> Jaw-droppingly ahistorical. The Wild West was not characterized by regulation!

What is the flaw in your reading comprehension? I didn't say "everything" I said "everything" commercial worth regulating. Central to my point is the changing scope and nature of the American economy, which seems to go completely over your head in the paragraphs that follow.

> For one thing, the de facto repeal of the Tenth Amendment and expansion of the Commerce Clause limiting the federal government had not yet happened in the early US.

The 10th amendment never created limits to the exercise of federal power. All it says is that in the cession of powers by the states represented by the Constitutional agreement, the states retained those they hadn't ceded. If a federal action can, e.g., be justified by any other clause in the Constitution, it is by definition one of the powers that have been ceded.

There has also been no real expansion of the Commerce Clause (Wickard aside--which is best understood as a World War II case). The definition of the Commerce Power post-Lopez is more or less the same as it was defined in Gibbons v. Ogden in 1824. What's changed is the nature of the economy.

> America's defining characteristic from 1776 to 1860 or so was extraordinarily low levels of government intervention

America's defining characteristic from 1776 to 1860 was extraordinarily low levels of commercial activity that affected any significant number of people. The vast majority of the country was engaged in agrarian activities--what economists would today call the "household economy." What commercial activity that did exist was regulated. Trade via navigable waterways and international trade were the major types of commercial activity that existed, and they were regulated by the federal government from the beginning. Joint stock companies were charted and regulated by the states from before the time of the founding.

The government (between the federal and state governments), taxed what was important at the time: land, international trade, trade in various goods people couldn't make for themselves: sugar, etc.

> You do also realize that there wasn't even an income tax till 1913

You also realize that the income tax as it's currently defined wouldn't even reach most of the economic activity that existed in early America? Income taxes reach market transactions, but before industrialization people didn't depend solely on the market for their daily necessities like we do today. Even today, to the extent that production and consumption happen within a household, no "income" accrues to be taxed. What's happened isn't so much that th

> Can the SEC be trusted to regulate itself?

It doesn't have to be. It's a federal agency, answerable to elected officials.

> You do know what career status is, right?

Do you know what career status is? It allows you to re-enter federal service without taking the necessary civil service exams, and allows you to apply for internal job openings even if you're not currently working with the government. It doesn't do any of the things you claim it does.

> We can trust the SEC to harass Bitcoin, Paypal, and startups. We can also trust the SEC to be bribed or captured out of “regulating” the financial markets.

The SEC, like most agencies, exists as a conservative force. They want to preserve the status quo until new things have proven themselves. This is not a bad thing.

> Given the events of the last five years, it is only extraordinary ignorance or chutzpah that could lead someone to claim that the SEC protects investors.

It's incredible how people who hold fringe minority viewpoints can convince themselves that everyone else is either ignorant or lying.

> No. This is just a rehash of the conventional wisdom. Without FDR’s regulatory state we would ostensibly be victims of those evil businesses, as we are incapable of judging product quality on our own.

Information asymmetries, negative externalities, etc, aren't just things I made up. They're real economic concepts and are the reason regulatory states exist. I don't feel compelled to argue with you on positions supported by the large majority of economists in the field.

> Only someone who either (a) profits from the complexity of the regulatory state or (b) is completely unfamiliar with its workings could fail to be appalled by the level of corruption and incompetence that is its defining characteristic.

I got news for you: we all profit from the existence of the regulatory state. My father left a country that had no regulation. It was a libertarian paradise! Get yourself out in the rural areas and pretty much everyone will leave you alone. It sucked. I challenge you to go live in one of these places that has little to no regulation. If you can't find one that is that way but also has an acceptably high standard of living for someone coming from the states, I'll assert that it's not a coincidence.