Homepage / Currency / An assessment of the White House’s progress on deregulation
Google and Facebook are watching our every move online. It's time to make them stop Daymond John tells shy airline passenger: You should have talked to me on the plane South Korea says it has no plans to shut down cryptocurrency trading AMD shares surge as Wall Street analysts say the chipmaker is ‘executing on all fronts’ James Altucher, the face of bitcoin, says he’s happy about Facebook’s cryptocurrency ad ban Pending home sales eke out 0.5 percent gain in December as supply shrinks to record low Uber is testing bike sharing in San Francisco The real source of the internet's problems might be the advertising business Game publisher EA's sales forecast tops estimates, sending shares higher GE will likely be dropped from the Dow, Deutsche Bank predicts Samsung surpasses Intel as world's biggest chipmaker for the first time Apple could be the best of the bunch in this tech earnings avalanche The 9-year stock rally still has 'years left,' says one of Wall Street's most bullish strategists Apple: We would never degrade the iPhone experience to get users to buy new phones Bitcoin headed for biggest monthly drop since January 2015 with nearly $60 billion of value wiped off ADP boosts forecast as new tax law spurs demand China 'will open even wider to the UK,' says Prime Minister Li Keqiang Big market swings are something you’re going to have to get used to, says Wells Fargo The dollar keeps weakening. Is that good news for the world? Apple downgraded by BMO, expects iPhone maker to slash revenue forecast this week SoftBank buys majority stake in Japanese messaging giant Line’s mobile division Rising interest rates cause a 2.6% pullback in weekly mortgage applications Trump's State of the Union address 'less hard' than first feared in Asia Trump vows to protect US intellectual property, without naming China Blockchain technology to boost Microsoft earnings, trader says Fujifilm to take over Xerox and combine it into the joint venture Fuji Xerox Samsung is making chips designed to mine cryptocurrencies like bitcoin There’s a risk of market turbulence, but it’s unlikely to hit until 2019, says Santander chairman We'll see up to a 15 percent correction in 2018, Swiss bank CEO says Japan's biggest messaging app Line is planning to launch a cryptocurrency exchange Quicksilver surfwear CEO missing at sea off the coast of France Venezuela says will pre-sell 'petro' cryptocurrency on Feb. 20 Nintendo ups its Switch sales expectations to 15 million units after profits rise 261% European markets seen mixed amid earnings and economic data The UK wants free trade with China. Beijing has its own goals Santander fourth-quarter net profit down 4 percent on US impairments The man who almost became ambassador to South Korea just warned about US plans for North Korea China's Leshi Internet flags $1.8 billion loss for 2017, citing conglomerate cash crunch South Korea says it uncovered about $600 million in cryptocurrency crimes Asia became less democratic in 2017 Al Gore's investment firm backs start-up created by Facebook co-founder Theresa May says she wants a free trade deal with China Chinese manufacturing weaker than expected in January Webpass is leaving Boston in latest sign of Google Fiber’s shrinking ambitions Samsung posts record fourth-quarter profit Asian shares look set for more declines as Wall Street sells off for a second day Don't count insurers out yet after Amazon-Berkshire-JP Morgan move Amazon's health care move could be a big win for consumer health start-ups Red Hat buys CoreOS, a start-up that sold tech developed by Google Here’s what Amazon told employees today about its landmark deal to deliver better health care Top official resigns after false missile alert in Hawaii Crazy odds: These online traders bet on the chaos of Washington and the Trump administration AMD falls despite beating Q4 estimates Facebook ban on bitcoin ads latest in very bad day for cryptocurrencies Indian man dies after being sucked into an MRI machine while carrying an oxygen cylinder Advice for Jeff Bezos, Warren Buffett and Jamie Dimon from a failed effort to control health costs Toys R Us poor holiday sales cast doubts on its future and could force renegotiation of loan terms The Apple sell-off is a buying opportunity into earnings, says trader Google partnership on mobile cloud services drives up MobileIron shares Facebook is banning all ads promoting cryptocurrencies — including bitcoin and ICOs Amazon's moves in health care over the last year are finally starting to make sense Buffett is getting a second chance to partner with Bezos after missing on Amazon as an investment How Pencils of Promise got a $1 million donation from an anonymous bitcoin multi-millionaire Amazon's home devices could be a key to cheaper health care, tech investor Roger McNamee says Two ex-Google engineers built an entirely different kind of self-driving car Cryptocurrencies join the global financial market sell-off as bitcoin drops 7% A travel agent is trying to charge fees for sunbeds Most of the tax cut windfall will boost buybacks and dividends, not workers' pockets, survey predicts The professor who wrote the book on making addictive technology is having second thoughts Trump's immigration policies are 'economic poison' that will cost taxpayers billions Airbnb trolls President Trump ahead of the State of the Union The iPhone X's $1,000 price tag scared everyone away Drop, a rewards app start-up, snags Airbnb's former head of engineering SEC halts one of the largest 'ICOs' ever as it wades deeper into the murky world of cryptocurrency offerings Passing on sanctions, Trump goes even softer on Russia than expected Buy insurers on dip as new initiative from Amazon, Berkshire and JP Morgan is ‘more bark than bite’: Analyst High schools stock up on Narcan to combat teen opioid crisis in US Apple will finally replace the fax machine in health care Apple is reportedly delaying new iOS features until next year because of quality problems Bond expert predicts a ‘wall of buying’ in Treasurys will protect the stock market Home prices surge to new high, up 6.2% in November Noted tech investor says the sector is not the best place to invest right now Sterling predicted to hit pre-Brexit vote level before the end of 2018 Stocks making the biggest moves premarket: AMZN, BRKB, JPM, AAPL, BX, TSLA & more Bitcoin boom to give AMD earnings a boost, says MKM Partners Apple shares fall again on another report of fading iPhone X demand Trump advisor Cohn: President to focus on $1.5 trillion infrastructure plan in State of the Union Why don't foreign investors take fright more often? The dollar is doing something it hasn’t done since 1987 UnitedHealth, CVS plunge on Bezos, Buffett and Dimon plan to improve U.S. health care Amazon, Berkshire and JPMorgan Chase to team in landmark new health care company Can earnings afford to slow down? 'Enemies of the USA': Russia slams America's list of oligarchs with ties to Putin The app that exposed the location of military bases with a heat map is reviewing its features For his next act, former Amex CEO Ken Chenault turns his focus on Silicon Valley Child experts: Just say ‘no’ to Facebook’s kids app Ryanair agrees to recognize British pilots union for first time Arab states are 'determined' to stick with reforms despite deepening 'frustration', IMF says The US 'oligarch list' is strikingly similar to Forbes’ richest Russians ranking Indian ride-hailing firm Ola expands to Australia to take on Uber

