Tag: Politics

Federal Regulations: 75% Off

Trump’s recent statement that 75% of federal regulations would be eliminated under his presidency is outright terrifying. On all levels, there are heaps of crazy regulations. Just yesterday, I learnt that it is illegal in Ohio to leave a running vehicle unattended. I cannot recall a particular instance where I left my vehicle running whilst I ran inside to grab a forgotten item, over to the mailbox to drop off an envelope, or some similarly quick jaunt away from my running vehicle … but I’m sure I *did*.

The thing is, as silly as any specific regulation may seem, there IS logic behind it. The rational may be outdated and thus no longer applicable, but laws were not enacted for the sake of using up legislative time. I doubt regulations were enacted as a farce. It would be an interesting academic study to enumerate all regulations for a particular branch and research the history and rational for each of them. Some are obvious — fleet fuel economy standards are to reduce oil usage. Emission standards are meant to reduce pollution. Then there are regulations such as 15 U.S.C. §§330a — “No person may engage, or attempt to engage, in any weather modification activity in the United States unless he submits to the Secretary [of Commerce] such reports with respect thereto, in such form and containing such information, as the Secretary may by rule prescribe. The Secretary may require that such reports be submitted to him before, during, and after any such activity or attempt.” Sounds a little bit silly at first, but if nothing else tracking weather modification attempts and their wider impact has value.

There are regulations on the banking industry, oversight of derivative markets, rules governing stock trading. Publicly traded companies are required to file accurate financial information with the SEC. It is not legal to dump toxic chemicals into the environment. The FDA has guidelines that are meant to ensure the safety of foods and labeling laws so you have a basic idea of what you are consuming.  There are fleet average fuel efficiency requirements. There are laws against manipulating energy markets. There are regulations that protect intellectual property.

I understand the argument that the free market would drive some of these same ends. If fuel economy is a concern to people, then more fuel efficient cars will be in demand. But that depends on honest, accurate reporting from corporations, and individuals being able to get the information they need to make an appropriate decision. I, personally, do not want to research the reputation of ten different companies before purchasing a bag of flour. I enjoy the fact that a bag that contains something other than ground up wheat lists the ‘extras’ – at the point of purchase, I can read the bag and decide if it is something I want to purchase. I also know that there are random inspections and any company lying about their ingredients is likely to incur a significant fine.

Another ‘free market’ example is the reduction of polystyrene packaging. Thirty years ago, any fast food purchase included a Styrofoam container (or three). In the 80’s, polystyrene materials were manufactured using chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). When this became fairly widespread knowledge, manufacturing processes were changed to use HCFC-22 (better but still ozone layer impacting). Another public movement against the material came about because it does not biodegrade — and its ubiquitous use in packaging meant litter was everywhere. And would stay there until it blew away to be somewhere else. Some localities banned the material for restaurants, but it was never a widespread thing. But polystyrene packaging is nowhere as prevalent today as it was thirty years ago. This is a result of consumer pressure.

My point is that I am fully aware that consumers can drive business decisions. Other regulations are not easily replicated by purchaser decisions. And consumer decisions require accurate information. Get rid of SEC filings — something I’m sure would save time and money for corporations (and the SEC) — and there’s no standard set of information upon which I can make investment decisions. No longer require estimated fuel economy using a standardized method (even if the method itself could be improved), and how do you compare vehicles beyond general physics which tells me a giant H2 is going to be more fuel efficient than a little Fiat 500. Eliminate environmental regulations, how do I know a company’s impact on their local environment?

Declaring that businesses should stay in this country because we’re going to severely cut corporate taxes and eliminate 75% of regulations is just a stupid statement. Sure, this guy throws out stupid statements as beginning negotiating positions … but how does a self-proclaimed awesome negotiator not know to start low on some things and high on others. Companies want 100% of regulations eliminated … so our government has just started the negotiation at 75%. They either stand or go up from there.

