CEI’s Battered Business Bureau: The Week in Regulation


Just another week in the world of regulation:

  • 77 new final rules were published last week, up from 76 the previous week. That’s the equivalent of a new regulation every 2 hours and 11 minutes, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. All in all, 953 final rules have been published in the Federal Register this year. If this keeps up, the total tally for 2012 will be 3,596 new rules.
  • 1464 new pages were added to the 2012 Federal Register last week, for a total of 20,951 pages. At this pace, the 2012 Federal Register will run 78,176 pages.
  • Rules are called “economically significant” if they have costs of $100 million or more in a given year. The 15 such rules published so far in 2012 cost at least $15.2 billion. Two of the rules do not have cost estimates, and a third cost estimate does not give a total annual cost. We assume that rules lacking this basic transparency measure cost the bare minimum of $100 million per year. The true cost is almost certainly higher.
  • No economically significant rules were published last week. There were 11 significant actions last week, as defined by Executive Order 12866. So far, 118 significant final rules have been published in 2012.
  • 17 of this week’s final rules affect small business. So far this year, 182 final rules affect small businesses. 29 of them are significant rules.

Highlights from final rules published this week:

  • A new Dodd-Frank-inspired rule regulating swap dealers could potentially be very expensive. Between paperwork, recordkeeping, and buying new phone systems that will record all transaction-related calls, it could add up to a very large cost. But, “Based on the available data, the Commission has been unable to reliably quantify the cost of compliance with the recordkeeping rules.” Independent commenters have given estimates ranging from $75 million to $500 million. The rule is not classified as economically significant.
  • The FAA has jurisdiction over commercial space travel regulation. Historically, the legal basis for this was in Title 49, chapter 701 of the U.S. Code, or 49 U.S.C. chapter 701 in the official format. In 2010, Congress pulled a switcheroo and moved it to 51 U.S.C. chapter 509. Confusion reigned. Fortunately, a new FAA rule published on Thursday clears things up and corrects obsolete citations in the Code of Federal Regulations.
  • Federal prisoners have always been allowed to publish. But regulations prohibited them from doing so with a byline. The fear was that they might profit from their crimes or become famous, and thus a security risk. On Tuesday, the Bureau of Prisons published a rule repealing that regulation. It becomes effective on May 3. The change is the result of a 2007 lawsuit. Mark Jordan, a convicted murderer, published several articles about prison life in Off! Magazine under his own name. He was punished, and successfully sued.

For more data, updated daily, go to TenThousandCommandments.com.

Regulation Roundup

It’s time for another fresh batch of weird regulations:

Today is Opening Day


At least it is for my Brewers. The A’s and Mariners played two games in Japan last week, Miami and St. Louis christened the Marlins’ new stadium on Wednesday, and a good chunk of the league began the season yesterday. Today, the Brewers and the other remaining teams get their start.

They open up at home against the defending World Series champion St. Louis Cardinals (1-0). That championship came at Milwaukee’s expense, in a heartbreaking repeat of 1982. So the rivalry is a little more intense than it was this time last year, even though Tony LaRussa, Albert Pujols, and Prince Fielder have all moved on.

By my calculations from Wikipedia’s handy formula, I put the Brewers’ magic number to clinch their division at 163. Any combination of Brewer wins and Cardinal losses adding up to 163 makes the Brewers NL Central champs.

It is far, far too early to be calculating this kind of thing, but that’s precisely why it’s so much fun. This blog will be keeping an eye on the magic number throughout the season.

CEI Podcast for April 5, 2012: The Export-Import Bank


Have a listen here.

Every year, Washington spends more than $90 billion on corporate welfare – giving taxpayer dollars to private businesses. The Export-Import Bank is one of the most flagrant corporate welfare programs. A vote to reauthorize it recently failed both Houses of Congress, but will likely come up again soon. Vice President for Strategy Iain Murray thinks the Export-Import Bank should become an ex-bank.

Public Choice: A Primer


The good folks at the London-based Institute for Economic Affairs have just released an excellent book by Eammon Butler, Public Choice: A Primer. You can order a copy or download a free PDF version at this link. Public choice is essentially applying the economic way of thinking to politics; a volume in the collected works ofpublic choice founding father Gordon Tullock is even titled The Economics of Politics.

Most economics is about private decision-making by individuals or firms. Politicians, regulators, and voters make much more public choices, hence the name of the field. Many people think that politicians and regulators are different from other people. Instead of acting selfishly, they act in the public interest. Public choice depends on the controversial claim that people are people; government acts selfishly, too.

