Tag Archives: regulation

Lies of Government

Posted on by
Reply

Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast—ADS-B Out—is an aviation safety aircraft transponder system that broadcasts, via satellite, an airplane’s location, altitude, speed, and identification number so that the FAA’s air traffic controllers can more readily track the airplane and its physical relationship with other aircraft in the vicinity. It’s an expensive addition to aircraft that was inflicted on sold to general aviation pilots on the government’s promise that the system would be used only for aviation safety and for no other government purpose.

The lie:

ADS-B gave them [government taxmen] an instant high-tech snoop tool, including the ability to claim owners are registering planes in one place but parking them elsewhere. Jeff Prang, the assessor for Los Angeles County, recently bragged to Politico that the county is using ADS-B to take the tax hammer to owners of 1,000 planes it claims have been “avoiding” “$35 million in local property taxes.”

Now we get ADS-B In, proposed in House and Senate bills, which allows pilots to see for themselves the aircraft around them.

House Republicans…used the revival of the [ADS-B] issue to remedy the original tax sin, forbidding any government agency from using ADS-B “for the purpose of obtaining revenue.”

And we get the response from the Left:

[S]afety means little to the tax officials wailing that they will lose this new “efficient” way to tax—as if Americans are obligated to make their jobs easy. It also means little to Democrats, who see a new front in the class war

It’s more than just petty taxman convenience, though. According to them, the money an employer pays an employee isn’t that employee’s money. It belongs to the government; the employee is merely a middleman on that road. Or, as that LA tax assessor implied, a highwayman needing handling.

Notice that it’s Progressive-Democratic Party politicians who are defending ADS-B Out’s use as a tax collection facility and who are demanding to use ADS-B In for the same purpose.

Trade-Through Elimination

Posted on by
Reply

The SEC’s trade rule, in effect for a bit over 20 years, requires trading platforms operating in the US to execute investors’ trades at the best price available across the market, even if that means one platform must go to another platform to execute the trade. The SEC wants to rescind that rule as no longer necessary. The SEC says,

Currently, the US equity markets are highly automated and interconnected and the Commission’s concerns expressed at the time of [the rule’s] adoption in 2005 regarding the lack of mechanisms to connect markets is no longer an issue[.]

The SEC now argues that (as paraphrased by The Wall Street Journal)

stockbrokers already have a strict legal duty to execute trades with the most favorable terms for their clients, making the trade-through rule superfluous.

The exchanges’ “legal duty” is all well and good, but then there are the enforcement costs for violations of that rule. These costs are incurred by the government (i.e., us taxpayers) from enforcing compliance with a case’s outcome, incurred by individual (and institutional) investors from raising a ruckus in the first place, and incurred as opportunity costs during the time between detection of a violation and final adjudication.

Then there’s the difficulty of detecting a violation in the first place, especially for retail investors.

The SEC also argues that rule rescission would save the platforms the cost of buy[ing] expensive market data feeds linked to a bevy of exchanges.

Yet, in order to satisfy that legal duty, the platforms still would need access to some version of those data feeds, or at least to the data in them, in order, in real time (which is microseconds in today’s interconnectivity), to identify that best price available.

This is a rule that should remain in effect. The cost to the platforms is trivial: $54.2 million to $77 million annually, compared with nearly $30 billion in aggregated US platform income. Violations of the trade-through rule, importantly, are far more easily detected, including by retail investors.

Yet Another Reason

Posted on by
Reply

The European Union is moving toward passing legislation that would allow it to curb imports of heavily subsidized foreign products. The legislation doesn’t single out any particular nation; although, the Peoples’s Republic of China is infamous for such subsidies.

Those subsidies allow PRC businesses to sell their products at less than their cost of production in order to sell at lower prices than European businesses can due to their own, unsubsidized, costs of production. That allows the PRC to put those businesses out of business and to seize nearly all of the market share. In the aggregate, this cascades into steadily increasing PRC influence over European economies.

Naturally, the PRC wants to continue this domination, so it’s threatening countermeasures if Europe continues with the impudence of defending itself.

Chinese authorities could initiate anti-discrimination and supply-chain security investigations into the EU’s “overcapacity instrument,” a social media account run by China’s state broadcaster said Friday, citing unnamed sources.
If the EU advances the tool, China will take immediate action and deploy comprehensive countermeasures, it added.

Of course, that retaliation wouldn’t matter if Europe’s nations were doing no business with the PRC or with businesses domiciled there.

The PRC keeps providing reasons for discontinuing business with or within it. It’s time for the EU and for Europe’s nations individually to act on at least some of those reasons, for their own economic survival.

The Pope’s Encyclical

Posted on by
Reply

The Wall Street Journal‘s editors are amused by the press’ response to Pope Leo XIV’s writ that warns of the dangers that Artificial Intelligence presents to the humanity of us all.

I’m amused by the Pope’s naïveté. He wrote this (as cited by the editors), for instance:

Some of what he writes is hard to dispute, such as that AI has “harmful uses, such as the manipulation of information or violations of privacy.”

So do the printing press and reporters since that machine’s invention engage in the harm of manipulating information—what they choose to write, what they choose to not write, how they choose to present either. So do the reporters, specifically, with the means they use to snoop out what they choose then to write about.

And

“There is also a subtler danger,” he writes, of AI “reflecting and reinforcing the stereotypes or ideological bias of their designers and developers.”

“Subtler dangers?” That’s the press and reporters here, too. Reporters today only write consistently with their preconceived notions and/or those of their employers, the press’ collection of editors and publishers. Particular stereotypes are blithely peddled where they support those preconceived notions or contradict the obviously wrong notions of those whom they oppose.

The Pope is on firm ground when he advises the flock—and the rest of us—on morality and the role of God in our lives. However, if he’s going to move from the general of morals and God’s Word to specifics like the tools we use, he would do well to at least be consistent. AI is in many respects, if not most, simply an extension of the printing press, the press industry, and reporters in the arena of information generation and dissemination.

Throw Money at it

Posted on by
Reply

The letter-writer seems to be writing from the Left. Opening with Praise for Ohio’s Republican candidate for Governor Vivek Ramaswamy’s proposal for attacking Medicaid fraud, he quickly pivoted.

States need more funds to address fraud….

How typical.

No, States do not need more funds to combat and drastically reduce, much less “address,” fraud. Were States actually to get serious about combatting and reducing Medicaid, they’d uncover 10s of millions, if not billions, of dollars of fraud, and they’d recover significant percentages of those dollars. Those dollars then could feed back into the program to help keep Medicaid fraud down to an absolute minimum.

To address the problem for long-term of vastly reduced fraud and commensurate reduced fraud recovery funds, States need only to reallocate existing spending. They most assuredly do not need more money blindly and blithely tossed over the transom at the problem.