How deregulatory is the Trump administration?

Here is an email from a loyal, anonymous MR reader:

Critics of the administration’s much-ballyhooed deregulatory efforts argue that there’s not really that much there; they contend the White House and agencies have been tinkering around the margins (and helping out special interest groups), but not really addressing regulation’s economic cost. They argue there’s been virtually nothing done to address the bloated corpus of 100 years of accumulated federal regulation, and there’s been no legislative action to change regulatory processes.

The administration’s defenders and their fiercest critics alike argue that Trump has taken a machete to the regulatory state. But aside from naming a few rule changes here or there, they don’t offer much concrete support for their claim.

What’s the steel man case that Trump has broken the back of the administrative state? Some hypothes

1. They haven’t made things worse. After eight years of an administration that was seen (fairly or not) as hostile to business, just taking the boot off the throat of entrepreneurs is a major step forward. Small-business optimism is at pre-crisis levels. The last two years have seen the fewest economically significant final rules promulgated since 1990. Beyond formal rules, the administration has ended the abuse of “dear colleague” letters, guidance documents, and sue-and-settle.

2. Related to #1, there’s been no new legislation along the lines of Sarbanes-Oxley or Dodd-Frank that will take as long as a decade to get regulations worked out. That takes a lot of the uncertainty out of the system.

3. Enforcement has been curtailed. The administrative state is a threat because its enforcement is so capricious and subject to questionable extralegal adjudication. The Trump administration has responded by simply not enforcing many regulations. EPA inspections are down by half; CFPB is asleep at the switch. Enforcement heads are basically emulating Ron Swanson, for the better.

4. The 14 uses of the Congressional Review Act in early 2017 should in fact count as highly deregulatory; it was of course more than had ever been done with this tool in the past. Okay, so the regs in question weren’t yet final or hadn’t been in effect for very long. That’s just playing a baselines game; the bottom line is tens of billions of dollars of costs were cut over what would have been.

5. The record-breaking number of appellate judges appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate will shift the judiciary to be more skeptical of regulators’ self-aggrandized power. Justice Gorsuch is champing at the bit to eliminate Auer and Chevron deference; overruling these precedents would be game-changing.

6. There’s been more taking place than you think. No, there hasn’t been a huge shakeup of federal departments, but those kinds of things are mostly for show anyway; federal power remains more or less constant, responsibilities just get shifted around. Benefit-cost analyses and regulatory impact analyses done by most agencies are sloppy at best and mostly just a Soviet-style effort to justify what’s already been decided, so they don’t capture the magnitude of what’s happening.

What has happened? The president has appointed people who take regulatory analysis seriously and understand opportunity cost. Some of the deregulation has been in areas most sensitive to the costs of regulation, like labor and energy. ACA individual mandate? Gone. HUD is taking steps to push housing deregulation at the local level; this has gotten almost no attention.

7. There’s more that would have been done but for the “deep state.” It’s a matter of public choice economics, not AM radio conspiracies, that regulators may not be enthusiastic about deregulating. For instance, Trump’s much-trumpeted two-out-one-in executive order for federal regulations was largely kneecapped by OMB so that over 90% of new regulations are deemed exempt from the order. Given inherent resistance to change (again, for perfectly understandable reasons, this is not a conspiracy), it’s amazing that anything has been done at all!


The idea that the Trump administration acts with anything like informed logic is laughable. There mostly seems to be anti-Obama legacy actions and gifts to special interests.

And, given that this is being done via executive action, it can all be undone in the future at the whim of another President.

I certainly don't think Trump is playing n-dimensional chess, but the idea that there are no informed people involved in these deregulatory efforts is also laughable.

I think he's playing n-dimensional chess, with n = 1.


Actually Mike, anti-Obama legacy actions are inherently informed logic. Obama was anti-America and countering his actions is pro-America, MAGA


Pretty weak, Anon. This will improve your insult game.

They order these matters better in Brazil.

Zero mention of tariffs and trade wars, the "renegotiated" NAFTA, or stricter immigration enforcement resulting in fewer skilled labor immigration and fewer international students. Every one of these is an embiggening of the regulatory state.

I'm not a fan of these trends, but trade and immigration are not what most people are talking about when they talk about regulation.

