that time period. And while he did mention "deregulation", he also indicated that he only wanted partial deregulation... that there would still be some demand for purity/dosage. When people talk about deregulation, there is this idea that regulations already exist. If you're talking about periods from anitquity where no regulations existed at all, this isn't comparable to a period of deregulation where presumably everyone knows what the regulations were trying to accomplish and agree on those and other basic scientific principles. We also had no FAA 10,000 years ago, and no one died in plane crashes then, right? That proves how awesome regulation is in the same way your example proves how awful it is. How can these two arguments reach entirely difference conclusions, do you think? >"Oh but baby we've changed" --some random private equity sociopath Or, just possibly, people come to realize over time that their initial knee-jerk reactions went too far, and cause measurable harm that they want to reduce. Unfettered capitalism does get a few things right... it can go from supply shortages to excess quickly. Let it work.