Currency

An assessment of the White House’s progress on deregulation

DEREGULATION, along with tax cuts and trade reform, is one of the three pillars of President Donald Trump’s economic agenda. Republicans promise that, freed of red tape, American firms will invest more and unleash faster economic growth. And while Mr Trump has yet to unite his party around a major piece of legislation, the White House has plenty of sway over regulatory policy. For a start, the government agencies Mr Trump commands can regulate and deregulate on their own (subject only to the instructions that Congress has given them in the past). How much red tape have they managed to tear down since Mr Trump took office?

Regulation is difficult to measure precisely, but the long-term trend towards excessive rulemaking has been obvious. In 1970 there were about 400,000 prescriptive words such as “shall” or “must” in the code of federal regulations, according to the Mercatus Centre, a libertarian-leaning think-tank. Today there are 1.1m (see chart). Wonks of many stripes agree that this is far too many and that the rule book must be shortened. Agencies have rarely combed over old edicts to see whether they are worth keeping. The problem predated Barack Obama’s administration; both Republicans and Democrats have presided over regulatory expansions. That said, Mr Obama was an unusually prolific rule-writer, because for much of his presidency a hostile Congress meant that regulation was often his best tool.

  • Why malaria is spreading in Venezuela

  • More evidence for a link between Caesarean sections and obesity

  • Theresa May’s weakness at home is slowing down the Brexit talks

  • How “regularising” undocumented immigrants brings benefits

  • Raila Odinga takes a gamble by threatening to boycott Kenya’s election

  • Explaining the Finnish love of tango

Against this backdrop, the impact of the Trump administration has been dramatic. The flow of new rules is suddenly a dribble. Since Mr Trump was inaugurated the number of regulatory restrictions has grown at about two-fifths of the usual speed. In the last year of the Obama administration, the federal government wrote 527 regulations deemed “significant”. Mr Trump’s bureaucrats have penned only 118. And even that number is artificially high, because many of those edicts served only to delay or weaken Mr Obama’s rules. Examples of genuinely new regulations are few and far between. The White House has acknowledged only one—a rule aimed at reducing the amount of mercury dentists discharge into sewers, which went into effect in July.

