You seem to assume that governments will magically do a better job than customers of regulating the behavior of market participants. They won't. That's why your models do worse in the real world than mine.
> There was days without regulations, they didn't come out of nowhere cause someone was feeling bored. I don't want to go back to that time.
What time, exactly?
> How do you explain the supplement industry then?
They are responding to market demand. If people are willing to buy supplements without having any information about whether they are safe and effective, then someone will be willing to sell them.
My solution to this "problem" would be to remind people that they will have to bear the consequences of their decisions, and then let them decide--and bear the consequences. That means people who make bad decisions will have bad things happen to them. But at least everybody is aware that it's up to them to not be one of those people.
Your solution is to have the government do the evaluation of whether the supplement is safe and effective--or at least be willing to prosecute sellers who mislead their customers. In other words, you think the government can somehow prevent bad things from happening to people who make bad decisions--or would, if they were allowed to make their own decisions instead of having the government decide for them. But, as someone else pointed out upthread, the government doesn't actually do that--even with all this government regulation, we still have industries like the supplement industry full of hustlers trying to sell people bogus products, and they don't get stopped by regulators and they don't get prosecuted when they deliberately mislead customers. So bad things still happen to people--but now it's worse, because people think the government regulations are protecting them, so they don't think they need to take any other precautions, but the protection they think is there isn't there.