To the common person, regulation is almost always about business, which necessarily includes trade. Not sure why you would think otherwise.

And here is the heart of the issue. Trump's administration has not performed a wholesale rollback of regulation. He has decreased regulation where he thinks he will benefit, and increased regulation elsewhere.

He will not be in office long enough to experience the negative consequences of financial and environmental regulation rollback, he just gets to claim that, at face value, he is MAGA. This is all nonsense of course, as there are clearly myriad needs fulfilled by these regulations.

"there are clearly myriad needs fulfilled by these regulations."



Wells Fargo: creates a bunch of phony accounts to pad their numbers.

Trump Admin: we need to turn off the CFPB, there are too many regulations.

Yes, this seems good for the country.

Well Fargo could have been prosecuted under any number of laws, or just sued by the customers. The trouble here is that there are several entities with overlapping interests.

As an example, my sister's small financial firm reports basically the same info to four different regulators. I have no problem with one, but four is idiotic. It takes up a third of her time, but that's the purpose of it. As someone mentioned here about methane regs and how the big oil firms want the regulation. Sure they do - to keep smaller companies out of the field.

or just sued by the customers.

No they can't due to the inclusion of an arbitration clause in Wells Fargo's agreement with account holders.

"They haven't made things worse"

Yes, somewhat confusing to see zero mention of the Chinese Trade War, hostility within N. America itself, and putting immigrants across the skill spectrum at risk with hostile and ambiguous regulation.

Trump did irk the military constituency recently with confusing overseas birthright regulations, that's potentially third rail stuff there 'attacking the troops' frame.

I see you didn't mention my pet issue so I'm going to ignore whatever you have to say.

I pretend I've never heard the term 'whataboutism' but I engage in it frequently!

He pointed out the elephant in the room. The trade war is very, very visible. More visible than where Gorsuch likes to pump gas.

'It’s a matter of public choice economics, not AM radio conspiracies, that regulators may not be enthusiastic about deregulating.'

It is definitely both, particularly for those bridging the gap between academic ideas and real world listeners.

On deregulation, the Trump Administration's efforts have been better than nothing.

That seems like faint praise, until you note that the previous four presidential administrations were all worse than nothing, with Obama and both of the Bushes being decidedly worse.

...says something about rising asset prices, inequality, or being a cradle Episcopalian.

It's disappointing this was posted. Ideological shillery pretending to be informed.

It's okay. It stuck to the facts about 70-75% of the time. The rest of it was annoying cheerleading (Gorsuch being a game changer lol, or "more taking place than you think" which reeks of the way media speaks). This anonymous reader must work at a think tank because that is the same ratio of facts listing to shilling they do in those places. In fact, their wonky mentions of Auer and Chevron tells me that they work for a center-right think tank packed with NeverTrumpers who are still calibrating how much Trump deference and credit they should mete out, hence this email.

Instead of that silly post of yours, why not just argue why increasing regulation is welfare improving?

Then you can save the dildoic comments and people can take you more seriously.

Because arguing "why increasing regulation is welfare improving" in the abstract is just as dumb/impossible as arguing why it is harmful to welfare? Talk specific instances or STFU, and this post didn't very much seem to invite the former.

'Ideological shillery pretending to be informed.'

A more apt description of this web site is hard to imagine.

Good point! We should be more like the Soviet Union, France and Germany. Maybe we can get our long term economic growth rate down to .1 percent.

And with the raging demographic crisis we have in this country, we can finally get the out and out command and control economy that you people crave!

It would be much better to argue that deregulation is bad for the economy and succinctly state why increasing the size and power of the federal regulatory state five fold will improve economic outcomes.

Go ahead we’re all ears...

'Go ahead we’re all ears...'

Why? You already seem to know everything you need to concerning the seemingly imaginary people talking to you.

Seriously though, which 'you' is advocating for the disaster of a command an control economy? Certainly not the person who just wrote 'the disaster of a command an control economy.'

Or you could just answer the question...What is so great about a command and control economy?

"The administrative state is a threat because its enforcement is so capricious and subject to questionable extralegal adjudication. The Trump administration has responded by simply not enforcing many regulations."

