Thanks, and that's a crucial point you're making about the chaotic, possibly self-destructive nature of pure or hyper-capitalism. I'm no expert on this, mind you, and I'm coming at this from a philosophical standpoint rather than a technical, mathematical one. But from my limited readings on the subject, I've gathered that the earlier maths in economics--which have perhaps overstayed their welcome--take capitalism to be more stable than it is because those early neoclassical economists compared this system to the eternal music of the Newtonian spheres (figuratively speaking). I believe Steven Keen and some other heterodox economists use the newer math (influenced by chaos theory, quantum mechanics, and the like), to account for the observed instability of capitalist competition.

It may be that the distinction between weak and strong regulation is misleading. Perhaps there's always the same degree of economic regulation. The real question is: Who benefits? There are many loopholes written into the American tax code. Do they get government off the backs of the rich people who put them there, or do the loopholes merely direct the government to favour some special interests?

I suppose wise regulations could conceivably prevent Great Depressions, as something like Glass-Steagall did for decades. But not if the government is largely captured by the wealthiest one percent and by the too-big-to-fail corporations.