“Expropriating billions of dollars from American businesses is injurious and capricious. Citizens of the E.U. benefit from the American technology sector; siphoning capital from U.S. tech firms leaves them with less to commit to research and development, stymieing further innovation. The E.U. should stop penalizing American firms that outcompete their European counterparts.”
“They found first that the passage of age-verification laws corresponded to a significant reduction in searchers for Pornhub, the dominant porn platform complying with these laws.
That’s what proponents of age-verification laws want, right?
Not so fast. The passage of such laws was also linked to significant increases in searches for XVideos, the dominant porn platform noncompliant with these laws.
The researchers also found age-verification laws linked to an increase in searches for virtual private network (VPN) services, which can mask a user’s location, thereby allowing people in states where age-verification laws exist to appear as if they’re visiting websites from within a state where no such laws exist.
“Our findings highlight that while these regulation efforts reduce traffic to compliant firms and likely a net reduction overall to this type of content, individuals adapt primarily by moving to content providers that do not require age verification,” states the paper.”
“Passed in 1920, the Jones Act severely limits competition in the American shipping market by requiring that ships operating between U.S. ports be American-built, American-crewed, and American-flagged. The number of ships that meet the Jones Act’s standards has been declining for decades, and now fewer than 100 are in operation. Anyone who wants to ship goods—including rum—from Hawaii, Puerto Rico, or other outlying U.S. territories to the mainland is required to use one of those few dozen vessels.
Unsurprisingly, the lack of competition drives up shipping costs. The lawsuit points out that it costs roughly three times as much to ship rum from Hawaii to Los Angeles as it does to ship the same goods from Los Angeles to Australia—an international route where greater competition keeps prices lower, even though the trip is significantly longer.”
“The rule intends to reduce federal bureaucracy by reverting the mission of CEQ to its origins. The agency, which was created with the passage of NEPA, was originally intended to advise the executive branch on environmental matters and NEPA implementation. In 1977, President Jimmy Carter signed an executive order that required federal agencies to comply with NEPA regulations published by the CEQ. Since then, the council has been the guiding agency for the federal government’s NEPA reviews.
Trump’s executive order reversed Carter’s, which rescinded CEQ’s regulatory authority over other federal agencies. The proposed rule, if implemented, would not strike down NEPA altogether (this would require congressional approval). Instead, it would remove CEQ’s NEPA regulations from the federal register and allow federal agencies to use their own rules to comply with the law. Many agencies, including the Department of Energy, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the U.S. Forest Service, already have their own NEPA regulations in place.
Any effort to streamline the NEPA process should be welcomed by all. Since its passage in 1969, the law has become a redundant, bureaucratic nightmare that has slowed down or killed key infrastructure, energy, and environmental projects.”
“Unlike every other department and agency within the federal government, the CFPB is not funded via congressional appropriations. Instead, its funding flows directly from the Federal Reserve. Each year, the White House submits a budget to the Federal Reserve, and the central bank hands over the necessary amount—$729.4 million last year, in case you were wondering.
For a long time after the CFPB was created in 2010, there were serious questions about the constitutionality of that structure. That finally got resolved last year, when the Supreme Court ruled that Congress was within its powers to hand off the purse strings. So, funding the CFPB via the Federal Reserve is not unconstitutional—it’s just unorthodox and foolish.
Here’s where the hubris enters the story. When Warren and Obama created the CFPB, they designed that unorthodox funding structure specifically to prevent a future Republican-led Congress from trying to defund the bureau. Remember, this was in the age when Republicans were running around the country telling voters they intended to repeal Obamacare too. By isolating the CFPB from Congress’ budgetary powers, Warren was trying to make it invulnerable to attack.
Instead, she simply gave it a fatal flaw.
Earlier this week, the Trump administration submitted its CFPB funding request to the Federal Reserve. It asked for…$0.
“Pursuant to the Consumer Financial Protection Act, I have notified the Federal Reserve that CFPB will not be taking its next draw of unappropriated funding because it is not ‘reasonably necessary’ to carry out its duties,” wrote Russ Vought, director of the White House’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB), wrote on X on Saturday night. “The Bureau’s current balance of $711.6 million is in fact excessive in the current fiscal environment. This spigot, long contributing to CFPB’s unaccountability, is now being turned off.”
