Snyder would say you are practicing the politics of inevitability: https://hac.bard.edu/amor-mundi/the-politics-of-inevitabilit...

  What the politics of inevitability does is that it teaches you to narrate in such 
  a way that the facts which seem to trouble the story of progress are disregarded. 
  So in the politics of inevitability, if there is huge wealth inequality as a 
  result of unbridled capitalism, we teach ourselves to say that that’s kind of a 
  necessary cost of this overall progress. We learn this dialectical way of 
  thinking by which what seems to be bad is actually good.
  And, of course, that applies to foreign affairs as well. When we look at 
  countries that are not making the quote-unquote “transition” to democracy the way  
  we expect, you know, we find excuses. We imagine that the general trend is going 
  to our direction in some deep way. And then we fail to notice, what has been the 
  case for the last 15 years or so, that the world is actually moving in a very 
  pronounced and easily observable way away from democracy.

Here is a relatively quick video of him pretty directly critiquing what you just stated: https://bigthink.com/videos/timothy-snyder-political-outrage...

  But the way that things are breaking now in the U.S. is that our politics of 
  inevitability, which we’ve held to in the last 25 years, basically this idea that 
  “since communism ended in 1989 there are no alternatives,” basically this idea 
  that “technology must lead to enlightenment,” this idea that “the market must lead 
  to democracy.” Those ideas have now come back to clobber us. Neither of them ever 
  had any foundation. Both of them are highly persuasive to a lot of people and 
  that’s lead to some consequences, which are very dangerous for the rule of law and 
  indeed for democracy. Believing that, for example, more market means more 
  democracy means that you don’t regulate things that you really need to regulate, 
  like offshore wealth or anonymous transactions or shell companies. And that 
  creates a world, a gray zone of capitalism where, for example, a Donald Trump can 
  begin close relationships with Russian oligarchs. If you believe that technology 
  automatically leads to progress, then you don’t watch very carefully as certain 
  kinds of social platforms lead people into a politics of “us and them” and destroy 
  a sense of common factuality. The story that you’re telling yourself the whole 
  time about how “the market or tech have to lead toward enlightenment and 
  democracy” dulls your mind to what’s actually happening until you reach the point   
  that we’ve reached now.

> Here is a relatively quick video of him pretty directly critiquing what you just stated...

None of that big wall of text seems to directly address anything I actually said.

> It is not positive government policy that is the problem but government failure to act because the government operates on behalf of money (oligarchy), not on behalf of us (democracy).

The only thing worse than pedantry is wrong pedantry. Your attempt at correcting me here is wrong because The absence of the kinds of policies you would like to see is still policy.

In other words, not everything that goes wrong with an industry is the result of the government not doing what you wish it would do.

And to be more specific, even those things that go wrong because of government policy are not necessarily caused by oligarchic influence.