And that's not capricious? You expect something to be enforced, but it isn't.

Federal Regulations are so numerous and often times complex and confused that the government doesn’t have the resources to consistently enforce the regulations. The government has to pick and choose what it will punish folks for, and what it will let slide, because there simply aren’t enough dollars to hire enough auditors, inspectors, and lawyers to actually punish people and organizations who run afoul of the regulations. Speaking as a former employee of the government (via a contractor), every year there was a new priority, but not an increase in budget, so whatever was last year’s priority had to be reprioritized because there weren’t enough man hours. The regulatory state is too complex not to be capricious, no matter which party or person is in charge. Things were not noticeably better on the ground level under Obama either.

Thanks P Burgos, That makes more sense to me. After all, if the law is on the books, you can't rely on its not being used. At any time, the agency could choose to enforce the law or regulation.

That was the whole premise behind Obamas direction to ICE on how they should spend their time. You cant do everything so concentrate on criminals and leave the dreamers alone.

Now they are targeting 1000 sick children here and the kids of service members there. Good use of time if you are sicko.

Trump offered for the dreamers to have a pathway to citizenship, but that was turned down. He even increased the numbers involved. Almost like it was never about the dreamers.

He didn't offer that. He tried to use that to get his stupid wall built. "Sure let's help the just have to give me everything I want in return"

He offered a path to citizenship in exchange for the wall. Though you find the wall 'stupid', President Trump and many of his supporters feel it is of critical importance. If you really care about the 'dreamers', perhaps you should reconsider your position on the wall. Or do you actually care about a path to citizenship?

Sure you can have your wall, but you have to implement mandatory single-payer health insurance.

What, no deal? If you really care about the wall perhaps you should reconsider your position on single-payer health insurance.

Not really a good analogy. A better one would be: I'll agree to help children who are in a horrible situation through no fault of their own, if you agree to help make sure it never happens again.

Well I didn't spend a lot of time worrying about the issue when President Obama was in charge, but since Trump took over, it's clearly a far more important topic.

A better one would be: Save the children or we impeach you and send independent investigator Comey to go after your ill-gotten assets.

"No more EPA enforcement, yay" is not really your father's conservatism.

It seems a bankrupt ethics, to be honest.

I'm sure it seems quite ethically bankrupt if you assume that all regulation stemming from an agency must be good based on that agency's nominal mission statement.

When I'm President my graft of choice will be to establish the Puppies, Elderly Nuns, and Toddlers with Lollipops Agency. It ought to capture 100% of federal outlays within a decade. Anything less wouldn't be my father's conservatism.

(Of course Mr. Lasers, Sr. is a union member who has voted for Democrats in every national election since 1992 so perhaps my notion of what is and is not acceptable conservatism for him is off. I just wanted you to be proud of me, dad!)

Let's say it's a mixed bag. Some EPA regulations are too strong, some are two weak, and some are more or less calibrated by available science and environmental economics. Why would "don't enforce" select properly? And properly by whose standard? Would it bring everything in-line with current science and environmental economics?

If the regulations are a mixed bag, then why would enforcing all of them be more beneficial than enforcing some or even none of them? Are we assuming that enforcing a bad regulation is better than not enforcing a good regulation? You are not reducing the level of subjectivity here.

I am fine with regulatory review and refinement, as I say, in-line with current science and environmental economics.

Just inspecting half as much is not that.

I'd be fine with that too, but as the anonymous MR reader notes, is that a realistic output? You are asking the regulators to decide how much they get to regulate.

And is the lack of enforcement arbitrary or targeted? The actions so far suggest that it is targeted towards specific regulations.

I think I'm more concerned about the EPA, for example, enforcing laws that don't exist. They wanted to take over control of puddles a few years back, when it was not within the confines of their mission. This seems like good 'deregulation'.

I put that in quotes as they were never tasked with regulating them by Congress anyways, it was just another infamous Obama guidance that caused the overreach.

nonsense. The EPA has been misusing "Navigable Waters" for decades.

Yep, and every administration takes it to a new level

"Let's say it's a mixed bag." Yes it is. Seems to be no good answer. Give the agency a say in the mission and you get over reach, or leave it to Congress and you get rules that would have been mediocre 10 years ago. I don't have the answer, but regulation will see saw between the two. Right now is a long overdue swing back from over regulation though IMO.

