zlacker

>>buro9+(OP)
Is there some generalized law (yet) about unintended consequences? For example:

Increase fuel economy -> Introduce fuel economy standards -> Economic cars practically phased out in favour of guzzling "trucks" that are exempt from fuel economy standards -> Worse fuel economy.

or

Protect the children -> Criminalize activites that might in any way cause an increase in risk to children -> Best to just keep them indoors playing with electronic gadgets -> Increased rates of obesity/depression etc -> Children worse off.

As the article itself says: Hold big tech accountable -> Introduce rules so hard to comply with that only big tech will be able to comply -> Big tech goes on, but indie tech forced offline.

>>Markus+6j
Politicians should take a mandatory one-week training in:

- very basic macro economics

- very basic game theory

- very basic statistics

Come to think of it, kids should learn this in high school

>>FredPr+Mo
Politicians forced to learn statistics -> Politicians better prepared to understand consequences of their actions -> Politicians exploit economy better -> Everyone worse off -> Law to educate politicians is abolished -> Politicians exploit economy nevertheless

Seriously, the problem is not politicians being clueless about all the above, but having too much power which makes them think they need to solve everything.

>>redlea+lN
This is the accurate scenario unfortunately.

I'd give you 100 upvotes if I could.