The whole point of handling chaotic events is you have to control them before they spiral out of control. That's the whole point of economics on the subject, and it also applies to turbulence, riots, everything analysed as chaotic. The defining feature of chaotic systems is they appear to be going along like random phenomena, then they start to undulate, then they fall apart. Before chaos theory people used to believe these catastrophe were just unusual events and they would try to plan on that basis.

It doesn't work like that, like a riot in a jail for example. Chaos theory work out how much security is really needed and shows warning signs to avoid. It's the same in business were catastrophes can drastically reduce a company's market share in a way that is not predictable under statistical analysis. That's because probability assumes events are not related and chaos assumes they are. Of course as you point out too much control can also be counterproductive, the key is finding the balance.

Laissez faire economics is based on assuming each person, company, etc acts randomly to further their own independant self interest. That's why probability theory explains much of the free market quite well. The problem is though that chaotic and random systems are mixed in together and it's hard to tell the difference as they look very similar in stable situations.

It's when problems occur that they part company. Chaotic systems explode into recessions, bankruptcies, etc. Probability based systems have an unusual situation and then it is stabilised by pushing in the opposite direction, e.g. by Keynesian spending, extra police, building more infrastructure, temporary tariffs, etc.

One of the biggest recent developments in economics is to recognize that these chaotic systems exist, and are mathematically proven beyond doubt to occur. They can't be simplified because they are innately complex and unpredictable. They can be controlled and regulated to keep them away from that tipping point into catastrophe.

So when a system gets close to this tipping point (Rumsfeld points out correctly war is chaotic) the left tend to ward off this strange attractor, and the right tend to ignore it because they believe it is just a random fluctuation. So in terms of catastrophic failures the right ideologically tend to not deal with them correctly.

In terms of random fluctuations on the other hand the left tend to mess those up by overregulating for fear they represent a catastrophe. It's hard to tell whether industries dying off are caused by chaos catastrophes to be regulated or random phases of the free market. There is a difference though and this chaotic aspect of companies getting into trouble is well documented.

This is much of how modern economics works, trying to balance these two known, mathematically proven aspects. This is also why when the extreme left or right tries to run things the economy sours. The right ignores catastrophes till they build to unacceptable levels like happened in Argentina. The left ignores random forces in the market until they squash the life out of it like happens to some degree in France and Germany.

It's not about ideology (I tend to be center right ) but letting the mathematics of it work. Bush will continue to have these catastrophes mount because philosophically they don't believe they exist. Deregulating industries might lead to a freer random market that gives cost savings but it can also lead to catastrophic failures like in the power industry.