I have to wonder, would flint lead in water have gone unnoticed if it weren't for them trying to break a monopoly?

From what I understand, there are many communities throughout the country with worse lead problems. If the EPA wasn't focused on trying to regulate CO2 emissions, would it be tracking real toxins better? Would the employees understand the importance better and not defer to a PR firm in interpreting how testing should be done?

4. The auto finance regs removed by CRA in 2017-18 were a huge relief for that segment, especially the guidance on dealer participation, which seemed beyond reach.

Trump may be a Russian asset, but at least we get more air pollution.

Yeah I mean if you are pro-regulation, then obviously getting rid of regulations seems bad to you. Why even mention that?

Have we given up on being rational people?

30,000 lives could be saved with cleaner air, CMU professor says

There is an entire field of environmental economics whose focus is examining such claims on a cost/benefit basis. The claims aren't always right, but you do the math to find out.

Praising less enforcement as a shotgun approach, and indeed more pollution, does not advance us in that direction.

US air quality is getting worse after decades of improvement

The entire field based on non-reproducible papers and little regard for the clear evidence which shows poor (i.e. no) over-all accuracy in predictions of either cost or benefit? If you can "do math" to "find out", then you're either a subject expert or delusional with regard to the complexity that is the real world. Most articles headlining "lives being saved/lost" ignore the costs of the remedies they are pushing, the one you provided is no exception. Yeah, definitely irrational.


What you just did was reject any attempt at an optimum.

And you certainly rejected the best answer, which was continuous process improvement.

The cost is not necessarily justified.

The alternative to regulations is much more specific laws. Who would benefit from more specific laws and fewer regulations? Lobbyists and their patrons, I suppose. That's not to say that lobbyists don't interact with regulators, but I don't believe they have the level of influence with regulators as they do with legislators, who don't have the same level of expertise and need campaign contributions to run very expensive campaigns.

Many years ago I worked at a state legislature on staff of a committee. One of my jobs was to write proposed legislation. However, the legislature had a separate office with a large staff whose only job was to write proposed legislation, the perceived advantage being that all laws drafted by that staff would be similar in sThe drawback of the "four corners principle" is that the law would have totyle. Thus, committees wrote few bills that became law that didn't go through "bill drafting" for style as well as substance. Looking back, I wasn't very good at drafting bills because I would try to write a bill that covered every possible scenario that might be presented for the particular issue being addressed. Lawyers who write contracts for complex business transactions will know what I mean. I was trained under a lawyer who believed in the "four corners principle": no possible scenario will be omitted from the contract (everything possible outcome can be found in the four corners of the contract). The alternative is like most legislation: the language in the statute provides a sketch and regulators and judges apply the paint.

I'm agnostic about which approach is better. But I would point out that the folks who support cutting regulations are the same folks who promised that tax cuts for the wealthy will produce a flourishing of investment and economic growth.

Agreed. This is a problem when regulations can deal with rapidly changing technology and unforeseen circumstances that still fall within the scope of the original legislation.

Imagine this: Instead of legislation mandating the regulation of "hazardous chemicals" or mandating "pure drinking water" we had to have Congress specify each hazardous chemical or what chemical cannot be in your drinking water?

You'd be drinking paint thinner by now.

The same is true with the "new" judges who are supposed to review and curtail regulations, and if Kavanaugh gets his way, remove the presumption attaching to administrative action. What will happen is that the Koch brothers or a successor organization will throw sand in the implementation of any regulation, tying things up in the courts for years...just as your kid gets ill or your wife gets sick from the governments failure to act.

Sweet dreams.

"...Koch brothers ..."

You mean Koch brother. There has been a 50% reduction in boogeymen. The left will have to invent a new one.

You’re saying we don’t drink poison not as a function of supply and demand but as a function of regulation?

Even if the government is the purveyor of drinking water, in MOST political jurisdictions there is enough political will by local voters to make sure the public provision of water is relatively safe...

It may not be as good as private distribution but even I’m willing to cede that reputation factors matter in public provision...

