Deregulating the financial system left banks free to speculate, and they did so with reckless enthusiasm. The result was a build-up of toxic assets that threatened the entire banking system. The government was forced to step in to save the system from self-destruction, but only at the cost of becoming itself hugely indebted. As a result, the state has a greater stake in the financial system than it did in the time of Clement Attlee.
Talking about “regulation” vs. “deregulation” in the abstract is pointless. We have to talk about specifics if we want to get anywhere. Stuff like, Do you think credit default swaps should be forced on to exchanges? It’s all very boring to your readers, but unless you are specific you don’t get anywhere... If you are vague, it sounds kind of fun: ideology, Chicago versus Harvard, and so on. But to get anywhere you have to be specific.
If you want to talk about this, we need to talk about specific evidence and how it does or doesn’t match up with specific theories.
Again, it is good to be specific.
So, again, I say be specific.