> The goal of regulation is regulation.

If you believe that, go breathe the air in Beijing.

The goal isn't always regulation - sometimes it is, sometimes not. When the goal is regulation, however, the excuse is always consumer protection, regardless of whether the actual form that the regulations take is a good approximation of a minimal, lowest-impact way to achieve those protections.

And higher regulatory compliance costs make a very good barriers to entry, so lots of entrenched interests will lobby for regulation, because the benefits are concentrated among a few players with lots of resources. By contrast, the beneficiaries of lower-regulation regimes are typically consumers and upstart firms with fewer resources. Guess which group is going to be lobbying politicians? Guess which side makes a better story for politicians to tell their constituents? Guess which side brings the actual regulatory agency heads bigger budgets, more power, and general career advancement?

It's an intrinsically unbalanced game, and what the economists call "rent-seeking" is a continually ongoing problem for most economic and political systems.

Now, how about an actual debate on how to structure an actual regulatory regime specifically, instead of painting "Regulation!!!!" with a broad brush one way or the other? Both of you sides, goodness.

Did the Beijing air regulators get fired? If not, it sounds like they're doing their job since their bosses must be pleased with their performance.

The real goals and the stated goals of government are not always the same. To find out the real goals watch how they act instead of what they say.