Aren't the 14 resolutions of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act and the confirmation of conservative judges best understood as congressional Republican achievements? The reason that Trump could nominate so many judges is that Senate Republicans had blocked Obama's nominees (most famously Garland, but they did the same with lower-court nominees). And the reason so many of them have been confirmed is that Leader McConnell has prioritized judicial confirmations.

I've had the same problem getting a read on how much truth there is to the Trump admin's deregulatory efforts. The chicken-little naysayers and cheerleaders both completely obfuscate the truth.

As another example, if you listen to the cheerleaders, you'd think that Trump is making incredible headway on trade deals. In this case there's enough info out there to convince me that he's getting nowhere on trade. So, this makes me distrust his fans on other topics too.

(In any case, Trump losing on trade may be a good thing in the long run because what Trump thinks is a good trade deal is probably a drop-dead stupid idea that empties our wallets.)

On this weekend, when there will be flooding in Florida, we have to thank the Trump administration for their contribution to methane emissions.

From Newsweek:
"Just two days after President Donald Trump called himself an "environmentalist," his administration announced a rollback of methane gas emissions regulations so large that even oil companies are objecting to the change.

In the proposed rule change, released by the Environmental Protection Agency Thursday morning, the agency would end a federal regulation that requires gas and oil companies to use technology to inspect for and repair methane leaks in their infrastructure. This would leave large segments of the oil and gas industry entirely uncontrolled with no pollution limits. Methane emissions are known to cause climate change."

By the way, this post is a little silly: how do you count the number of deregs? Do you count the regulations that should have been adopted but were killed in utero at the EPA?

Also, you can see the bias in the post by observing that deregulation is the only benefit being considered: eg., " They haven’t made things worse" but you don't look at the other side of the ledger: "That regulations can make things better as well." What has been omitted that should have been regulated and wasn't, and what risk will we face in the future that could have been avoided?

Go take that Boeing 737 Max Jet trip you've always wanted to take. And, get on the phone calling Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan what regs they would like eliminated before the next crash.

Either Tyler is part of, or catering to, the "all environmental threats are false" crowd.

Try reading comprehension. The post addresses the complaint that Trump has not done much deregulation.

Tyler specifically celebrates that "EPA inspections are down by half."

That's only good news if you don't give a shit.

Bill (mouse)
"...thank ... Trump ... methane ..."

Stop being silly! Weren't you paying attention in biology class (in Russia)?

Methane is abundant on earth and is easily produced by decay.

"Most of Earth's methane is biogenic and is produced by methanogenesis,[30][31] a form of anaerobic respiration only known to be conducted by some members of the domain, Archaea.[32] Methanogens occupy landfills and other soils,[33] ruminants (for example cows or cattle),[34] the guts of termites, and the anoxic sediments below the seafloor and the bottom of lakes. Rice fields also generate large amounts of methane during plant growth." - Wikipedia

No argument with this post, but if one were trying to get a sense of the overall level of regulatory activity in the USA (I know, that was not the poster's point, s/he was talking about the Trump administration only), one would have to look at the combined impact of federal and state activity. My sense is that the two are at some grand level complements: when the Feds back off, the States up their activity, and vice versa. And I do get the sense that the States have more degrees of freedom: an activist State AG can move very quickly (IMHO) while all of us are obsessed with the Federal activity level.

Not to mention the influence that, for example, California has on various products regardless of who is in the White House.

Very few people actually want less regulation and the regulations they do seem to want regard the way “free” persons choose to live their life. I mean, we live in a society that will arrest you, take your “privilege” to drive away, and possibly throw you in jail for breathing in the fumes of a wild growing plant... or prohibit you from exchanging goods with other willing parties in other places on the globe.

But... at least we are considering rolling back oppressive rules prohibiting forcing people to pay for the fertilizer they dump into someone else’s drinking water (think of the Great Lakes and the new seasonal large scale algea blooms that are often times toxic). To hell with other people’s air too btw, or their streams. We got to reward those who bribe our politicians, and everyone else... bend the knee you peasant birches. MAGA.

Business owners want less regulation. Water and air are the cleanest they have ever been.

