[matt4077]

I think the ideology is pretty obvious, in that all of their content seems to argue against regulation (and so does their mission statement). I actually have no problem with that – it's a valid point of view.

I feel more strongly about the "cargo-cult" aspect of it. By being university-affiliated and by using quantitative methods they create the illusion of scientific objectivity. But what they're creating may be data, it's (possibly) not information.

Their main claim seems to be that counting the number of "shalls" and "musts" in regulations is a better standard than just the number of regulations. I believe the added utility is marginal and doesn't justify calling this 'science'.

One example: they use their method to show that the financial industry was more regulated in 2008 than in the era of Glass–Steagall. But I'd say that not all "musts" and "shalls" are created equal: "Investments banks shall be separated from commercial banking" is simply not comparable in its impact to "Credit Card offers must state effective APR". But the two would be counted with equal weight in their analysis.