That's not (automatically) true. If you change the rules of the game, you change the winning strategies. By extension, you're changing which industries may be

That's not (automatically) true. If you change the rules of the game, you change the winning strategies. By extension, you're changing which industries may be in competition with each other (or end up being completely obsolete), and which companies may end up having an advantage. If you ban (say) natural gas water heating, the losers will be gas supplier companies, perhaps all the peripheral industry dedicated to creating gas pipes and fittings, the pipe fitters, companies that specialize / have IP around efficient gas heat exchangers, etc. On the other hand, the winners may now be companies that have IP / manufacturing capabilities for heat-pump technology, electricity producers, copper mines (increased load on the grid), etc etc. Each rule change may have a net positive or negative on the greater economy in general both in the near term and far term. In my example, heat pump water heaters are $$$ compared with conventional ones and would increase the demand on electricity (increasing its price). These hit people's pocket books, and reduce discretionary income to spend on other stuff. On the other hand, the significant increases in complexity might result in a higher-skilled workforce requirement (with increased wages), fewer deaths due to carbon monoxide / gas explosions, fewer nitrous oxide related illnesses (decrease in healthcare costs), and maybe a hundred other knock-on effects.