When 'semantics' is not 'playing games with definitions'

Comment thread at C&L:

stephen byrne Capitalism is based on trust. When trust is eroded, the system can and will collapse. Yet capitalism, by its very nature, tempts its adherents to swindle, cheat, lie and confuse. How do we correct that? Obviously, through a strict regiment of regulation. It's what keeps capitalism honest.

SkepticalPartisan to stephen byrne
Regulation are tools of the powerful. In the rare occasions the larger public has more power, they are written to benefit the public. Unfortunately, more often than not, the rich have more power and they both rewrite regulation *and* change the rules of enforcement to benefit themselves. A major tactic is regulating secrecy and control of information, both enemies of democracy. Transparency and informed choice gives power to the voter/buyer, not the candidate/seller.

Rebel Tuba to SkepticalPartisan
If regulation is the tool of the powerful, why are so many of them fanatically in favor of DE-regulation?

SkepticalPartisan to Rebel Tuba
As a practical matter, regulation/deregulation are a matter of semantics and not enforcement. Rules that outlaw informing consumers (for example, preventing testing for BSE, bovine spongiform encephalopathy) are backed by the same power of the state as rules requiring informing consumers (example, caloric/nutritional content). Bank 'deregulation' is the government enforcing banks' right to protect (not disclose) their information. Bank 'regulation' is government enforcing public's right (disclosure) of bank information. In the former, regulation is the exercise of banks' power; the latter is an exercise of public power. Considering most laws in recent years have served the interests of the wealthy, public power has been on the wane for decades.

Rebel Tuba to SkepticalPartisan
That's much too narrow a example and too narrow a view. Telling banks they can't pursue certain opportunistic and risky investments is the opposite of refusing to allow them to gamble with other people's money in the most dangerous ways, and that is NOT 'semantics' any more than opposing situations in general are semantics. That's playing games with definitions.
Your example of one small aspect of bank regulation and deregulation is deceptively narrow. It covers many, many more details than that, and most of them don't come down to 'semantics'. Not to mention that there are far more aspects of regulation/deregulation other than banking.

SkepticalPartisan to Rebel Tuba
"If regulation is the tool of the powerful, why are so many of them fanatically in favor of DE-regulation?"
The powerful ask for and get regulation that favors them and calls it deregulation. The power of the state backs the enforcement of all regulations. Without state backing, enforcement is vigilantism.
-semantics means 'meaning of word, phrase or sentence.'
-regulation means government telling industry something *must* be done; enforced through law; criminal charges possible.
-deregulation means government telling industry something *cannot* be done; enforced through law; criminal charges possible.
In this less 'narrow' illustration, does the government enforce regulation differently from deregulation? How does the law treat deregulation differently from regulation?

I thought I was clear!