In my view signalling a strong view for or against regulation suggests the need to properly think through the idea of contexts. The situation in which a regulation is applied is essential to determining its usefulness. For example; in my business we have had serious and expensive problems with substandard copper pipe imported from under-regulated manufacturers. Short term cost advantages turned into long term cost disadvantages. The difference at the initial construction end was less than $500.00. A re-pipe, in a condominium development costs between $50,000 and $100,000 per unit. In this case deregulation didn’t work. There are many counterexamples, the point I’m trying to make is that unless you are prepared to delve into the specifics the general case for/against regulation is not all that useful.

"most of the time you’ll end up doing more harm than good",

its the most of the time assumption that I have the most difficulty with, what's your base rate?

"and the next time won’t be much different from the last time." seems like an arbitrary application of the planning fallacy, why is it any different if you do or you don't?