Mr Trump has slowed rulemaking in two main ways. First, on coming to office, he ordered government agencies not to impose any net new regulatory costs on companies, regardless of the benefits of doing so, and said that in order to write any new rules they would have to repeal two old ones. Because it takes time to unearth and discard dud rules, the practical effect of this has been to put a brake on new issuance.

Second, Mr Trump has signed 14 bills stopping rules that were issued late in the Obama administration, and were therefore still subject to review by Congress, from going into effect. Not only were those regulations blocked (by means of the Congressional Review Act, or CRA); agencies will never again be able to write replacements that are “substantially the same” without lawmakers’ express approval. Before 2017, Congress had exercised its power to review regulations only once: in 2001, after George W. Bush came to office, it blocked a set of standards for chairs and desks aimed at stopping office workers getting back pain.

Yet wielding CRA as a deregulatory weapon has its limits, for Congress can review only rules issued during its previous 60 days in session. Tackling the bedrock of regulation is far harder. Three approaches are possible: later implementation of newish rules, looser enforcement of existing ones, and formal rollbacks of others.

Make America wait again

The first tactic, delay, is being used with abandon. For example, the Labour Department is trying to stave off parts of a new “fiduciary rule”, which requires investment advisers always to work in the best interests of their clients. (This requirement, like many seemingly simple rules, has somehow spawned hundreds of pages of legalese.) The fiduciary rule came into partial effect in June, but the administration is trying to postpone enactment of the remainder, which would give the edict teeth, by 18 months, to July 2019.

Delays do not always work. When Scott Pruitt, a sceptic on climate change who heads the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), tried to put off a regulation aimed at curbing emissions of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, from oil and gas wells, a federal court found the decision to be “unreasonable”, and blocked it. “I can’t tell you how illegal that proposal was,” says Bill Pedersen, an environmental lawyer.

The second method—enforcing rules lightly, if at all—can be implemented through handy budget cuts. For example, Mr Pruitt has proposed slimming the agency’s budget by almost a third, though the idea met a frosty reception in Congress.

But it is the final approach, rescinding a regulation altogether, that is the trickiest to pull off. The EPA hopes to repeal the two main Obama-era environmental regulations: the Clean Power Plan, aimed at reducing carbon-dioxide emissions from power plants, and the Waters of the United States (WOTUS) rule, which expanded the scope of federal regulation of waterways. Neither has ever come into effect, because both have been delayed by lawsuits brought by states and affected firms. Some such challenges to Obama-era rules have ended successfully. A court in August struck down a Labour Department rule that greatly expanded the number of workers eligible for overtime pay.

Unless courts invalidate a regulation, though, undoing it is “like turning a battleship around”, says Steven Silverman, a lawyer who worked at the EPA for almost four decades. Agencies must start a fresh regulatory process, consult interested parties and show why their old cost-benefit analysis was wrong—a procedure itself vulnerable to legal challenges. While those play out, the Democrats could win back the White House and change course again.

For now, the administration’s tactic has been to try to stall the court cases, to keep the rules from taking effect, while they prepare replacements. But the administration may eventually have to convince judges that Mr Obama’s numbers were wrong. That will be easier in some cases than in others. Mr Obama’s administration often cast around for additional benefits to justify new rules. Sometimes, its methods were unprecedented. For example, the administration included the boon to foreign countries when totting up the value of reducing carbon emissions. The proposal to withdraw the Clean Power Plan, which was released on October 10th, shows that Mr Trump’s regulators have ditched that calculation. They have also taken a harder stand on so-called “co-benefits”, the positive side-effects of regulations.

The question is how fast the Trump administration will run in the exact opposite direction. The White House is focused on reducing costs to companies; wider benefits barely seem to enter its thinking. This particularly threatens environmental regulations, which tend to have the biggest costs, but also the largest benefits (see chart 2). In reassessing the economic impact of WOTUS, the EPA took just a few short sentences to dispense with at least $300m in annual benefits to wetlands that had been included in the agency’s 2015 analysis. The Clean Power Plan replacement disregards entirely the effect that cutting carbon would have on reducing other noxious emissions that cause premature deaths—an omission that will surely invite a legal challenge.

