Mr. Bean
Foreign countries should be more worried about the impact de-regulation and de-bureaucratization will have on US competitiveness than tariffs.
The yawning investability gap between US banks and UK peers
Everyone is talking about tariffs, with the ghost of Smoot-Hawley in the room. Maybe, just maybe, the conditions are different this time.
A threat that is just as big to foreign competitors is de-regulation in the US. Imagine running a marathon after a structural change to your diet and exercise regime. Now imagine running that race against a group of fat smokers whose idea of exercise is raising their elbows while binge watching the saucy bits from Bridgerton in the dark.
No wonder the US dollar is bid. It’s because the US is bid.
‘In the name of efficiency, Trump has explicitly promised to “slash” regulations of all kinds. For the banks that is likely to mean not only the elimination of new Basel rules, but also an easier regime for the mergers and acquisitions they advise on and less combative regulators.
‘The contrast with UK banks’ fortunes could not be starker. Already — thanks to their smaller scale and a weaker economy — the valuation of UK banks lagged US peers badly. But some lenders’ shares plunged further last month, after a surprise Court of Appeal decision that judged historic car finance commission payments to be illegal. Close Brothers, a leading operator in the market, has seen its stock almost halve in value since the late October ruling. Shares in Lloyds, Britain’s biggest high street bank and car finance lender, are down more than 10 per cent. (The ratio of Lloyds’ price to the book value of its assets is now just 68 per cent, compared with more than 200 per cent for JPMorgan, the biggest of the US banks.)’
Vivek Ramaswamy Says DOGE Plan For Gov’t Employees Has Bureaucrats ‘In Tears’
Ramaswamy should publish the collective bargaining agreements with a helpful summary of the work rules.
Sunshine is the best disinfectant.
‘“I’m hearing via allies that federal government unions are scrambling to update their collective bargaining agreements to avoid getting fired,” Ramaswamy wrote on X Monday. “The prospect of being asked to return to the office 5 days per week like most working Americans apparently has them ‘in tears.'”’
Is introducing further police bureaucracy really the best use of funding?
Keir Starmer’s instincts seem to be uniformly wrong, focused too much on the cosmetic.
He should Constanza himself and do the opposite of the first thing that comes into his head.
Bureaucracy will improve neither safety nor the public perception of the police.
‘The Government’s decision to create a new Home Office unit to monitor police performance has been criticised by Keith Chambers, chair of Derbyshire Police Federation.
‘Keith has argued that the move is ‘unnecessary’ and has questioned whether it is ‘the best use of Government funding’, given the existing oversight mechanisms and pressing needs within policing.
‘His comments come after Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper announced that the new unit will be used to directly monitor police performance, including in high-priority areas such as tackling violence against women and girls, as well as knife crime and neighbourhood policing.’
'A national trend': School funds allegedly being funnelled into burgeoning bureaucracies
We’ve written previously about disappointing productivity.
It’s easy to understand how people get frustrated when resources are allocated away from line functions to staff functions.
Armies don’t win battles with large headquarters. They win with the quality and concentrated quantity of their frontline troops when led well. Do you really need this kind of administration to lead?
‘Money meant for Australia’s schools is allegedly being diverted to burgeoning bureaucratic structures at the expense of needy students.
‘Despite a federal funding indexation boost, a sizable portion of funds meant for students is flowing elsewhere, with only a fraction of each dollar reaching students in some states.
‘Public school advocates argue that funds are increasingly redirected to expand non-teaching staff and administrative frameworks, leaving core educational needs unmet. In response, public education advocates are demanding transparency, urging governments to direct resources towards students and urgently address inequities they say is favouring wealthy private schools.’
Enough uncertainty, bureaucracy, micromanagement and politicisation - we need a Universities Accord
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
‘Universities also face increased government reporting and oversight on a range of issues from student support to preventing gender-based violence, despite an existing regulatory framework that already addressed these issues. In the absence of better funding, this can only divert more resources from student-facing activities to increased compliance obligations.
‘And while the headline intent of the Accord was to support increased participation and outcomes, particularly for equity students, the funding mechanism to achieve this has yet to be announced. Proposals that were released for consultation earlier this year, however, did not inspire, with further increased bureaucracy and reporting. Realistically, any revised funding mechanism is unlikely to be implemented before 2027 at the earliest.’
The University of Michigan’s DEI Bureaucracy Has Revealed Its Basic Prejudice
Maybe there is a certain amount of prejudice that society tends to sustain, culturally. Replacing racism and sexism (despicable as they are) with anti-conservative bias is, for some, just the cost of doing business.
I didn’t have the University of Michigan accusing the New York Times (!) of sexism and racism. But one does what one must, I suppose.
‘The New York Times Magazine just ran a lengthy profile of DEI efforts at the University of Michigan and discovered that, despite an enormous investment, the campus has “become less inclusive”, that “students and faculty members reported a less positive campus climate”, and that “students were less likely to interact with people of a different race or religion or with different politics”.
‘Rather than take stock of these failures, Tabbye Chavous, Michigan’s Vice Provost for Equity & Inclusion and Chief Diversity Officer, has responded by denouncing the article as sexist and politically biased. In her rebuttal, Chavous demonstrates why DEI bureaucrats claiming to fight for harmony and against bigotry are producing the exact opposite.’
NOTE: We’ll have a light publishing schedule next week for the holiday. I hope you all have a wonderful, relaxing time with friends and family.