Politicians want to be re-elected. Bureaucrats want to enlarge their mission and budget, and to get that next promotion. These very human concerns affect the decisions they make and how they do their jobs. In short, just as there is market failure, there is government failure. That’s why Butler’s new primer should be required reading for everyone who works on Capitol Hill. If it doesn’t cause a wave of resignations, staffers would at least have a more realistic perception of how their colleagues behave, as well as the people who vote for them.

Other good public choice primers include William Mitchell’s Beyond Politics and Gordon Tullock, Arthur Seldon, and Gordon Brady’s Government Failure (free PDF)

Understanding Spontaneous Order

Spontaneous order is one of the most important concepts in the social sciences, and also one of the most maligned. It’s most closely associated with Hayek, but it has roots going back to at least the 18th century English and Scottish Enlightenments. Thinkers like Bernard Mandeville, Edmund Burke, Adam Smith, and David Hume all used some kind of spontaneous order framework. They knew that not every design requires a designer.

Nobody designed languages, for example. They emerge and continually evolve on their own, with nobody deliberately directing the process. The economy is also a spontaneous order, even though most people think it has to be be consciously directed. Nobody is in charge of food distribution for New York or Paris, and yet those great, farmless cities are still fed every day. It’s an everyday miracle if you think about it.

The reason that a lot of non-economists are skeptical or unaware of spontaneous order is that it’s a difficult concept for the human brain to comprehend. We’re not wired to.

Back in our hunter-gatherer days, the traits that evolutionary biologist Michael Shermer calls patternicity and agenticity had a great survival advantage. Find a pattern in everything, and know that some agent is probably behind it. There’s a rustle in the bush. A hungry tiger must be causing that rustle. Run. Hide. Survive.

Even if most rustles are false alarms, people with strong patternicity and agenticity tended to outlive their fellows who didn’t. We are their descendants, and our brains haven’t changed to match our new surroundings.We think that there are patterns and agents behind everything, even though there aren’t, really. We’re still looking for that tiger, but he isn’t there anymore.

To this day, a lot of people think the president runs the economy. His policies do have some effect, but literally he runs very little. The global economy has so many variables, so many nooks and crannies of specialized, dispersed local knowledge, that even if a president were to try and take charge of the economy, he simply couldn’t. The result is that presidents, like quarterbacks, get far too much credit when times are good, and far too much blame when times are bad. Patternicity and agenticity strike again.

Hayek has a well-deserved reputation as a poor prose stylist. But he did come up with a very clear way to explain how spontaneous orders can emerge in everyday life:

The way in which footpaths are formed is such an instance. At first everyone will seek for himself what seems to him the best path.  But the fact that such a path has been used once is likely to make it easier to traverse and therefore more likely to be used again; and thus gradually more and more clearly defined tracks arise and come to be used to the exclusion of other possible ways. Human movements through the region come to conform to a definite pattern which, although the result of deliberate decisions of many people, has yet not been concsiously designed by anyone.

-F.A. Hayek, The Counter-Revolution of Science: Studies on the Abuse of Reason, pp. 70-71.

And when a regulator comes along and tries to design a straighter, more orderly path, the results will rarely be what he intends. In a way, you can blame his hubris on tigers.

Van Jones, Meet Sun Tzu

Sun Tzu’s most famous advice in The Art of War is to know your enemy. Van Jones, in a recent speech excoriating libertarians, proved that he does not.

For one, he believes libertarians are “anti-immigrant, bigots.” He must be unaware that libertarians favor open immigration. This doesn’t bode well for his argument. The Huffington Post‘s Radley Balko tweeted, “Dear Van Jones: I’m a libertarian. I’m for open immigration. You support Obama. Last year, he set the all-time US record for deportations.”

If Jones is pro-immigration, he’ll find a lot to like about the work that libertarian groups like CEI and Cato have been putting out for years (see here, here, and here). And he’ll also be more critical of both parties for their stances on the issue.

He must also not know that you can’t be a libertarian and a bigot at the same time. It’s a logical impossibility. Libertarians are individualists. Bigotry is a crude form of collectivism. Bigots also tend not to favor liberalizing immigration.

Jones also argued that libertarians are homophobic. He must not know that libertarians are strong supporters of gay rights, including gay marriage (see here, here, and here, for starters). People who actually are bigoted against gays, such as Rick Santorum, are in fact openly critical of libertarianism.

Van Jones was never on my radar even when he was regularly in the news; he made it clear early on that he is not a serious thinker. This post marks the first time his name has appeared in this blog. And it will probably be the last. But his errors demand correction, not least because they are so common.

Think about it for a minute. Can you really imagine radical anti-government ideologues arguing for more government control over immigration and marriage? Me neither. This is pretty basic stuff. And he got it dead wrong.

