Upon careful reading of the comment to which you are responding, I found that it neatly addresses very precisely the keen, sensible, and reasonable point you have raised. Perhaps you have had an experience significantly from mine?

That comment assumes we can all agree upon a textbook definition of 'economic regulation'. An economic regulation is generally defined as any legislation or administrative act that impacts either pricing a good or entering a market. If you follow that strict, conventional (in economics circles) definition, it's tough to argue with the comment.

Outside of textbooks, economic regulation has a much bigger meaning such that a statement like that would be highly confusing and inflammatory. Outside of textbooks, economic regulation can refer to anything from health/safety legislation to antitrust legislation to taxes/tariffs/freer trade. Economic regulation = increased costs only works if you use a conventional definition of regulation...

I understand where you're coming from and what you mean. I even understand why some people, reading the original comment, would stop after the confusing and inflammatory statement and not finish reading the rest of the fine comment.

It's possible that such people might be best served to read the rest of the comment and cogitate for a moment before objecting.

In this context, I found that the parent comment covers health, safety, anti-trust, and more under the umbrella of improving market function. I understand that others may have arrived at a different understanding of the comment.