Missed this one. I think it overstates the case. Not saying that there weren't economic interests for some, but it was because of the recognition of that, that the US did something different than no gov't did before (and for the most part after) - it put the sovereignty in the individual and not the state (nor the church).
Economic regulations in the beginning were virtually non-existent unless actions proved harmful to the rights of others (certain 'exceptions' of course, but there would have been NO Republic at all - and not saying that wouldn't have been better, but many would say slavery would have lasted even longer had no Republic been created for all colonies at the time - not for discussion here .
Regulations began during the progressive era - over 100 years after the founding - and against the 'movers' of the economy - hated by many, even now, and even though they enjoy the products and systems built by those individuals - who now have 'foundations' run by people who those 'movers' would never had hired as janitors - people who represent the exact opposite philosophy and politics than the founders of those organizations - Ford, Rockefeller, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, et al.
It gave much sovereignty to the individual If that individual happened to be a white, landed, Christian male. Those with little, or no property (land), had no social, or political power. Respect for individual rights was granted in direct proportion to individual wealth.
Representation in govt. was granted specifically and exclusively to white, Christian, landed men.