I think you've been horribly mislead. It's not surprising, you are reliant on the media for information,
Oh yawn. When I say you're actually convincing yourself, this tedious little refrain of yours is exactly the sort of thing I mean.
Who do you think that's going to convince? It's just you trying to assert that you are smarter than everyone else, and it has no traction outside your own head.
the only "failure" is in the stock market, which has only failed in as much as rich people want to take advantage of a crisis.
This is a bit like saying the weather has failed every time there's a hurricane.
The stock market is a complex system. It is largely predictable: do certain things and likely get a certain response. Then, the output of the system could be altered through changing how it works - laws, regulations, etc.
If the stock market "fails", then okay, let's assume there is a problem with the system. The objective, then, is to change the system so it provides the desired outputs to stimuli. So why present this complex system with stimuli likely to make it fail, unless the intention is to make it fail? We can assume that the u-turn and policy reversion indicates the intention was not for it to fail. In which case, it was just remarkably stupid to push it towards failure.
No amount of smart-arsery and waffle about "elites", "rich", blah blah blah obscures the raw incompetence of the above.