How Running A Country Is Nothing Like Running A Business: #1

Well, Trump hasn’t even been sworn in yet and I’ve got my first entry for this list: http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/06/us/politics/trump-wall-mexico.html?_r=0 in which he says we’re going to float the debt to build this massive wall (hopefully finding the least environmentally damaging route, eminent domaining the fewest people, and so on). Then we’ll get Mexico to pay for it. Umm … so in business, this was basically the 2008 crash. We find a pool of people who aren’t going to pay, create debt on that not-a-payment, build a heap of stuff, and then act surprised when they fail to pay. Now, in the business world, you turn to the government to bail out your bad debt.

When you do this as a government … I don’t think the IMF is going to pay in Mexico’s stead for debt to which they’ve never consented. And if you look at the IMF requirements in Greece or Ireland, I sincerely hope that isn’t the direction the US goes.

The Monkey’s Paw

a.k.a ‘be careful what you wish for”

There is a short story written by W. W. Jacobs called “The Monkey’s Paw” which centers around an enchanted paw that grants wishes but in horrifying ways. A family wishes for two hundred pounds, and receives the sum as a sympathy payment when their son is killed in a machine accident at his place of employment.

I think of this story a lot in politics — it’s a little like the law of unintended consequences (consequences which can be beneficial, negative, or harmful which arise from ignorance of the impact of your change). The monkey’s paw has individuals who well know of the possible tragic effects (the first owner wished for his own death, the next owner threw it into the fire to avoid its curse) but decide to use the object anyway.

So you’ll get the Affordable Care Act overturned. Good for you. Now you no longer have coverage for pre-existing conditions … which means you’re stuck in your job until the condition is cured because you cannot afford to pay for the treatments (hope it is curable!). You have a lifetime coverage limit of a million or two – which sounds like a lot until you talk to someone who had premature babies and incurred a quarter mill in a couple of months. Oh, and once the kids are born their lifetime limit kicks in — so your one year old miracle baby has used up a quarter of their lifetime limit. I don’t have a 25 year old in college still on my plan … hope you don’t either. Bonus, there’s no limit on how much overhead and profit the insurance company can include in their rates. I’m sure that will lower the plan cost.

And that just assumes things go back to the bad state they were in before — Republicans advocate allowing inter-state competition for insurance plans. I see that going the way of credit cards — there’s no federal usury rate. A state could ensure themselves a couple thousand jobs and a some corporate income tax money by setting their usury rate higher than any other state. And then the banks would locate there, issue cards using the local jurisdiction usury rate, and there are a load of 23% interest cards. So now states will compete to have the lowest standards for insurance – and all of the insurance companies will go there. If we’re lucky, there will be the equivalent of a credit union — a company HQ’d locally that follows YOUR state laws that you’ve got a little chance of changing (i.e. I write the state congresspeople in ND and ask them to lower the usury rate, they don’t care. I write my local representatives about Ohio’s rate … well, at least I’m a constituent).

Driver For Automation (And Other Fallacies)

The recent “saved” jobs announcements, name-dropping Trump even when the decision had been made months earlier bother me. But the bigger picture is more troubling. There are a lot of off-shored jobs that cannot be threatened with tariffs. What retaliatory action can be taken when a company off-shores their customer support call center. Or data processing. Or coding. A vast majority of American jobs are not in manufacturing.

But, sure, let’s not focus on the bigger sectors being off-shored. As a manufacturer, you can go where the labor costs (as well as, I suspect, real estate / regulatory requirements / etc) are cheap and face a 35% import tariff. You can hire Americans and  increase your prices … but unless *all* foreign imports get taxed, that just makes you noncompetitive. You can hire Americans and reduce your profit … notwithstanding investor revolt, there’s a point at which you lose money on each product you sell. Or you build out an automated factory in the US – real estate and such may cost more, but your labor costs are REALLY low.

It might not have been cost effective to build a robotic manufacturing line in the US compared to overseas labor. Overseas labor – 35% tariff though … may well make automation cost effective without actually increasing manufacturing employment in the country. Learning how to program and maintain robots, though, may be a growing market.

Like the bank executives who got incredible bonuses while writing dodgy mortgages … in the short term, this does mean jobs are saved. A couple years from now, as the robotic manufacturing replaces those workers … they’re still unemployed.

