i don't really read his posts as prescribing "fault" per se. its pointing out the fact that the party in question, which is the government closing a loophole i

i don't really read his posts as prescribing "fault" per se. its pointing out the fact that the party in question, which is the government closing a loophole in this case, is actively and intentionally breaking the equilibrium, therefore bringing on the consequences (or benefits). the example was intentionally worded as it was to show how one party won't always take other parties under consideration. a successful, deliberative decision under nash equilibrium is much more boring and not a very entertaining example.