That's true, but time stability means that a bad policy is going to be maintained even in the face of evidence that it is bad. Deciding which is worse is, as I said, a judgement call.
> Deadweight is lost efficiency
The flip side of increased efficiency is decreased resilience. Without unused capacity (i.e. inefficiency) the slightest contingency will send the entire system into chaos. How much inefficiency you want to maintain as a hedge against contingencies is a judgement call. Different people have different risk postures.
> Pareto optimality
I think it's safe to assume that people on HN understand Pareto optimality (or are capable of looking it up). Do you really think that Pareto optimality is synonymous with "fairness"?
> we can also consider egalitarianism and other moral frameworks.
Of course we can consider these things. But that doesn't answer my question, which is how do we address them in a principled way that doesn't degenerate into a political dispute?
See: CPUs and GPUs in 2020-2021, baby formula in 2022, etc.
It can absolutely be a judgment call.
It has nothing to do with the everyday meaning of the term “deadweight”.
- Lacking time stability means no one tomorrow has any incentive to stick to the policy, and means the policy is unlikely to succeed in its objectives.
- Deadweight is lost efficiency
- The only arguable one is "fairness", and to clarify I blunted the term to avoid the nuance of explaining Pareto optimality. But sure, we can also consider egalitarianism and other moral frameworks.