Groundhog Day
The EU says it wants to "simplify" (not deregulate because that's a bad word), but does anyone believe them?
EU declaring war on bureaucracy — again
Regulations in the EU act as a barrier to competition undoing the purpose of the EU. It’s like standing on the accelerator and the brakes at the same time.
Is it reasonable to think that pressure from the US is bringing this newfound initiative?
Will it succeed?
‘A compass is essential for orientating, particularly when lost. And the Competitiveness Compass — the "north star" of the new EU Commission — signals a new push for simplification, or what many fear is another name for a push for deregulation.
‘The EU single market is seen as the crown jewel of the European Union, yet fragmented legislation, and complex compliance, burdens businesses, especially SMEs — which make up 99 percent of European firms and often lack the resources to keep up.’
Myriad hues of the bureaucracy
Indian author has a tendentious description of bureaucrats.
Interestingly, you can replace the word “bureaucrat” with the word “narcissist” in the elegy below and it would make total sense.
‘An incorrigible bureaucrat desperately needs sycophants who sing paeans to him, his family and his dog. An ego massage every now and then keeps him in a good humour. It is also important for him to maintain an equilibrium, or rather ‘equilickbrium’, in the pecking order. He has no qualms about licking the boots of his superiors or ministers so as to stay in their good books and win favours. The ‘hardly working’ public servant does a lot of hard work to please his bosses. He is capable of changing colours like a chameleon, depending on which way the political wind is blowing. In public service, it’s not principles that count, but wealth, power and influence. Principles are brushed aside with a simple ‘yes sir’, accompanied by a slavish grin.
‘After retirement, a bureaucrat longs for the praise of his former subordinates. He is gripped by nostalgia as he recalls the halcyon days when he had a coterie of yes-men. What he conveniently forgets is how he and his tribe have shackled this free country by their sheer selfishness and unscrupulousness.’
Bureaucracy-busting is Reeve's next move to boost house building
Environmental regulations are a luxury, UK edition.
Chancellor wants to encourage new housing. One way is to reverse, even partially, onerous environmental rules.
‘Reeves acknowledged the frustrations of developers and property professionals due to slow and restrictive planning regulations. She committed to liberalising planning laws through the new Planning and Infrastructure Bill which is being prepared. A key aim is to reduce delays caused by judicial reviews and environmental objections, often seen as barriers to progress.
‘One of the most controversial aspects of the speech was her stance on environmental regulations, particularly those protecting species such as bats and newts. Reeves told developers that constraints that hold up projects will be eased while maintaining appropriate environmental protections. However, this approach may attract criticism from environmental groups concerned about the impact of development on biodiversity.’
Federal tech grant recipients sweat future amid ongoing uncertainty
We’re about to find out how much federal money goes to non-governmental organizations.
‘Some grant recipients warned that cutting federal funds could dramatically undermine their missions, although they pledged to carry on their work. The CHIPS and Science Act, which passed in 2022 and looks to boost the nation’s semiconductor industry, designated 31 communities as tech and innovation hubs in 2023 through the Economic Development Administration at the Department of Commerce.
‘Those hubs serve as regional centers “primed for technological innovation and job creation,” EDA said at the time, and focus on specific areas of science and technology. Typically, they are supported by a consortia of public sector agencies, the private sector, academia, philanthropy and other organizations.
‘They receive federal funding to help with various projects and initiatives, including workforce development, research and technology production, with a view to strengthening the country’s economic competitiveness and national security while accelerating the growth of key industries.’
Post-Chevron DOGE: Is This the End of Federal Regulation?
Article suggests that the ratchet now turns the other way.
Before Loper: it was easy to add regulations, but practically impossible to remove them.
After Loper: it’s easy to remove regulations, but practically impossible to add new ones.
It’s a theory anyway. I suspect that removing rules may be more difficult than they anticipate and that we’ve just entered an era of volatile regulation.
Tastes Great enters office and signs a bunch of Executive Orders. Less Filling wins the next election and signs a new set of EOs, undoing those of Taste Great.
Rinse and repeat.
‘The decision sends a clear message: Congress must take responsibility for specificity for an agency to make regulations under an act. But in a legislature marked by partisanship and inertia, even with the Republicans controlling both chambers of Congress, this clarity may be more aspiration than reality.’
U.S. Crypto Regulation: Key Developments in Trump's First Week
Movement in crypto land.
‘On January 21, acting SEC Chair Mark Uyeda launched a crypto task force focused on clarifying the regulatory framework around crypto assets.1 On January 23, the SEC released Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 122 (“SAB 122”), rescinding the controversial Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 121 (“SAB 121”).2 SAB 121 required an entity safeguarding crypto assets for customers to present a liability on its balance sheet to reflect its safeguarding obligation. On the same day, President Trump signed an executive order to establish regulatory clarity for digital financial technology, which created a “Presidential Working Group on Digital Asset Markets” to review existing regulations applicable to crypto assets and banned federal agencies from creating or supporting central bank digital currencies.’
Will AI Regulation “Avoid Past Mistakes” or Just Make Different Ones?
Generals always fight the last war.
You’ve got to give the regulators credit.
AI is changing so rapidly that nobody can say with certainty what it will look like in the future. Yet, regulators with the Curse of Certainty move forward nonetheless, confident that it will be like social media.
Okay, Boomer.
‘When artificial intelligence (AI) entered the cultural zeitgeist with the proliferation of generative AI, and particularly with the introduction of ChatGPT in 2022, many policymakers and tech critics began to argue that the United States should learn from social media. The argument goes: The federal government did not do “enough” to regulate social media when the technology was in its infancy, leading to various real or perceived harms. In order to avoid the potential harms that could come from AI, the federal government needs to regulate now instead of waiting to see what effect AI actually has on society.’
Is AI Moving Too Fast or Is Regulation?
Ai is being made to pay the price for what regulators and policymakers see as the sins of social media.
If it hits US technological leadership, then so be it.
Although, nobody seemed to question this positioning until DeepSeek.
Will DeepSeek lead to easier AI regulation?
‘The amount of proposed legislation aimed at AI is staggering. Multistate.ai, a government relations company tracking AI legislation, identified 636 state bills in 2024. It’s not even February and there are already 444 state-level bills pending.
‘Legislators are trying to get ahead of AI by passing bills. It’s an effort to right the wrong of supposedly taking a hands-off approach to social media regulation. Although I’ve always been skeptical of this simple narrative, the result has been a lot of ill-conceived AI bills. ‘
Are tariffs Big Tech’s new tool against EU regulation?
Don’t hate the player. Hate the game.
To the extent that regulations exist as a restraint of trade for an EU that can’t compete when it comes to technology, is there an argument that tariffs make the most sense?
It’s an interesting argument and it exposes linkages between regulation, competitiveness, and trade, at the very least.
‘The alignment of Big Tech’s aims with the Trump administration’s tariff approach suggests a potential shift in U.S. policy, utilizing tariffs to challenge the EU’s regulatory framework and safeguard American digital companies from perceived European overreach.’