Women in Office

I was talking with my father-in-law a few days ago about zero-sum power (old white dudes have been giving up power for a long time as minorities and women were allowed to vote) and he asked why women kept voting for the same old white dudes when they were allowed to vote — obviously the old white dudes were doing a good job, or the women would have voted them out.

I vote for men because that’s the option. There’s a township Trustee position here for which I’m not going to apply because between work, house stuff, and Anya … do I really want MORE work? Is there something I want to change badly enough to give up my non-existent free time?

For some reason, even with both parents working … the male has a default of “free time” and can volunteer to give some up to cook/clean/entertain kids. I have to say what it is I want to do (‘just be alone’ or ‘not listen to CONSTANT NOISE’ aren’t good enough … what are you doing). How badly does a country need to be run before a statistically reasonable (i.e. if 50.8% of the population is female, then the percent of women running for any office should be around 50% too)?

So women gained the right to vote, but have to settle for “and I’ll vote for you if you halfway pander to my concerns”.

Delusions

A friend of mine sited the The Economist/YouGov Poll December 17 – 20, 2016 – 1376 US Adults that says 58% of Trump voters agree that what is good for Donald Trump’s business is good for the country. Charles Wilson said much the same thing about General Motors back when he was the CEO/president/whatever they called him. I understand the sentiment (a rising tide and all that), but where I disagreed with the statement about GM is half of what I fear from Trump.

What’s good for the country *may* benefit GM/Trump/Whomever, but it could also harm them. And what’s good for them may or may not benefit the country. Relaxing safety regulations on construction would be good for Trump’s business and bottom line, but *really* suck for the people buried under a collapsed tower.

My other fear is that Trump made an amazing amount of money screwing over other people. He may make another amazing amount of money screwing over the country. My father-in-law says Trump is going to be a boon for the country because he screws over other countries to “our benefit” … which, viewed in a short-term and one-sided fashion could be considered awesome (to me a bit like stealing food from a homeless dude ’cause you get a little hungry on the way home from work, but I acknowledge that some people would like to benefit our country to the detriment of others). I just don’t see it as a sustainable policy, and I think history backs me up. The sun never set on the British Empire … until it did. Even if you’re not trying outright colonialism, I’ve seen enough of South and Central America to know how welcome American exploitation was — “yankees go home”, “fuera yanquis de America Latina”, etc. I remember seeing Michael Franti not long after Spearhead was touring Iraq and he said the message he got from speaking to Iraqis was “thank you for getting rid of a really horrible guy, now get the fuck out of my country!”. I don’t see countries being screwed over as particularly happy with the situation, nor do I expect them to express their discontent with sternly worded letters to the editor. And that’s REALLY bad for the country.

Unity

Trump’s election-night speech (and several of his subsequent prepared addresses) call for unity – working together, finding a common ground, restoring trust … but what I realize I am not hearing (apart from his unscripted interviews where he seems to say all of his campaign promises are bull and he’s actually willing to listen to facts) is that coming together doesn’t mean embracing his position. I’ve had friends whose idea of compromise was that YOU compromise and do what they want. Not fun people to be around, but a terrible position for government. Basically I don’t care that there were 3 million more of you … I won, so fuck off. Try to get Congress back and stop me in a few years. That’d not unity, it’s repression. Works for a while, but not sustainable. But that’s bringing business acumen to governance – short term gains that make me look good, what happens in four or eight years is the next guy’s problem. I’ll be retired, rich, and well-renown.

Pipelines And Registries

A few weeks ago, requests to “check in” around the Standing Rock protest was circulating Facebook. It presupposes that one shares such information with strangers – perhaps that is the norm. It also presupposes that law enforcement peruses those check-ins. The whole thing reminded me of a discussion of ghosts that I had whilst touring the Bryn Mawr College campus — the student with whom I was walking casually crossed the street, pointed to a house a few houses down on the side of the street that we had been strolling down, and mentioned that the house is supposed to be haunted. Of course, she continued, being a worldy University student she didn’t believe in such things. Just the same, it  didn’t actually take effort to walk down the other side of the street … worst case you did something for no reason, best case you avoided the ghosts.

