Shark Week
Stranger things happen at sea.
Elon goes on campaign blitz against government regulations, vows to reveal bizarre alleged schemes
Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime.
‘"I’ll tell you like a crazy thing, like we got fined $140,000 by the EPA for dumping fresh water on the ground. Drinking water. It’s crazy. I’ll just give you an example of just how crazy it is. And we’re like, ‘Well, we’re using water to cool the launch pad during launch. You know, we’re going to cool the launch pad so it doesn’t overheat. And in excess of caution, we actually brought in drinking water, so clean, super clean water,’" Musk said to the audience.
‘"And the FAA said, ‘No, you have to pay a $140,000 fine.’ And we’re like, ‘But Starbase is in a tropical thunderstorm area. Sky water falls all the time,’" Musk recounted, referring to SpaceX's headquarters in Texas. "'That is the same as the water we used' So, and it’s like… there’s no harm to anything. And they said, ‘Yeah, but we didn’t have a permit.’ We’re like, ‘You need a permit for fresh water?’" Musk recounted.‘
Elon Musk on Seals, Sharks, and SpaceX
The following is a complete sentence.
‘Tomorrow, I will tell the story of how SpaceX was forced by the government to kidnap seals, put earphones on them and play sonic boom sounds to see if they seemed upset’
Business must prepare for a ‘new regulatory era’ on human rights
It’s always a 5% of global revenue fine in the EU.
‘The EU’s Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive, which requires large companies to identify and prevent threats to environmental and human rights in their supply chains, has unlocked a “new regulatory era”, the Stern Center says. The CSDDD will apply to the largest European and non-European businesses operating in the EU from July 26 2027.
‘The law’s requirement for “adequate” due diligence on human rights is an “important departure” from current thinking that has been defined by the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, the report says. The UNGPs have had limited impact because they are not rules based, nor do they have an associated “authority to assess performance”, it suggests.’
Europe markets watchdog bids to become EU’s version of SEC
I’m keen to see how centralizing EU financial markets supervision will revive their capital markets.
Is that really the reason EU markets are struggling?
I can understand that there is a “political appetite” for this sort of stuff. Who wouldn’t want to put the (admittedly malnourished) Golden Goose on a leash?
Maybe you should try letting the Goose feed on a free-range basis instead.
‘Verena Ross, chair of the European Securities and Markets Authority, said “there is clearly a political appetite” in the newly appointed European Commission to centralise more EU financial market supervision as part of a renewed push to revive the region’s struggling capital markets.
‘“Let’s evaluate in which areas it would make sense to move a step further to central EU supervision. We need to look particularly at all the cross-border systemically important infrastructure players,” Ross told the Financial Times, adding this would include exchanges, clearing houses and settlement systems.’
Arizona’s Chance to Check Regulators
Some oppose the Arizona ballot measure requiring greater lawmaker oversight of regulations that cost more than $500,000 for fear it would “undermine the autonomy of stage agencies.”
Hey, Poindexter. That’s not a thing.
The legislative branch is there to oversee and dictate what the agencies do.
‘A measure on the Nov. 5 ballot, Prop. 315, would require legislative approval for any regulation that the state Office of Economic Opportunity projects would impose costs of $500,000 or more over a five-year period. Lawmakers or anyone subject to the proposed rule could request a cost estimate. If lawmakers failed to ratify the rule before the end of the legislative session, the promulgating state agency would have to issue a notice of termination.’
The problem with Britain’s red tape obsession
Most bureaucracy is useless, with the primary impact of gumming up the works. Some of it, though, has massive impact, good or bad. This is where we should focus deregulatory efforts.
‘There has generally been a temptation to accompany red tape-slashing pledges with grand targets. The 2011 “one in one out” rule for new regulations became “one in two out” and then “one in three out”. These became bureaucratic exercises in themselves, with departments searching for scrappable regulation for when new rules were needed.
‘Reducing regulatory burdens should not be a numbers game. A small minority of regulations typically generate the vast majority of regulatory costs, according to a 2023 Social Market Foundation report.’
Europe should take a digital leap across its innovation gap
There are some good suggestions about connecting procurement across the EU. Then there’s the suggestion that regulation is key to developing a vibrant entrepreneurial ecosystem.
Nope.
‘Regulatory policy could make it easier for start-ups to access enough funding and scale up in the EU’s single market by creating a streamlined pan-European start-up entity — the “EU Inc” now demanded by some of the continent’s most successful start-up founders — through a “28th regime” of corporate law.
‘If smart combinations of procurement and regulation created a much bigger home market for EU software, a bigger, hungrier and more risk-loving industry would surely follow — and with it the desired innovation catch-up.’
UK Employment Reforms to Cost Firms Up to £4.5 Billion a Year
The article notes that the fixed costs of compliance from new labor laws will have disproportionate effects on small and medium-sized businesses, particularly those relying on flexible labor or low-cost labor. Maybe some of those jobs go away. Maybe a lot of them do.
‘The UK Labour government’s package of workers’ rights reforms could cost businesses as much as £4.5 billion ($5.9 billion) per year, with small firms disproportionately impacted, according to an economic analysis of the policy.
‘The hit would amount to a rise of around 1.5% of total employment costs for companies, the Department for Business and Trade said Monday in a statement, describing this as a “modest increase.” Its analysis found that “the benefits will outweigh the costs” for society as a whole, “delivering those benefits will place a direct cost on employers.”’