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&#x27;s a valid point of view.<p>I feel more strongly about the &quot;cargo-cult&quot; aspect of it. By being university-affiliated and by using quantitative methods they create the illusion of scientific objectivity. But what they&#x27;re creating may be data, it&#x27;s (possibly) not information.<p>Their main claim seems to be that counting the number of &quot;shalls&quot; and &quot;musts&quot; in regulations is a better standard than just the number of regulations. I believe the added utility is marginal and doesn&#x27;t justify calling this &#x27;science&#x27;.<p>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&#x27;d say that not all &quot;musts&quot; and &quot;shalls&quot; are created equal: &quot;Investments banks shall be separated from commercial banking&quot; is simply not comparable in its impact to &quot;Credit Card offers must state effective APR&quot;. But the two would be counted with equal weight in their analysis.