Category Archives: regulation

Obamacare’s Cost Increases

Posted on by
Reply

As even President Barack Obama (D) has finally confessed, Obamacare plan premiums and deductibles are skyrocketing.  But the Democrats and their Progressive fellows are cynically obfuscating the matter.  Here’s a typical remark, by HHS’ Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs Kevin Griffis:

Headline rates are generally rising faster than in previous years…headline rates are not what they [recipients of Obamacare subsidies] pay.

Indeed not.  Those rates are what you and I and our fellow taxpayers who don’t get subsidies pay, and they’re rates for which we pay a second time in the form of the subsidies Obamacare passes on to potsful of Obamacare plan purchasers.  We pay for those subsidies with our tax payments.

This is carefully elided by those pushers of Obamacare.

Disparate Impact

Posted on by
Reply

Some folks sued RJ Reynolds Tobacco Co over its hiring policy that

allegedly gave preference to applicants with two to three years of job experience out of college and disfavored those with closer to a decade in the workforce. The company’s guidelines provided to its hiring contractor, according to the ruling, said the greener group of workers “adjusts easily to changes.”

The suit centered on the premise that this policy had a disparate impact on older workers.  In the words of Lee Parks, an employment and civil rights lawyer with Parks, Chesin & Walbert, the policy means that

Those over 40 need not apply[.]

Judge William Pryor, writing for the majority at the 11th Circuit, which heard an appeal from the trial court’s ruling, wrote Indeed.  Disparate impact questions only apply to job holders, not those who’d merely like to hold a job.

Apparently disparate impact as justification for “corrective” action or as a cudgel is good only for some groups of Americans, but those who aren’t currently the favored ones don’t get its use.

This is one more reason to do away with disparate impact as an excuse for anything at all.

How Many Layers of Bureaucracy

Posted on by
Reply

…whether government’s or private businesses’ will Big Government require before it will allow a failed enterprise to fail?

Regulators want to prevent taxpayers from having to ever again bail out big banks. Their latest idea: make the banks bail themselves out.

Previously, banks had struggled to persuade regulators they had a plan—called a “living will”—that would allow them to be dismantled and shut down if they got into trouble without taxpayers taking a hit. Now, banks are creating new structures that would allow their most important parts to keep functioning, even if the parent company has to file for bankruptcy. The aim is to avoid the kind of market chaos that could cause economic harm.

Never mind the far greater market chaos created by keeping these failed entities around, actively cluttering the market.

Make the banks bail themselves out?  Get regulators out of the way, and let the banks—or any other enterprise—prevent their failure with sound, market-driven business decisions, instead of facing a greater risk of failure by being trapped into decisions driven by Big Government regulations.  Those remaining businesses that fail will deserve to do so from their poor decision making.

The whole concept of a “living will” and a free market enterprise is internally contradictory.   Let a failed enterprise fail, and let the free market, consisting of all of its participants including the enterprises that rise from the bankrupt’s ashes, prosper.

Apparently Bureaucrats Don’t Have Enough Control Already

Posted on by
Reply

The European Commission is considering unilaterally expanding the scope of its authorities.

The European Union’s antitrust authority on Friday said it was considering changes to its merger review rules to include a wider swath of technology and pharmaceutical deals that normally wouldn’t fall within its purview but could possibly harm the bloc’s internal market.

…the European Commission said it was fielding opinions from the public on whether the regulator should also probe mergers involving companies with smaller revenues.

Because instructing the big companies on the business decisions the Commission would permit them to take doesn’t have enough juice for them anymore.

Such a move would be especially significant for the digital and pharmaceutical sectors, the EU said, where an acquired company might generate little turnover but holds commercially valuable data or owns products under development that haven’t yet been marketed.

That’s an area of regulatory vacuum, and we can’t have that, now can we?  Besides those data and nascent products represent action on which the EU wants its vig.

Restricting Supply or Demand?

Posted on by
Reply

Only in a centrally planned economy would either be tried, much less both on the same item.

Seventeen Chinese cities have imposed restrictions on buying real estate in the past week as China’s leadership tries to cool a home-purchasing frenzy that is sending prices soaring.

These restrictions come with the justification that demand is too high—there’s too much money running in—for the supply of housing that’s actually available.  And, in addition to increasing the down payment required to get into a house (which should be a bank decision, not a government one (except that the PRC’s banks are controlled by governments at various levels of the hierarchy)), the government is requiring that

families who have two or more properties [are barred] from taking out mortgages and buying more.

By restricting demand in this way, the government also is restricting the supply.  While it’s true that capital projects—house and apartment building, in this case—take more time to come to fruition than money takes to come into the demand side, this artificial restriction on demand eliminates incentive to supply.

The PRC is ignoring the fact that, in a properly free market, supply and demand do a fine job of restricting each other—and at prices satisfactory to both suppliers and demanders.