moldybluecheesecurds 2

Showing posts with label regulation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label regulation. Show all posts

Monday, June 01, 2009

The financial crisis, nutured in the early 1980s

Op-Ed Columnist - Reagan Did It - NYTimes.com:

Paul Krugman finds the financial policies early in the Reagan Administration - the loosening of mortgage restrictions in the 1982 Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act - started laying the groundwork for shifting America from a nation of savers to debtors.

"the prime villains behind the mess we’re in were Reagan and his circle of advisers — men who forgot the lessons of America’s last great financial crisis, and condemned the rest of us to repeat it."

Friday, March 27, 2009

Two fixes for Wall Street: regulation and...regulation

With the AIG bonuses "scandal" so recently in the news, it's an insightful analysis that finds that tighter regulation of Wall Street may be the preventive medicine for the next credit crunch, but also the solution for inflated pay.  The findings?  The more regulation of Wall Street (and the fewer ways to "beat the system"), the more moderate the pay.

Monday, March 16, 2009

Bacon, killing you without clogging your arteries

No, this isn't an article on the nutritional "benefits" of bacon.  It's a note that we use some of our best tools in modern medicine to protect pigs, at the expense of humans

Heard of MRSA (methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus)?  It's gaining ground because pigs are being given antibiotics and end up harboring the resistant bacteria. 

It's not just bacon that trumps human use of antibiotics.  It's beef.  And a study in Australia a few years back found that prohibiting the prophylactic use of such drugs in livestock improves the chances that these bacteria can be treated in humans

So stop giving methicillin to my food.  Save it for me.

Wednesday, December 10, 2008

Capitalism's quote of the day

A financial writer was trying to track down the source of the financial crisis, from greedy loan marketers to failures at rating agencies overseeing complex "collateralized debt obligations" (CDOs), and heard this from a hedge fund manager that had seen the problems early:
[Eisman, hedge fund manager]: ‘Where are the rating agencies in all of this? And I’d always get the same reaction. It was a smirk.’ He called Standard & Poor’s and asked what would happen to default rates if real estate prices fell. The man at S.& P. couldn’t say; its model for home prices had no ability to accept a negative number. ‘They were just assuming home prices would keep going up,’ Eisman says.” [emphasis mine]
These are the guardians of our markets.  

Friday, June 13, 2008

Bring back the socialists

Paul Krugman has a column today on food regulation, and how we need to get back to the socialism of real food and drug regulation. He notes that a number of powerful, vociferous, and neolithic conservatives have tried to beat back effective regulation of the American food supply, leading to recent scares over American beef, spinach, tomatoes, peanut butter (and let's not forget things like lead toys).

Thus, when Grover Norquist, the anti-tax advocate, was asked about his ultimate goal, he replied that he wanted a restoration of the way America was “up until Teddy Roosevelt, when the socialists took over. The income tax, the death tax, regulation, all that.” (emphasis mine)
Republican Congresses have steadily cut FDA funding and, with it, oversight.

Perhaps even more important, however, was the systematic appointment of foxes to guard henhouses.

Thus, when mad cow disease was detected in the U.S. in 2003, the Department of Agriculture was headed by Ann M. Veneman, a former food-industry lobbyist. And the department’s response to the crisis — which amounted to consistently downplaying the threat and rejecting calls for more extensive testing — seemed driven by the industry’s agenda.

As Krugman says, let's bring back the socialists.

Monday, March 24, 2008

Bush administration cut red tape, and safety lines

Many people act as thought the subprime mortgage crisis and Bear Stearns collapse were inevitable motions of the "invisible hand." But the truth is that regulators deliberately turned their backs on the problem, touting the reduction of onerous regulation.

Nice work, fellas. Some Scotch tape is in the mail for all those regs you slashed.

Wednesday, July 25, 2007

Politics trumps science (again)

President Bush's executive order 13422 (pdf) took effect yesterday, guaranteeing that political appointees of government agencies will have final say over government regulations. The implications are widespread. This analysis from an environmental law firm notes that the executive order also requires that agencies identify the "specific market failure" that their regulation addresses. In other words, the review by a political appointee will have the potential to derail health and safety regulations, even if the best science has found them necessary or in the public interest.

January 2009 can't come quickly enough.

Wednesday, May 16, 2007

Case in point: industry capture

Industry capture is a political term used to describe a regulatory agency that has been "captured" by the regulated industry. For example, the current Secretary of the Interior, Gale Norton, previously worked as a lobbyist for the mining industry.