Checking in at Standing Rock sounded pretty much the same to me – didn’t cost me anything, aside from potentially confusing someone who saw my location it didn’t harm anything … may have been a pointless action, or maybe it stopped police from being able to use social media data to research protesters.

I keep seeing a Muslim registry being suggested — in seriousness, not in the Godwin’s Law / serial numbers tattooed on arms sort of way. I wonder how many people who are willing to check-in at Standing Rock would also be willing to volunteer for the additional scrutiny that I’m sure membership in the Muslim registry gets you. The efficacy of the registry is a question of resource allocation  — if a few thousand people register nationwide (say, Imams who are already well known), then the resources involved in making their lives miserable are relatively few. If half of the country registers as Muslim … either our new government will solve unemployment (double the national debt in the process, but who cares about a debt ceiling when it’s your party doing the spending?) by hiring a few million people to monitor self-professed Muslims or “additional scrutiny” becomes an increased probability in the IRS audit flag algorithm.

Shocked

I sincerely hope my fear of Trump’s plans prove to be unfounded — hopefully he’s been playing a part during the primaries and general election. Over the top promises made as an act, not because he actually plans to ban Muslims and Mexicans en toto. Or create the Great Wall Prime. Or racial profiling. Or religious tests for entry into the country. Or stop-and-frisk. Or launching military action when another country’s navy makes rude gestures at our sailors. Or any number of outlandish statements he’s made.

And if the current vote totals stay similar once every vote has come in, I hope this is enough to end the electoral college system. If Bush/Gore was not sufficient, I don’t hold out much hope. Especially since I don’t see ANYONE talking about the POPULAR vote where Clinton is leading. The focus is all on the EC points – but I don’t see anyone asking why the EC is there in the first place. But maybe, once the final numbers come in, focus will shift to the system that allows someone to have more votes than their competitors and lose the election.

Walls

I find the idea of a wall to stop illegal immigration to be … beyond silly. As a military barricade — that is, to prevent large-scale movements across a border — it can be effective (it can also be completely INeffective, see: Maginot Line). But if there were thousands of people marching across the Mexican/Texan desert, we could watch for heat signatures & deploy border patrol to intercept. Illegal immigration won’t look like a Mongol army marching across the steppes.

Reviewing walls that have been erected throughout history, the only truly effective method to prevent small scale involves a lot of manpower and a dead-zone. The fourth generation Berlin Wall is a good example of an effective stop to emmigration. But it had over 100 watchtowers in less than 100 miles and several bunkers housing the troops who guarded the wall. There were also two walls with a “death strip” in the middle – material that provided no cover or camouflage for anyone attempting to sneak across. Scaling the Berlin Wall configuration to a 2,000 mile border would require thousands of additional border guards, twice as much material as a single wall, and more than twice the land. Still wouldn’t stop persons wishing to illegally enter the United States from taking to waterways and entering through California and the Gulf coast states. To say nothing of people who come in through proper channels and simply overstay their visa.

But let’s assume that a significant portion of illegal immigration does come by land across the Mexican border at points that are not proper border crossings. For far less than the low-ball estimated cost of a wall being provided, we could have fifty thousand of autonomous drones (I’ve watched enough movies to advocate for unarmed drones) and solar charging stations. Existing border patrol agents would be notified when a target is acquired. Because we have SO many drones available, when a drone acquires a target it would signal for a new patrol drone to launch and then track the target until a border patrol agent detains the person.

If we’re that worried about people tunneling under to avoid detection, add drones with ground penetrating radar. If we’re worried about people coming in through Baja or Corpus Christi, extend the drone patrol line up the coast.

I don’t know if this proposed wall is meant to be a monument to American power (silly, but that’s kind of what the Great Wall is in China) or the sort of WPA project that Republicans actually like. But as an effective deterrent to illegal border crossings, it is an enormous waste of money, resources, time, and space.