I ask this on Stack AI, because the implication is not that people who work at think tanks, for the most part, are not nearly as smart as they pretend to be, (which may very well be true, but difficult to quantify,) but instead related to modeling and predictive capability.The old chestnut when explaining why imposed regulation doesn't work is pointing to examples collectivism in the Soviet Union which had disastrous results.  But  computers sucked during that era, at least as compared to today.  (It is telling that weather forecasts, which used to be regarded in society as a joke, and were rooted in Almanacs, is now highly accurate, and keeps improving.) It is difficult to believe degree of dis-equilibrium that often occurs in poorly regulated, minimally regulated, or unregulated is optimal, except to certain actors focused on aggregation of wealth primarily though exploitation of Pareto efficiencies (which carries profound, negative moral implications,) in that these actors, who often create the conditions for extreme dis-equilibrium are often set up to profit further from the reset.  (It's is not even convincing that these actors actually believe that self-regulation of markets is optimal, because, in the case of the recent 2008 event, they opted to be bailed out instead of choosing to be subjected to un-mitigated market forces.)But an AI, with sufficient data and processing power, should be able to regulate markets much more optimally than self-regulating markets because it can actively balance the system instead of relying on natural correction of imbalance, which is often catastrophic.Economies are quite complex, but a hallmark of current AI is the effective management of intractability, which can be rephrased as increasingly optimal decision making in a condition of uncertainty.I am not suggesting that current AI is smart enough to regulate economies today, but is it rational to assume that this capability is not outside the potential of future systems? 
Can the idea that self-regulating markets are optimal be understood as function of lack of intelligence?
machine learning;game theory