All you say is accurate enough, in a sense; yet in other senses it is all only tinkering with the problem.
Certainly markets respond to supply and demand; and we have a reality in which large players can (and do) manipulate both the supply and demand functions, for their own short term gain. As you mentioned, Enron was an example of the worst excesses of this trend; and many others are far more circumspect (yet little, if any, less effective).
As one example, it seems clear to me that most laws are more about erecting barriers to entry, to protect vested interests, than they are about protecting public interest (which is always the claimed reason).
The fact that monetary value is best characterised as the product of “human value” and “scarcity” clearly incentivises those who would optimise money flows to create an optimal level of scarcity to produce and optimal amount of money; which is completely contrary to the human need for abundance of a few key goods and services.
We have moved far beyond the simple utility of the market to optimise allocation of scarce resources.
We have vast amounts of human creative potential that is being used for things that have little social utility, other than fulfilling artificial needs generated purely in the pursuit of money (first generating the demand, then satisfying with supply). We also have vast amounts of creative potential unemployed. And for reasons that are becoming very clear to me, the vast majority of people simply accept that situation as something beyond their ability to influence (which it most certainly is not).
Your suggestions for toning down speculation are moves towards stability in a restricted sense; yet in a deeper sense they are merely cosmetic – they do nothing to alter the deep incentives of using money as a valuation system for human development, instead of restricting it to the marketing of non-abundant goods and services.
Society needs to make a choice to place human value alone (not as a product with scarcity) as the measurement of desirability of social objectives. Nothing less will deliver the universal abundance which is now technologically possible,
We are not, in any real sense, short of energy or materials.
We have potential abundance beyond anything previously possible.
All that separates us from it is the myth of money – and the incentive system it puts in place.