Fun fact, you can deconstruct any activity to the point of absurdity. For example, if I were to propel a rubber phallus through space-time such that it intersects with an arbitrary grouping of molecules that you define as your corporeal being, and if that impact just so happened to rearrange those molecules to stop a series of electrical impulses within said corporeal being in a manner that precluded their resumption, then the fascists would throw me in jail! Maybe for life!

1.) is that a bad thing? Do we really want to remove the regulations that made this so?

2.) it’s also not exactly true. Google algae bloom western Lake Erie basin. Water purifiers are working double time as we speak and the dead zones in the lake are growing fast. Sure would be nice if I were permitted to throw my trash over my neighbors fence like the ag industry does.

Oops, meant to reply to anonymous above.

It was funnier though when you were asking if me beating you to death with a dildo was a bad thing.

Well I am undefeated in that art... so...

I'll posit a few things.

No operation in the US is compliant with all regulations. It is impossible. No one can know, and by the time you would figure it out (decades) everything would have changed.

So 'Regulations' and 'Compliance' are purely at the discretion of the regulator. How you can meet a capricious standard depends on the discretion of the individual representative of the regulator. You can do everything that the specific individual wants, and tomorrow someone else shows up and you have to start all over again.

This is called regulatory risk. It is one of the legs of the the legged stool that is taking money out of the pockets of workers. Offshoring, automation and regulation.

So for there to be a change in the regulatory environment requires simply a directive to all fields staff laying out an enforcement regime. Give em hell will find massive non compliance with fines and ultimately offshoring or automation. It becomes is a risk that investors factor in when it comes to deciding.

I'd say the biggest change is the courts. There is no presumption that the regulator has the power or authority to do what they propose. The decision on the census question was an application of this new legal doctrine.

Past that it is simply a question whether the regulators are hostile to business, or not hostile. I think you can safely say that this administration isn't hostile to business.

Actually, Derek, your statement of what is the law is not correct and you are getting a little ahead of yourself. The Chevron decision still stands. By the way, if you look at admin law before Chevron, you would see courts hopelessly entangled in factual determinations in which they had no competence; relying with a presumption for the agency is a blessing to the courts, as you would see if Chevron were reversed.

If Chevron were reversed, expect to see judges wearing hazmat suits in the courtroom as they balanced chemicals and got bored listening to conflicting expert testimony on chemistry.

Furthermore, sometimes a presumption kicks out the frivolous case, making room for the substantive and making judicial decision making easier and more predictable in an age of rapidly changing technology.

How exactly would that be different than today? We are still having mind numbingly boring EMTALA lawsuits with new interpretations and rules. I have been called multiple times as an expert witness while judges try not to pass out from boredom while I walk through "standard of care" nonsense.

Frankly, for such administrative matters it would seem far more just and natural to defer to the party that has the fewest resources, whose jobs are not dependent on compounding idiosyncratic regulation, and actually keep the world running.

After all if we gave deference to the accused, then congress can simply reopen legislation. If not we have a stable new SOP for compliance which other economic actors can adopt. It would also stop the whipsaw effect of changes in the executive.

I suspect there would end up being far less judicial entanglement if we stopped having brand new "rules" spring forth whenever somebody decides to change the status quo without going through the legislative process.

You illustrate why the presumption is there, because even when it is, that doesn't block your testimony. It weeds out the frivolous . You still get your day in court.

We live in a technologically changing society.

Isn't that exactly what went on with the census case? The court asked for a justification of the decision.

A blanket presumption is as wrongheaded as the scenario that you describe.

I suspect it will be nibbling at the edges, with the goal of prodding Congress into legislating and not delegating to regulatory agencies quite so much. There is a nefarious motivation behind doing that; Congress desires stronger power and effects than they dare propose in legislation.

The system that you seem to favor ultimately means the industries write the regulations they want. The regulatory agencies don't have the expertise either.

Two very controversial regulatory expansions in recent years. Greenhouse gas emissions being a purview of the EPA. And the definition of waters for regulation purposes. I'm not disputing the merit of either, but they have extraordinary impact on the lives of the citizenry with both positive and negative effects. These are best decided in a legislative body, rather that an edict by a regulatory agency. It is a taxing and enforcement application, and if the courts insist on legislative input before seizing property or removing freedoms from individuals through enforcement so much the better.

