Uploaded July 2026 | Updated September 2026, 3 weeks ago
Good intentions, bad results.
Watch the whole series: youtube.com/watch?v=1lUrH4Sbgh8&list=PLBuns9Evn1w9XhnH7vVh_7C65wJbaBECK&index=1
Do you know a great moment in unintended consequences? Leave a comment or email us at comedy@reason.com.
*****
PART 1: Whether Permitting
The year: 2010.
The problem: Yosemite National Park's popular Half Dome trail is crowded, and people are getting hurt!
The solution: Institute a lottery system, cutting the number of hikers from 1,000 per day to just 250—reducing congestion on the trail to improve safety!
Sounds like a great idea, with the best of intentions. What could possibly go wrong?
Turns out: When permits become scarce, caution becomes optional.
Getting a permit became so difficult that when lucky hikers finally got one, many decided they had to go, even if they were sick or exhausted or saw storm clouds moving in. When people think they may never get another chance they stop asking if this is a good day to climb. So while fewer hikers went up, accidents failed to go down.
That's peak irony.
PART 2: Renovation Nation
The year: 2020.
The problem: Italy's economy is struggling.
The solution: The Superbonus tax credit, offering to pay homeowners 110 percent of the cost of energy-saving renovations.
Sounds like a great idea, with the best of intentions. What could possibly go wrong?
Turns out: Math.
When renovations aren't just free, but better than free, suddenly everyone has a remodeling project. Construction demand exploded, and prices followed. As a former Italian Prime minister put it: "110 percent eliminates the incentive to negotiate on price."
Technically, that happens at 100 percent. But at 110 percent, there's a built-in incentive to not just ignore prices, but increase them. And since the tax credits were instantly transferable, homeowners could quickly sell them to contractors, banks, or other intermediaries.
Shockingly, costs spiraled! Though initially projected to cost 35 billion euros over 15 years, the project actually racked up more than 220 billion in just four. That's roughly 12 percent of Italy's GDP, leaving the national debt in need of significant repairs.
Way to nail it!
PART 3: Stock and Load
The year: 1993.
The problem: Greedy corporate executives make too much money.
The solution: Cap corporate tax deductions for executive salaries at $1 million.
Sounds like a great idea, with the best of intentions. What could possibly go wrong?
Turns out: Salaries aren't the only form of compensation.
Companies found plenty of other ways to incentivize their executives—including performance bonuses and stock options. Pay packages not only continued to rise; they soared.
Economists argue that the law encouraged executives to focus on short-term plans to boost their stock options rather than long-term value creation.
The chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission even suggested the law "deserves pride of place in the Museum of Unintended Consequences."
Good intentions, bad results.
Watch the whole series: youtube.com/watch?v=1lUrH4Sbgh8&list=PLBuns9Evn1w9XhnH7vVh_7C65wJbaBECK&index=1
Do you know a great moment in unintended consequences? Leave a comment or email us at comedy@reason.com.
*****
PART 1: Whether Permitting
The year: 2010.
The problem: Yosemite National Park's popular Half Dome trail is crowded, and people are getting hurt!
The solution: Institute a lottery system, cutting the number of hikers from 1,000 per day to just 250—reducing congestion on the trail to improve safety!
Sounds like a great idea, with the best of intentions. What could possibly go wrong?
Turns out: When permits become scarce, caution becomes optional.
Getting a permit became so difficult that when lucky hikers finally got one, many decided they had to go, even if they were sick or exhausted or saw storm clouds moving in. When people think they may never get another chance they stop asking if this is a good day to climb. So while fewer hikers went up, accidents failed to go down.
That's peak irony.
PART 2: Renovation Nation
The year: 2020.
The problem: Italy's economy is struggling.
The solution: The Superbonus tax credit, offering to pay homeowners 110 percent of the cost of energy-saving renovations.
Sounds like a great idea, with the best of intentions. What could possibly go wrong?
Turns out: Math.
