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 The rational may be outdated and thus no longer applicable, but laws were not enacted for the sake of using up legislative time.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.

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.

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).

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”.