Derek, in the Census case the court found that the agency did not comply with the procedures. Chevron deals with deference to a federal agency's interpretation of an ambiguous or unclear statute thatCongress delegated to the agency to administer. The Supreme Court found that the administration’s justification for adding the question, enforcing the Voting Rights Act, was a pretext — essentially a lie offered after the fact to justify adding the question — rather than a real reason for making the decision.

As to the second point, the agencies are using statutory authority to creates rules...the enabling legislation, for example that EPA may regulate pollutants or another agencies regulation that permits the agency to regulate water or the environment.

These regulations do not spring out of the head of Zeus, but are based on the enabling legislation.

If you have a problem with the Clean Water Act, or Clean Air Act, go amend them. The agencies are directed and entitled to enforce them. They do it with hearing, comment periods, leading to regulations. And, someone can challenge it in court.

As we are seeing you don't have to amend them you just put an individual in place whose discretion trends towards laxity.

That is the problem with the regulatory structure. Over the life of an investment you likely will have to deal with three or four regulatory regimes each unpredictable in scope and enforcement strategy.

And even worse the whole mess is characterized by either purposeful or inadvertent or non-compliance.

The net result is offshoring.

What was notable about the census issue is that they even asked the questions. Accountability is good.

surprised I haven't seen more comments on the speculation of who is the "anonymous MR reader"

To throw in kind of a sad circular connection between demented policies, air pollution, and dementia:

"This story originally appeared on Mother Jones and is part of the Climate Desk collaboration." God, Wired has gone to shit.

You did it again, didn't you. You rejected an entire body of scientific research because liberals know about it.

I don't doubt the claim about dementia, but in the subtitle they have: 'Meanwhile, air quality is getting worse.'

From the EPA website:

The percentages are REDUCTIONS:
Air Quality Trends Show Clean Air Progress
Nationally, concentrations of air pollutants have dropped significantly since 1990:

Carbon Monoxide (CO) 8-Hour, 74%
Lead (Pb) 3-Month Average, 82% (from 2010)
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Annual, 57%
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) 1-Hour, 50%
Ozone (O3) 8-Hour, 21%
Particulate Matter 10 microns (PM10) 24-Hour, 26%
Particulate Matter 2.5 microns (PM2.5) Annual, 39% (from 2000)
Particulate Matter 2.5 microns (PM2.5) 24-Hour, 34% (from 2000)
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) 1-Hour, 89%
Numerous air toxics have declined with percentages varying by pollutant
During this same period, the U.S. economy continued to grow, Americans drove more miles and population and energy use increased.

The EPA is run by the Trump administration. Clearly you can't trust anything they publish.

You did it again, didn't you. You rejected an entire body of scientific research because conservatives know about it.

Speaking of sectors lacking in regulation:

I posted this story on my Facebook page and all my normie friends, most of whom are conservative Republicans, are asking how the f*** is this legal. If Trump had any brains, he'd start regulating them to death. But he doesn't and won't, so get ready for President Pocahontas.

something something private company

Maybe we can ask how much CO2 gets emitted by the AC used to cool the servers where Apple keeps your sex tapes.

I'm going to try to be done with this page, but it was a nice little demonstration of a group uninterested in understanding environmental risks and responding appropriately.

And that is why we did end up with a right-populist government that just cuts inspections in half. Do whatever the hell you want. Perhaps limited by the risk of a Democratic government to be named later.

(Note to the reader, there are at least two "anonymous" on this page, and some good and interesting comments were not mine.)

The impact on the environment, and on housing, is already clear, and if you like that sort of thing, monumental. This is a remarkably ignorant post.

All of these regulations gone, but no real improvement in the economy. Who would have guessed?


"anonymous MR reader" forgot about the trade wars. When your major source of lowered cost of goods is under siege from Captain Easy Trade Wars, every business and consumer will get soaked.

This is at least 3/4 air. First, the individual mandate may be gone but Ocare lives on. So does the Ex-Im bank back from the dead.

All that deregulation is pretty hyped 'meh' net neutrality aside and is vastly outweighed by any of import taxes, immigration dragnets and restrictions, and dollar volatility. Deeply net negative and this is reflected in bad investment numbers.

Comments for this post are closed