Tag Archives: regulation

Too Far

Posted on by
Reply

In New York,

Instead of handing patients slips of paper, physicians soon must electronically send orders directly to pharmacies for everything from antibiotics to cholesterol pills to painkillers, with some exceptions. Otherwise, prescribers face the possibility of fines, license loss or even jail.

Because New York’s Know Betters know better.

However.

Digital prescribing thwarts prescription-slip forgery and theft….

They also expose the patient, the doctor, and the pharmacy to hacking.  Sort of like an IRS or an OMB hack we all know and love.

There are other downsides.

Patients, for instance, could accidentally have prescriptions sent to the wrong pharmacy or to one that has closed or out of stock by the time they arrive. Instead of taking a piece of paper to another pharmacy, patients have to get the doctor to re-issue the prescription or the pharmacy to transfer it.

It’s also harder for patients to shop around for medication deals when a script is in a pharmacy’s system instead of in hand, says Dr. Joseph R. Maldonado, president of the Medical Society of the State of New York.

And there’s the business of government meddling in a private enterprise’s internal affairs and here interfering with a doctor-patient admin function.

No matter how well intentioned, government cannot be allowed into a private business’ concerns.  New York still is being a nanny state.

Federally Mandated Wages

Posted on by
Reply

Here’s another fiasco-in-waiting being manufactured by the Progressive-Democrat Party and its leader, President Barack Obama.

The Obama administration has advanced to the final stages a contentious rule that will make millions more Americans eligible for overtime pay….

The Labor Department sent its final version of the overtime-pay regulation to the White House Office of Management and Budget on Monday for review, according to an administration official.

This rule will force employers to pay overtime for hours worked beyond 40 in a week to salaried workers whose annual basic salary is $50,440 or less—an increase of more than 200%.

As any grade schooler who’s on an allowance knows, when the price of something goes up, the grade schooler buys less of that thing.  When the price of labor goes up….

This government interference in the private economy will have two effects: salaried employees who used to put in the overtime now will be barred from that—to the overall detriment of the company’s productivity and so competitiveness, and from that to the detriment of the jobs of that company.

Alternatively, the company, in an effort to maintain company-level productivity, will suck up and pay the overtime.  This will drive up the cost of the company’s products, reduce the funding available for R&D, and from that harm the competitiveness of the company to the detriment of the jobs at that company.

Alternatively, the company will hire fewer workers, replace fewer workers who depart for any of a variety of reasons, to the detriment of employment generally.

These folks of the Left know that; they’re some of the smartest people around, as they assure us.  But, hey—union votes.

Central Management

Posted on by
Reply

China is having a harder time managing a property market that is diverging, the country’s housing minister said Tuesday.

“The differences are severe, and it is worsening,” Chen Zhenggao said at a news conference on the sidelines of the National People’s Congress on Tuesday.  “The situation in the first-tier cities and the third- and fourth-tier cities are different, which brings about challenges to our regulatory work, and is a major issue.”

[emphasis added]  And this:

“This is a trade-off,” said Rosealea Yao, an analyst at Gavekal Dragonomics.  “On one hand, you want rural workers to buy homes,” she said.  “But there is a need to prop up housing prices because Chinese people only buy homes when prices are rising.  Inadvertently, this then fuels sharp gains in home prices in first-tier cities.”

There’s a hint there about the utility of managing a large, complex economy from a center that’s far distant from that economy.  Maybe, just maybe, the PRC should lay off from those one-size-fits-all rules.  Or even lay off from regulating so much at all.

Of course, that would mean a lessening of personal power for the men of the PRC government….

Another Reason

Posted on by
Reply

…to reduce investments in the PRC: it’s getting harder to get the money back out, this time from foreign exchange controls designed to be limits on how much money in yuan can be exchanged for other currencies, like the US dollar, the British pound, and the Japanese yen.

China’s foreign-exchange regulator in recent months has deployed a new system to monitor individual purchases of foreign funds and has asked banks to reduce foreign-currency transactions. It has summoned bankers to its offices to give guidance and has grilled them when foreign-exchange activity spikes, according to executives at Chinese and foreign lenders.

Nice little bank you got there….

But it’s more than just threats; the government controls are having material impacts on business’ ability to do straight-up cross border business.

A European chemicals manufacturer recently faced delays in Shanghai in obtaining US dollars, threatening its deadline for an overseas licensing payment. The Bank of Tianjin is having trouble getting funds from mainland investors for a planned Hong Kong public stock offering. A water-treatment company struggled to withdraw $2,000 for an engineer to travel to the US.

And

[Hong Kong law firm Harvey Law Corp Managing Partner—Worldwide, Jean Francois] Harvey said a Chinese client is having problems wiring $15 million to a Hong Kong company that for two years has been helping it buy equipment for a South American factory. “There’s no indication that the money will go through,” he said, “and we heard from our client that it was due to restrictions on money transfer.”

It goes on from there.

Stability vs Prosperity and Sovereignty

Posted on by
Reply

It appears that Mark Carney, Bank of England Governor, prefers stability at the expense of British prosperity and national sovereignty. He said last Tuesday that

uncertainty surrounding the outcome of the coming referendum on Britain’s future in Europe is already being felt in financial markets, and that a vote in favor of leaving could cause a short-term hit to the wider economy.

A possible departure represents “the biggest domestic risk to financial stability,” Mr. Carney said, with potential consequences for Britain’s balance of payments with the rest of the world, its housing market, foreign investment and its banks.

“It is a risk to domestic financial stability, and it has some potential to amplify pre-existing risks to financial stability[.]”

Of course things will be turbulent during the transition from EU member, subject to lots of EU regulation that runs contrary to British law or what the Brits would prefer to be British law (things like being required to spend British taxpayer money as benefits to non-citizens and to non-citizen family members not even resident in Great Britain—Prime Minister David Cameron’s tentative agreement with the EU is only a temporary measure).

Don’t want the uncertainty of the outcome of the referendum? Then Carney should get behind the exit and reduce the uncertainty.

What would the British get from leaving the EU? Quite a lot. London’s financial district would be free to operate on free market principles, not EU rules. Great Britain’s tax laws would be set according to what’s good for Brits and British business and for attracting foreign businesses and investment, not according to protecting precious continental jurisdictions from the evils of tax competition. Great Britain’s private enterprises would be free to operate in accordance with British law and not EU regulation.

What would the British lose from leaving the EU? Those impediments. Not much else.

Staying in the EU would provide a strong measure of economic stability; those rules are established and well understood. But that stability is only intermediate; the EU will dissolve in the foreseeable future. The current refugee flow crisis is not the threat, though, for all the press it’s getting. No, the threat is exactly what the British would be avoiding if they succeed in leaving: economic dissolution. That threat was made manifest by the Panic of 2008 and emphasized by the Greek default crisis. These exposed the utterly differing and irreconcilable economic philosophies of the constituent members.

The transition ensuing from that dissolution will be far more destructive than any sneezes from a Brexit in the next couple of years.