The Bush Administration is going to continue its tradition of industry capture, putting a senior lobbyist from the National Association of Manufacturers in charge of the Consumer Product Safety Commission. From the NY Times article:
A senior lobbyist at the National Association of Manufacturers nominated by President Bush to lead the Consumer Product Safety Commission will receive a $150,000 departing payment from the association when he takes his new government job, which involves enforcing consumer laws against members of the association...

...As a major trade organization for the largest companies in the country, the National Association of Manufacturers often has issues before the Consumer Product Safety Commission. It recently prevailed on the agency, for instance, to relax the requirements for when companies must notify the agency about defective products.
Yeah, he's going to be all about consumer safety, this one.

Tuesday, May 15, 2007

The bandwagon nearly full, President Bush hops on

In a reversal of his long-expressed belief that the federal government's Environmental Protection Agency lacked the authority to regulate carbon emissions, and on the heels of a Supreme Court decision explicitly overruling him, President Bush has hopped on the carbon regulation bandwagon.
President Bush yesterday ordered the Environmental Protection Agency and three other federal departments to write new regulations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles and trucks, reversing his position that the federal government lacks the authority to mandate changes to curb one of the chief causes of global warming.
The turnaround is somewhat surprising, given Bush's slow conversion to fact-based theories on climate change. And yet, I've been baffled by the President's rationale for holding out so long. Since when has President Bush said he lacks the authority to do anything?*

*Note: see warrantless wiretapping, suspending habeus corpus, or condoning torture.

In international trade, food safety counts against you

Following up on my recent coverage of food safety, I saw another article this week discussing food safety in trade relations.
“The US has the most comprehensive regulations of anywhere in the world when it comes to consumable products…understandably there is a cost associated with that. It doesn’t come free….But it is a lot less expensive that the price we are paying now due to a product that has been brought into this country with questionable safety and integrity.”

Strangely enough, when it comes to trade negotiations, those safety regulations and food inspection services count against the US. For you see, inspection services that are a part of a system of “control of quality and safety of food, agricultural inputs, and the environment” are a part of the over $300 billion in farm subsidies that, according to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), industrialized countries pay to their farmers.
Food safety is considered a farm subsidy? Who are they kidding? It's an additional cost to farmers - a price consumers are willing to pay to keep melamine and other adulterated substances out of their food.

Whatever. Anything for a cheaper loaf of bread, eh?

Monday, May 14, 2007

Should revised mpg mean a revised CAFE standard?

The Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standard for American vehicles has required that each car manufacturer reach an average fuel economy standard for their fleet of vehicles: 27.5 mpg for cars, 22.2 mpg for light trucks. However, you may have noticed recent news about the EPA having overestimated - for some cars, drastically - the average fuel economy of the nation's vehicles.

Apparently, there are three different fuel economy figures. From the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA):
[There are] three different sets of fuel economy values- NHTSA’s CAFE values, EPA’s unadjusted dynamometer values, and EPA’s adjusted on-road values:
  • NHTSA’s CAFE values are used to determine manufacturers’ compliance with the applicable average fuel economy standards
  • The EPA's unadjusted dynamometer values are calculated from the emissions generated during the testing using a carbon balance equation. EPA knows the amount of carbon in the fuel, so by measuring the carbon compounds expelled in the exhaust they can calculate the fuel economy.
  • EPA’s adjusted on-road values are those values listed in the Fuel Economy Guide and on new vehicle labels, adjusted to account for the in-use shortfall of EPA dynamometer test values. (formatting mine)
The NHTSA values are the law for the manufacturer, but the manufacturer's fuel economy average is computed via one of two methods:
EPA is responsible for calculating the average fuel economy for each manufacturer. CAFE certification is done either one of two ways: 1) The manufacturer provides its own fuel economy test data, or 2) the EPA will obtain a vehicle and test it...using the same laboratory test that they use to measure exhaust emissions (fuel economy standard #2 from above).
This laboratory test has always been modified down to better mirror real world fuel economy (#3), so the CAFE standard has apparently been overestimating actual average fuel economy of the American fleet for years.

Bring that story up to date with this fact: the EPA estimate of on-road fuel economy has also been overestimating mpg for American cars, by as much as 50% (link discusses hybrids, but the overestimate applies to all vehicles). So, to summarize:

Actual fuel economy <>

If conserving fuel means saving fuel in the tank, not just on paper, then we need a CAFE test and a CAFE standard based on reality.

Tuesday, May 08, 2007

What's in your food?

The recent taint in pet food caused by the chemical melamine raises some interesting questions about the American food supply. With more raw materials and ingredients coming from overseas, how do we know what's safe?

