Remember that there are many ways economic logic leaks into the the actions of governments at-large and within the institutions, but I think at the highest leve

Remember that there are many ways economic logic leaks into the the actions of governments at-large and within the institutions, but I think at the highest level this is an argument against government regulation. The principles of this argument are the same as a Keynes vs. Hayek/Friedman argument. Keynes basically pointed out that sometimes markets don't always adjust quickly, so in these cases there is an economic argument in favor to "helping" the market restore to equilibrium (a "visible" hand). From macro issues like regulating the financial services sector to micro issues like antitrust and competition policy, consumers like you and I can be made better off via regulation. For example, competition policy is one of the most productive types of government regulation that takes place. Disregarding the DoJ's treatment of online poker [to date], the FTC and the DoJ have been doing some pretty great things over the last few years[1] (e.g. $500 million in fines issued breaking up LCD price fixing scheme; continued effort towards addressing the current and future problems of privacy on the Internet) In the US, the goal of competition policy is to promote the economic welfare of CONSUMERS, however a good policy would be one that increases the economic welfare of both consumers and producers. Game theoretically, figuring out how to make a policy that increases the welfare of both sides of the market is a mechanism design problem. [1] Relative to almost all the other sectors of government.