feel free to agree or disagree, you don't need a credential, different opinions are valuable too on its own but I think you are leaning into a wrong diagnostic of the problem.

For me the money printing is one leg of the table, but also the ideas that goes in the line of "we need to make a little regulation here and there and call it a day". I think that there is a very good reason for nature to not design but yo be "humble enough to admit the limit of her knowledge and let things evolve" so to speak.

I fear unforeseen consequences, and those are the norm dealing with complex systems where all the variables are heavily coupled. That is why I think that the real problems of 100% free market are way better than the alternatives.

Top down rules are 1 size fits all, if we are lucky we all win, but if we are not, we all fail. Since is extremely unlikely than a modification in a complex system improve it (more ways to disorder it rather than to order it, like entropy) top down rules are almost a guarantee to failure IMO. Fail globally (most probable) or win globally

On the other side, on the free market with at least one who makes an improvement, everybody can copy it (I.E. a private regulation, practice, knowhow, that improves both parties) but if anyone fails, the failure is not socialized. Fail locally or win globally