This is a fallacy. Generally regulations tend to protect consumers or vulnerable groups from harm. The recent global trend towards deregulation and austerity moves in the opposite direction of social democratic movements in Germany, Scandinavian countries and much of the EU. The end result being more of a wild west free for all that results in something more like the Gilded Age of the 19th century than a well-optimized free market like imagined on the Jetsons.

That said, there are certainly cases where financial market regulations have hurt the middle class. For example, a pattern day trader rule was imposed in February 2001 which required a $25,000 minimum balance to trade on margin:

http://www.finra.org/investors/day-trading-margin-requiremen...

More about trading on margin (in the most basic sense - potentially doubling your gains but wiping you out if your total stock holdings equal what you borrowed, triggering a margin call):

https://www.investopedia.com/university/margin/

The pattern day trader rule was introduced after the dot bomb with several stated goals like protecting inexperienced investors or limiting volatility. But it was really yet another tactic to keep the most lucrative forms of trading in the hands of wealthy/institutional investors and leave the masses in the slow lane of trading with their own money.

It's extremely important to know the nuances of regulations and their unintended consequences. But instead we only generally hear about deregulation from politicians, because they know that insiders (their base and lobbyists) will always win over the masses in a fully deregulated economy.

P.S. I didn't downvote you, because the sentiment you expressed is widespread and needs to be addressed