This rings true to me. The idea is that policy analysts criticize one kind of mistake, but their solution contains the exact same mistake, but dressed up differently.
I’m sure Robin Hanson would call this the difference between near and far thinking. The idea is a bit strange, but it suggests and we think differently when analyzing different kinds of problems – ones that are near (identifying problems with regulation) are easier to be clear on. When we go far out our analysis rests on a few stupid assumptions and becomes a caricature.