{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.022988505747126436, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.32258064516129, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Two Cheers for Feasible Regulation: A Modest Response to Masur and Posner

This article compares the relative merits of feasibility and cost-benefit based regulation, responding to a recent article by Jonathan Masur and Eric Posner on this topic. Normatively, it shows that the lack of correlation between non-subsistence consumption and welfare supports the argument that regulation should be strict, unless widespread plant shutdowns, which would seriously impact well-being, are involved. It shows that a host of practical defects Masur and Posner find in feasibility analysis would infect cost-benefit analysis as well. In light of the importance of cost's distribution, serious regard for individual well-being supports the feasibility principle better than a cost-benefit test.