The pet food scare was caused by an apparently common Chinese practice of putting melanine in animal feed to mimic an increase in protein. The melanine has no nutritional value itself, but it does increase the nitrogen level in feed which is used as a proxy for protein when the food is tested for quality. In other words, it's cheating. In no sense of the word could melanine be considered food:
Wikipedia: Melamine is...combined with formaldehyde to produce melamine resin, a very durable thermosetting plastic, and of melamine foam, a polymeric cleaning product. The end products include countertops, fabrics, glues and flame retardants.
Problems with contaminated feed aren't the only danger. Adulterated Chinese chemicals being used in pharmaceuticals caused several dozen deaths in Panama when the materials were used in cough syrup. The Chinese manufacturers, interested in boosting the bottom line, first replaced pharmaceutical quality glycerin - a sugar alcohol - with industrial grade material - used in smokeless gunpowder and as a lubricant - and then substituted another chemical entirely. The substitute, diethylene glycol, is not intended for human consumption:
The syrupy poison, diethylene glycol, is an indispensable part of the modern world, an industrial solvent and prime ingredient in some antifreeze.
The behavior of the Chinese manufacturers mimics that of American food processors a hundred years ago, before Upton Sinclair's The Jungle generated momentum for the Pure Food and Drug Act and the beginning of government safeguards over the food supply. The challenge now is that these regulations govern American made products and do not sufficiently shield Americans from adulterated substances produced overseas:
The tainted ingredients were not caught at the borders because with the growing volume of food and food ingredient imports, only 1 to 2 percent of these imports are inspected, let alone tested for foreign matter like melamine. (emphasis mine)
Not only does the Food and Drug Administration inspect far fewer imports (1%) than the USDA does meat imports (16%), the FDA lacks another crucial safeguard:
The FDA also doesn't require that exporting countries have safety systems equivalent to those in the USA. The USDA does that for countries that export meat and poultry, and the Government Accountability Office — the investigative arm of Congress — has said for at least a decade that the FDA should, too.
In addition, the FDA has actually reduced its inspection of foreign foods in recent years as it has cut back on inspection staff. This despite evidence that imports probably need inspection more than domestic food:
A 2003 FDA study found pesticide violations in 6.1% of imported foods sampled vs. 2.4% of domestic foods. It has not been updated. Several years earlier, the FDA found salmonella and shigella, which can cause dysentery, in 4% of imported fruits and vegetables vs. 1.1% of domestic products.
If you think the FDA should consider doing a bit more to ensure food safety, write your representative or your senator. You can also learn more about food safety from the folks at Kansas State University, who tell you: "don't eat poop."

Monday, March 12, 2007

Why carbon "offsets" aren't the answer to global warming

David Morris of the Minneapolis-based Institute for Local Self-Reliance writes on the increasing interest in carbon offsets - essentially paying someone else to reduce carbon emissions that you generate. In examining the role of other pollution-reduction techniques and the results of some of the early carbon trading schemes, Morris concludes that:
  • Buying carbon offsets is like buying indulgences for sins - it just makes people feel good. In particular, the monitoring of offset programs is so lax there's no way to know if emissions are truly offset
  • A global carbon offset market discourages people from taking responsibility for the local impacts of their behavior. Local offsets, on the other hand, mean that polluters have to do something in their community to improve their climate impact.
  • A cap and trade market seems very capitalist and efficient, but evidence shows that good old regulation or a carbon tax could reduce climate change emissions far faster than a market mechanism. (Note: the much heralded success of the US-based sulfur dioxide cap and trade market owes much to the cost estimates of the polluters that proved to be massively inflated.)
Morris envisions a more stringent and accountable carbon reduction regime, where carbon emitters have to actually reduce their own emissions or offset them within their local community and where polluters can't simply buy a cleaner conscience on a world market.

I think a smaller-scale cap and trade (e.g. local offsets) could prove very effective, but only if the policy is set at a national scale and it sets stringent carbon reductions (no generous baselines, please).

Thursday, November 09, 2006

Fewer signals make safer roads?

A seven-year experiment in a Dutch town has removed nearly all traffic signs and lights from the roadways. The theory was that fatalities and injuries from car-pedestrian or car-bicycle collisions are due to drivers' sense of entitlement to the pavement, enhanced by having a green light.

The result of the light removal is that there have been no fatalities and that drivers use greater care. Apparently, people can actually get around town faster this way, as well.
These transportation research folks and road engineers basically argue that we'll have greater safety and less pollution by letting traffic self-regulate (a la sidewalks).

Note: I didn't have time to dig deeper, but the source of these theories is the British-based Institute for Economic Affairs, and they seem rather libertarian (surprise!).