Yet in other areas the administration seems more thoughtful than zealous. Take financial deregulation. In January Mr Trump made a crude promise to “do a big number” on Dodd-Frank, Mr Obama’s financial law, which has spawned thousands of pages of associated rules. Yet the two reports the Treasury has published on the subject have been detailed and rigorous. The first, on banking, contained a variety of relatively moderate proposals, such as raising the threshold above which banks must carry out “stress tests” from $10bn of assets to $50bn, and excluding cash and Treasury securities when calculating banks’ leverage.

The second report, released on October 6th, concerns capital markets. Equity markets do not seem to be doing their job well, it says, as seen by a fall in the number of public companies, possibly because of regulatory complexity. But elsewhere it warns of the risks that Dodd-Frank funnelled towards so-called “clearing houses”, such as LCH.Clearnet and Intercontinental Exchange. The Treasury argues that clearing houses should be subject to “heightened regulatory and supervisory scrutiny”.

Those are not the words of an administration bent on wanton financial deregulation. Instead, figures such as Jay Clayton, the new chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and Randal Quarles, whom the Senate confirmed on October 5th as the Federal Reserve’s vice-chairman for (bank) supervision, are likely to prune existing regulatory structures. In September the Fed and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) gave a taste of what is to come. They said banks may now be allowed to refile their “living wills”, which set out how they could be dissolved in a crisis, every two years rather than annually, so long as their business had not changed materially. This is hardly revolutionary, yet it is important to banks.

Some rulemaking is beyond the administration’s reach. On October 5th the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) said it would require payday lenders, who offer short-term loans at very high interest rates, to carry out new affordability checks before advancing credit. The agency will also limit lenders’ access to borrowers’ bank accounts. The CFPB can keep regulating in defiance of Mr Trump because—like the SEC—it is independent, meaning the president cannot dismiss its leadership without good reason.

Alternative facts

There can be little doubt that fewer federal regulations are in place today than would have been were Hillary Clinton president. But until many more rules face the chop, companies are unlikely to benefit all that much. Few mentioned deregulation in their second-quarter earnings calls this summer. When economists at Goldman Sachs, a bank, surveyed their stock-pickers in May, regulation was not considered the key policy issue in a single sector. Analysts emphasised tax reform instead.

The exceptions were watchers of technology, media and telecoms firms, who emphasised the importance of antitrust regulation. The Trump administration’s attitude towards consolidation in those industries, most notably a proposed merger between AT&T , a wireless giant, and Time Warner, a content empire, is unclear. Internet service providers (ISPs) would also get a boost if the Federal Communications Commission succeeds in loosening Obama-era rules on “net neutrality” (the principle that different sorts of web traffic should be treated equally).

Despite the lack of much true deregulation, the new approach in Washington does seem to have boosted business confidence. The “tone” of federal regulators has changed, notes one senior Wall Street executive, and slowing the flow of new rules has reduced regulatory uncertainty. Parts of Main Street agree: the percentage of small firms reporting regulation as their biggest concern has fallen slightly, from 20% a year ago to 16% today. Another sign, perhaps, is that the overall optimism of small businesses surged after the election to close to an all-time high, and has yet to fall back much.

Whether deregulation translates into faster economic growth will only become clear over time. The range of estimates regarding how much regulation affects growth is wide, while the quantity of evidence is thin. Economists at the White House point to a study by Mercatus which argues that if regulations had been frozen at their 1980 level, growth would have been 0.8 percentage points higher per year. Critics say that this actually implies a rather small growth effect, given that Mr Trump is taking aim at a relatively small number of Obama-era rules. The study also seems, implausibly, to blame regulation for a fall in investment after the financial crisis.

Ultimately, whether or not such claims are put to the test depends on whether the Republicans keep the White House in 2020. If they do, Mr Trump will have time to overcome the inevitable legal challenges to his agenda. America would probably see a large-scale deregulatory experiment. If they do not, the current period will look more like a regulatory hiatus than the beginning of a reversal.

Source: economist
An assessment of the White House’s progress on deregulation

Comments are closed.