Category Archives: regulation

There’s Speculation and There’s Speculation

Posted on by
Reply

Kansas has a law that requires voters to prove they’re citizens—and so eligible to vote—before they’re allowed actually to vote.  A Federal trial judge issued an injunction barring enforcement of the law, and the 10th Circuit Appeals Court upheld the injunction.

After Kansas had shown that in a single county,

eleven noncitizens successfully registered to vote; and after it went into effect another fourteen were prevented from registering. These 25 cases are just the tip of the iceberg in Sedgwick County[,]

Judge Jerome Holmes, for the 10th Circuit, wrote

[W]e reject as based on conjecture Secretary Kobach’s invitation to consider as “just the tip of the iceberg” the twenty-five cases in Sedgwick County of aliens registering or attempting to register. The assertion that the “number of aliens on the voter rolls is likely to be in the hundreds, if not thousands” is pure speculation….

On the other side of the equation is the near certainty that without the preliminary injunction over 18,000 US citizens in Kansas will be disenfranchised for purposes of the 2016 federal elections….

Never mind that Holmes’ near certainty is pure speculation.  (I won’t go into the fact that folks wishing to vote in an election being run by a State also must be citizens of that State in order to be eligible to vote, not merely mythically generalized “US citizens”—a fact the 10th Circuit should be embarrassed that Holmes appears not to know.)

The Courts Get Another One Right

Posted on by
Reply

This case involves how much Federal control over land deeded by the Feds to a State the Feds retain when they make the deed.  In the particular case, the Feds, ‘way back in 1949, deeded land to Ohio (in particular, the Muskingum Watershed Conservancy District) subject to the criteria that the land had to be used for flood control, conservation, and recreation.  Lately, Ohio began allowing fracking under the land.

“Environmentalists” objected and sued to try to force the land back into Federal hands.  The relevant Federal district court dismissed the suit, and it wound up in the Sixth Circuit.  The Sixth waived the BS Flag at the suit.  Although much of the Court’s ruling was based on a technicality (the suit was brought as a violation of the False Claims Act perpetrated by Ohio for allowing the fracking; the Court demurred), there is another reason to applaud the outcome.

In ruling that there was no violation of the FCA, the Court also said in part,

neither the relators’ [the “environmentalists”] complaint nor their proposed amended complaint includes facts that show how MWCD would have known that the fracking leases violated the deed restrictions or how MWCD “act[ed] in deliberate ignorance” or in “reckless disregard” of that fact.

Indeed, fracking occurs well underground and so well away from any activities related to flood control, conservation, and recreation, which are surface or near-surface activities.  Thus, since fracking does not interfere with or otherwise impact such activities, it cannot violate deed restrictions that involve strictly those activities.

This was just a naked attempt by these relators to prevent us from getting cheap energy out of the deep earth cheaply.

The Sixth Circuit’s ruling can be seen here.

 

h/t Institute for Justice

Foreign Investment Risk

Posted on by
Reply

The People’s Republic of China seems about to illustrate one form of this risk.

The State Council, China’s cabinet, will soon announce new measures that subject many overseas deals to reviews of “strict control,” according to people with direct knowledge of the matter and documents reviewed by The Wall Street Journal.

Targeted for particular scrutiny by the pending measure are “extra-large” foreign acquisitions valued at $10 billion or more per deal, property investments by state-owned firms above $1 billion, and investments of $1 billion or more by any Chinese company in an overseas entity unrelated to the investor’s core business.

This is nothing but an overt attempt to restrict capital flows across the PRC’s borders.  Restricting such flows from one nation to another, no matter the rationale, elevates the risk of foreign investment.  The investor, whichever the nation of his domicile, cannot count on a reliable income flow from his investment or even being able to get his money back from that investment at the expiration of the arrangement.

Separately, it demonstrates an attitude toward law and government that’s been extant in the PRC and its antecedents for thousands of years: “I don’t like what you’re doing—this investment plan of yours—here’s a nice ex post facto law that makes your activity illegal.”

Systemic Importance and Institutions

Posted on by
Reply

Minneapolis Federal Reserve President Neel Kashkari is on the right track, but he’s not there yet.  He’s one of a very small number of financial regulators (of any sort of regulator, come to that) who has the self-assurance and intellectual honesty to say, and to mean, things like

I start with the assumption that regulators are going to miss the next crisis.  We’re going to miss it.

He’s got a solution to that, too, but it’s only a partial solution, and that incompleteness stems from a fundamental lack of understanding.

The lesson he drew [from the Panic of 2008] is that if you want to reduce the risk that taxpayers will have to finance another rescue, financial giants need to be much better fortified before the next panic hits.

This is a start (we can argue with specific levels of fortification, of capital reserves, that are suitable, but the principle is sound), but he needs also to recognize the other side of this cash coin: businesses, including banks and systemically important institutions, need to be allowed to fail without taxpayer monies.  We have a perfectly fine bankruptcy system that works admirably well.

But the lack of understanding that regulators have of their capabilities, even with Kashkari’s degree of understanding as a start, makes much of that two-part solution less than fully relevant.  The lack of understanding is this: if the regulators can’t predict the next financial (or any other) crisis, if they can’t characterize what it will look like, on what basis do they presume to be able to predict the institutions that are/will be important to those crisis systems?

Loosening Financial Regulations

Posted on by
Reply

Felix Hufeld, President of Germany’s Federal Financial Supervisory Authority, is worried about an outcome of Donald Trump’s election.  He’s concerned that financial regulations laid on in the aftermath of the Panic of 2008, regulations that expanded the reach of Government into men’s financial lives, will begin to be loosened during a Trump administration.

Barely 10 years after the start of the financial crisis I once more hear the bugle calls of deregulation.

And I have the impression that these sounds are becoming louder.  That is not without risk.

To live life is to live with risk.  The thing about risk, though, is that the more Government tries to mandate rules against it, the more Government increases the risks that ordinary folks must live with.

Hufeld has this much right, though:

The [financial] industry, just as politics and regulators, are in need of predictability and continuity—not regulatory volatility[.]

Indeed.  Regulations need to be vastly reduced, Government gotten out of the way of free markets and the free citizens operating in them.  And then politicians and regulators need to leave the remainder alone and stable and not constantly be adding regulations and “tweaking” others.

The problem Hufeld and other bureaucrats of the Left—both in Europe and in the US—have is that they can’t conceive the idea the ordinary citizens are fully capable of making their own financial decisions without Government holding their hands.

Or these bureaucrats worry about their own loss of power were ordinary folks freed to make their own financial decisions without Government holding their hands.

Or both.