The reason is that Jones has the bad cognitive habit of taking everything he disagrees with and simply giving it the name “libertarian” (or progressive, or conservative; all sides fall for the same fallacy). If Jones wants to argue against libertarianism, he would do much better to argue against positions that libertarians actually take.

The most effective thinkers and activists are the ones who at least try to pass the ideological Turing test. That’s really just a fancy way of saying, as Sun Tzu does, to know your enemy. That Jones has clearly taken no such trouble speaks volumes.

Regulation of the Day 216: Selling Ice Cream to Kids


It can be hard for parents, but they need to tell their kids “no” from time to time. Letting children know that they can’t always get what they want is an important lesson in life. In Brooklyn’s Park Slope neighborhood, not all parents are up to the task.

Across the country, ice cream vendors will stroll through parks in the summer months; they go where ice cream trucks dare not tread. A lot of their sales are to kids. And parents know what happens when you get between a kid and ice cream: screaming, wailing, and gnashing of teeth are only the beginning. It isn’t fun.

That’s why some Park Slope parents want to ban ice cream vendors from parks. One parent wrote on a message board, “I should not have to fight with my children every warm day on the playground just so someone can make a living!”

One sees where her priorities are in these hard economic times.

This being Brooklyn, there is another wrinkle. The New York Post reports:

But Sarah Schenck says just say no to frozen confections.

Schenck, a mother of two and co-founder of the eco-friendly parentearth.com, said statistics back her up.

“Nobody wants to be a crank, but one in three kids are going to be obese or diabetic by high school,” she said. “When my kids see other kids get ice cream, they just start begging me. I just don’t think these are the fights we should be having.”

Most people have more nuanced views than Schenck; everything in moderation and all that. But there are people who think like her, and they are not afraid to use regulation to get their way. We should tell them no.

CEI’s Battered Business Bureau: The Week in Regulation


Just another week in the world of regulation:

  •  76 new final rules were published last week, up from 75 the previous week. That’s the equivalent of a new regulation every 2 hours and 13 minutes, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. All in all, 876 final rules have been published in the Federal Register this year. If this keeps up, the total tally for 2012 will be 3,563 new rules.
  •  2,191 new pages were added to the 2012 Federal Register last week, for a total of 19,487 pages. At this pace, the 2012 Federal Register will run 78,577 pages.
  • Rules are called “economically significant” if they have costs of $100 million or more in a given year. The 15 such rules published so far in 2012 cost at least $15.2 billion. Two of the rules do not have cost estimates, and a third cost estimate does not give a total annual cost. We assume that rules lacking this basic transparency measure cost the bare minimum of $100 million per year. The true cost is almost certainly higher.
  •  There were 18 significant actions this week, as defined by Executive Order 12866. Two of them are economically significant. So far, 112 significant final rules have been published in 2012.
  •  15 of this week’s final rules affect small business. So far this year, 165 final rules affect small businesses. 28 of them are significant rules.

Highlights from final rules published this week:

  • OSHA is revising its standards for hazard communication. The changes include “revised criteria for classification of chemical hazards; revised labeling provisions that include requirements for use of standardized signal words, pictograms, hazard statements, and precautionary statements; a specified format for safety data sheets; and related revisions to definitions of terms used in the standard, and requirements for employee training on labels and safety data sheets.” The estimated annual cost is expected to be $201 million.
  •  Regulations from the health care bill continue to hit the books.  One new rule, which sets standards for health insurance exchanges, is expected to cost $900 million in 2012. The total estimated cost from 2012-2016 is $3.4 billion.
  • The Equal Opportunity Employment Commission has a new rule on “Disparate Impact and Reasonable Factors Other Than Age Under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act

For more data, updated daily, go to TenThousandCommandments.com.

The Surest Way to Win Is Not to Play

There’s been a lot of hubbub in the news lately about an enormous lottery jackpot. My advice to people is to save their money. Don’t play. Suppose you buy up every single possible ticket, guaranteeing a jackpot. Even though you win, you still lose. Lotteries keep about 30 to 35 percent of the proceeds, so you’re guaranteed to lose that much money, plus whatever taxes you pay. That’s why state lotteries have slogans such as “Supporting Virginia’s public schools.”

If you’re still the gambling type, go to a casino. Most of their games only have a 5 to 10 percent built-in house advantage. The government made it illegal for anyone besides the government to conduct a lottery because the house advantage for lotteries is 30 percent or more. It is by far the worst way to gamble.

This is not a new insight. As Adam Smith put it back in 1776 (previously posted here):

There is not, however, a more certain proposition in mathematics, than that the more tickets you adventure upon, the more likely you are to be a loser. Adventure upon all the tickets in the lottery, and you lose for certain; and the greater the number of your tickets the nearer you approach to this certainty.

(Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, 124-25.)