> If a regulator agrees to change a rule and something bad happens, they can easily lose their career. Whereas if they change a rule and something good happens,

> If a regulator agrees to change a rule and something bad happens, they can easily lose their career. Whereas if they change a rule and something good happens, they don’t even get a reward. So, it’s very asymmetric. – Elon Musk A worse asymmetry: If a person spends years and his own money battling a regulation, and something good happens for the entire economy, the person doesn't get rewarded. In fact, the person might suffer when competitors who were just sitting around with no skin in the game can now freely enter the market against the person who fought so hard to open up the marketplace. Another good example is the Carterfone decision[1], a landmark FCC decision that allowed devices to connect directly to the telephone system. Prior to Thomas Carter's years-long fight, AT&T considered it illegal to connect anything to your telephone. The ruling paved the way for answering machines, fax machines, and modems. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carterfone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carterfone