That wasn't in the list above. We were talking primarily about consumer/market protections.

The CIA, probably.

Cracking Enigma was a big deal in WW2. Germany got hurt real bad.

I don't think you realize the level of damage it generally takes to get bipartisan support for creation of an oversight body.

It was popularized that an estimated 8,000 infant deaths attributed to swill milk occured every year in NYC in the 1850s (take with a grain of salt).

Even more recently much of the banking regulation only occured after severe market issues that broadly impacted the economy.

On a related note: "Layoffs" are going to be a hard practical harm point to rally around. Unless we fundamentally change the nature of our economy (Which doesn't tend to happen until the previous system collapses.), effeciency is king. Tha market isn't rational, but effeciency is a competitive advantage that compounds over time. So you have a prisoners dilemma here. If you want to restrict a technology that boosts efficiency, you either have to close your market and then put up rules that constrain efficiency or you bleed your prosperity.

Why?