That appears to be the end of the CFPB, at least until a Democrat returns to the White House. Trump will need an act of Congress if he seriously wants to abolish the Department of Education, for example, and even minor spending cuts being made across the executive branch will eventually need congressional or legal consent to be permanent. But there should be no serious questions about whether the president can unilaterally defund the CFBP. Congress has no role to play in that fight.”
“The Senate voted 52-48..to overturn a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau rule capping the overdraft fees that banks can charge, in another blow to the beleaguered agency.
The resolution under the Congressional Review Act now heads to the House, where the Financial Services Committee approved a companion bill on a 30-19 vote earlier this month. CRAs both invalidate regulations and preclude future administrations from introducing “substantially similar” proposals.”
…
“The Biden administration finalized the overdraft rule — part of its campaign against so-called junk fees — in December, to the chagrin of Republicans who had asked financial regulators to pause rulemaking after the election until the new administration was sworn in. Banks, which say the rule would limit their ability to offer overdraft coverage, fiercely opposed the regulation and sued to stop it hours after it was finalized.”
…
“Under the rule crafted by former CFPB Director Rohit Chopra, banks and credit unions with more than $10 billion in assets would have three options when a consumer overdraws their account: charging $5; charging a fee that covers no more than costs or losses; or disclosing the terms of a profit-generating overdraft loan as they would with other loans.
Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), the lone Republican to vote against overturning the rule, said the regulation would “save the average working class household something like $265 a year.”
“I do not want to give big banks the ability to charge people outrageous sums of money,” Hawley said. “Under this… they can charge whatever their expenses are on an overdraft, and if that’s more than $5 per overdraft, they’re allowed to charge that, but they’re not allowed to charge anything more.”
Banks currently charge an average fee of $35 to extend overdraft services. The CFPB estimated the rule would save consumers $5 billion in fees per year.”
“Before deregulation, a cross-country flight could cost thousands of dollars (inflation adjusted) and would take all day. Afterward, travelers benefited from myriad choices that dropped prices and promoted innovation in scheduling and aircraft design.
It’s not as bougie to fly these days, but almost everyone can now afford to do it. Yet the nostalgia never ends. “The professor obviously never talked to passengers, pilots, flight crews, investors and airline executives,” author Rene Henry argued last year. “All were happy with regulation and the way things were.”
Of course, passengers, pilots, airline executives, and investors liked the old system. Passengers were usually wealthy or engaged in business travel. Airlines didn’t have to worry about upstart competitors. Investors were largely guaranteed a huge return. For the rest of Americans, well, they were stuck taking Greyhound or driving. The number of airline travelers increased from 383 million in 1970 to 4.4 billion today.”
…
“Carter also signed laws deregulating trucking, rail, and telecommunications, which paved the way for transformative innovations that have vastly improved our lives. “He set up cabinet-level oversight councils to review the new agencies’ most important regulatory proposals and to encourage more cost-effective forms of regulation,” wrote Susan Dudley in an article appropriately title, “Jimmy Carter, The Great Deregulator.”
Many of us remember when Vice President Al Gore, who during a 1999 interview when he was running for president, boastfully said, “I took the initiative in creating the Internet” based on legislation he authored in Congress. Carter never claimed to help create the resulting technologies, which emanated from private-sector savants. But he helped enable everything from FedEx to the iPhone by dismantling government rules that impeded these developments.
“Freight deregulation was key to our modern, robust supply chains where customers can find just about anything in retail stores across the country, and next-day shipping is the norm,” explained the transportation journal Freight Waves in its remembrance of Carter.
Many progressives and populists now complain about the results of these emergent industries as they ramp up antitrust efforts and wax poetically about an ideal past that never existed. Criticize Carter if you choose, but much of the progress we take for granted would never have emerged without deregulation. He wasn’t only a fine man, but a notable president.”
“in 23 of the 30 largest U.S. cities, there are laws that limit occupants deemed “unrelated,” defining a “family” only as a group whose members are related by blood, marriage, or adoption. In St. Louis, no more than three unrelated persons may live together. In Sugar Land, Texas, the limit is four. Private homeowner associations may be even more strict. In the Chase Oaks Homeowners Association in Plano, Texas, a “household” can comprise no more than two unrelated persons, though there is an exception for live-in employees.
Those who would like to form a household of five single adults or multiple unmarried couples in order to share costs are not permitted to do so—no matter how many bedrooms are available. These relics stand in the way of allowing the widowed, divorced, and never-married to build households.”
“States’ efforts to create and then tightly regulate legal markets for pot have, ironically, made the black market for weed bigger than it’s ever been.”