You can blame the alignment of Jupiter for all I care, but the fact of the matter is, the lowest levels of regulation coincided with the highest levels of wealth inequality within this country. Our most regulated era was the time between the Great Depression and now, and it also coincides with the least amount of economic volatility. There are two factors to consider, when talking about economic stability within a capitalist society: where wealth resides without any regulation, and the results of it. Without any regulation whatsoever (or rather, as minimal as possible while still being capitalist, since you have to have a little regulation just to make sure some guy pays for services rendered), the middle of the economic pyramid disappears. This is because wealth has money-making abilities within itself. If you have $100k in the bank, you have more than double the money making potential than having $50k in the bank. It bring the average money making up, and therefore prices up, where the people below that level lose wealth, and the people above it still gain wealth because of the issue I described above. The other factor is that, when a society loses its middle section of the economic pyramid, it either collapses or it because a tyranny. Not "he raised my income tax by 3%!" tyranny, but "kill all politicians who don't agree with me" tyranny. It happens literally every time to every society throughout history. And equally importantly, it doesn't matter if that inequality was fair or not. If it was because people were lazy, it doesn't matter. You still have the inevitability of collapse or tyranny. So you can argue about the "right" amount of regulation all you want, the consistent conclusion of as-close-to-zero-as-possible regulation won't work for a society.