When renovations aren't just free, but better than free, suddenly everyone has a remodeling project. Construction demand exploded, and prices followed. As a former Italian Prime minister put it: "110 percent eliminates the incentive to negotiate on price."
Technically, that happens at 100 percent. But at 110 percent, there's a built-in incentive to not just ignore prices, but increase them. And since the tax credits were instantly transferable, homeowners could quickly sell them to contractors, banks, or other intermediaries.
Shockingly, costs spiraled! Though initially projected to cost 35 billion euros over 15 years, the project actually racked up more than 220 billion in just four. That's roughly 12 percent of Italy's GDP, leaving the national debt in need of significant repairs.
Way to nail it!
PART 3: Stock and Load
The year: 1993.
The problem: Greedy corporate executives make too much money.
The solution: Cap corporate tax deductions for executive salaries at $1 million.
Sounds like a great idea, with the best of intentions. What could possibly go wrong?
Turns out: Salaries aren't the only form of compensation.
Companies found plenty of other ways to incentivize their executives—including performance bonuses and stock options. Pay packages not only continued to rise; they soared.
Economists argue that the law encouraged executives to focus on short-term plans to boost their stock options rather than long-term value creation.
The chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission even suggested the law "deserves pride of place in the Museum of Unintended Consequences."



![Vinay Prasad: Fauci Has Made a Lot of Serious Errors
Vinay Prasad rose to fame as a COVID-era public health establishment critic. Then he became part of the public health establishment. Now hes back on the outside following his controversial tenure at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), which is responsible for approving vaccines and gene therapies.
In this interview with Reasons Zach Weissmueller, Prasad, a physician, author, and professor at the University of California, San Francisco, responds to the array of intense criticism he received during his tenure, ranging from agency insiders complaining about his management style to Wall Street Journal editorial writers branding him a Bernie Sanders acolyte in MAHA drag to conservative influencers such as Laura Loomer deriding him as a progressive-left saboteur.
He defends his decision to reject Modernas mRNA flu vaccine application, which the agency has since approved following his departure, and explains a controversial internal memo in which he wrote that at least 10 children have died after and because of receiving COVID-19 vaccination and that for the first time, the US FDA will acknowledge that COVID-19 vaccines have killed American children. The official FDA report made public after Prasad left identified zero certain childhood deaths linked to the vaccine, with five classified as possibly and two as probably.
They changed the report. I had a draft report with 10 [likely deaths]. They changed it after the media publicity of my letter, says Prasad, who believes the data were altered for political or professional reasons.
While he entered the job with the intention to raise the standards for drug approvals, Prasad says his firsthand experience witnessing just how entrenched the political and bureaucratic problems at the FDA are has made him a bit more libertarian and open to the idea of Consumer Reports–style agencies competing with the government on drug approvals, which would offer people in America greater flexibility in what kind of products they can try.
Prasad also reacts to the recent publication of top COVID adviser Anthony Faucis diaries, whom he says is likely guilty of criminal conduct for his role in funding gain-of-function research.
I cant think of a single policy [Fauci] actually got right when he was running the federal health policy, says Prasad.
0:00—Teaser
0:48—Transitioning from FDA critic to insider
2:39—Faucis diaries
7:40—The origins of COVID-19
9:11—Did Fauci commit any crimes?
11:53—Aspirations for public health reform
13:22—Vaccine skepticism and criticisms
20:10—Moderna mRNA flu vaccine
26:35—COVID-19 vaccines and children
34:00—The Trump administration and deregulation
37:51—Drug approval barriers at the FDA
42:01—Wall Street Journal criticism
46:45—Has Prasad become more libertarian?
53:36—Anthropic CEO Dario Amodeis criticisms of the FDA
57:46—Peptides
59:45—Why did Prasad leave the FDA?
1:02:43—Is true government reform possible?
1:05:45—How can public health regain public trust?
Producer: Paul Alexander
Director of photography: Kevin Alexander
Audio mixer: Ian Keyser Vinay Prasad: Fauci Has Made a Lot of Serious Errors](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/deACJov184I/mqdefault.jpg)






