How stocks prices around the world soared after Trump's election on November 8, 2016

People know how US stock prices soared immediately after President Trump was elected.  That is easy to explain because of the prospects of lower taxes and regulatory reform.  But more amazing is how stock prices around the world increased at the same time.  So many think that economics is a zero-sum game.  That was is good for the US is bad for the rest of the world.  And, surely, lower taxes in the US will increase investment in the US at the expense of what happens in other countries.  But fewer regulations and lower taxes in the US have apparently meant a more productive world economy. 

Click on figure to enlarge it.

"China to Embed Internet Police in Tech Firms," So these are the guys Obama wants to give control of the internet to?

It is good to know that these internet police will be able to stop the "spreading of rumors."  It obviously wound never be abused by the Chinese to stop people from saying true things about the government, right?  From the WSJ:

China’s government plans to embed cybersecurity police units at major Internet companies and websites to help prevent crimes such as fraud and “spreading of rumors,” state-run Xinhua News Agency reported Tuesday. 

It is an unusually hands-on approach by Beijing, which typically sets censorship standards and puts the onus on companies to comply. China’s Internet regulator has previously favored tactics such as threatening to shut down services that didn’t meet censorship requirements. . . . 

Miss Texas explains why government shouldn't regulate CEO pay

Here is a woman who understands first hand the returns to hard work.  And she makes that argument. One could also point out the importance of companies getting the best people working for them as well as the benefits to consumers from getting the best products.

What was very striking about this clip was overwhelmingly positive response from the audience.

Faced with unyielding US regulation, Amazon moves to Canada to tests delivery drones

From the UK Guardian:

Amazon is testing its drone delivery service at a secret site in Canada, following repeated warnings by the e-commerce giant that it would go outside the US to bypass what it sees as the US federal government’s lethargic approach to the new technology. 

The largest internet retailer in the world is keeping the location of its new test site closely guarded. What can be revealed is that the company’s formidable team of roboticists, software engineers, aeronautics experts and pioneers in remote sensing – including a former Nasa astronaut and the designer of the wingtip of the Boeing 787 – are now operating in British Columbia. 

The end goal is to utilise what Amazon sees as a slice of virgin airspace – above 200ft, where most buildings end, and below 500ft, where general aviation begins. Into that aerial slice the company plans to pour highly autonomous drones of less than 55lbs, flying through corridors 10 miles or longer at 50mph and carrying payloads of up to 5lbs that account for 86% of all the company’s packages. 

Amazon has acquired a plot of open land lined by oak trees and firs, where it is conducting frequent experimental flights with the full blessing of the Canadian government. As if to underline the significance of the move, the test site is barely 2,000ft from the US border, which was clearly visible from where the Guardian stood on a recent visit. . . .

Government micro managing people's behavior: NYC telling day care centers whether they can give children juice and how long children can sit for

No juice to children under age 2?  Kids not allowed to sit for more than 30 minutes?  Seriously?  From the New York Daily News:

The city wants to make sure day care kids get in shape — and that means more exercise and less juice.

In a pint-sized version of ex-Mayor Michael Bloomberg's attempt to ban super-sized sugary drinks, the city's Board of Health on Monday announced dramatically stricter rules for all licensed city day cares, including a limit on how much juice kids can drink.

Under the new rules, designed to try to cut obesity rates, children must be at least 2 years old before they can take their first sip of juice at day care, and they are only allowed four ounces a day.

Only 100% juice is allowed.

The old rules allowed babies as young as eight months to guzzle six ounces of 100% juice a day. 

Other new rules restrict kids' "sedentary time" to less than 30 minutes a day —down from 60 minutes a day currently — and only one half-hour of screen time a week. . . .

All that money spent on red light cameras to stop people running lights apparently didn't improve safety

Some simple economics here.  From the Wall Street Journal:

The Chicago Tribune delivered the “first-ever scientific study” of the nation’s biggest camera program. Researchers commissioned by the paper found little or no safety benefit: Mid-intersection “T-bones” declined, but rear-end collisions sharply increased as drivers slammed on the brakes to avoid a ticket. Most damning, the Trib cited the city’s “long-standing reliance on using the lowest possible yellow light time” to maximize revenues even at the cost of encouraging more accidents. . . .

Apparently, the message is getting out as the company that have made these cameras are slowly exiting the business.

With Redflex losing money in North America, its Australian parent company recently instructed him to “de-risk the business” by diversifying into electronic toll-taking and traffic management. Nonetheless Mr. Saunders remains keen to rescue the reputation of photo enforcement, even if that seems like a Hail Mary at this point. . . .

Federal budget contains provision preventing attempts to ban lead ammunition

The claims about the risks from lead ammunition are very misleading (a discussion of that scientific evidence is available here).  Fortunately, the new federal budget will prevent new Obama administration rules from banning lead ammunition.  From The Hill newspaper:

"For years, radical animal rights and environmental advocates have used all the tools at their disposal, including litigation, to attempt to ban lead ammunition," the NRA writes. "A ban on traditional ammunition would affect hunters, sportsmen, law enforcement, military and target shooters — whether or not they hunt. There are currently no comparable alternatives to lead ammunition in terms of cost, ballistics and availability. This bill would prevent a traditional ammunition ban and protect not just hunters, but millions of American gun owners." . . .

The disaster of Taxi cab regulations in NYC, so few cabs that the medallions are $1m and the impact on service really shows

I was in NYC yesterday to give a talk, and I had to get a taxi cab twice.  Once to go to the Grand Hyatt (traveling from 7th Ave & 28th St. to 109 E 42nd St, about 1.3 miles) and then another mile trip.  On the first leg of the trip, I flagged down several cabs, but I was told that the drivers were unwilling to travel to the hotel.  They wanted to go someplace else.  If I had said one of the airports, they would have been happy, but that isn't where I wanted to go.  On the second leg of the trip, it took  40 minutes waiting for a cab.  Now this second trip was at 5 PM, so I wasn't too surprised, but I had a big box of books and it was raining.  I have never previously run into so many cab drivers who simply refuse to take a ride because they apparently know that they can shop around until they get a bigger fare.

Yet, there are so few cabs that taxi medallions are now over $1 million each.  Can't they have enough cabs so that the price of medallions would only be at, say, $500,000?

Is there anything that the government won't regulate?: Senate unanimously passed bill to improve sunscreen protection

From The Hill newspaper:

Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) introduced S. 2141, the Sunscreen Innovation Act, which would require the Department of Health and Human Services to establish a process for the review and approve over-the-counter (OTC) sunscreens. 

The Senate passed the measure through a unanimous consent agreement and it now heads to the House for further action. 

The Senate passed H.R. 4751, which renames the Bainbridge Island Japanese American Memorial as the Bainbridge Island Japanese American Exclusion Memorial. The House passed the bill earlier this month, meaning it now heads to President Obama’s desk for his signature before becoming law. . . .

You know that regulations have gone too far when the FDA has to regulate wheelchairs

This young man has helped design a computerized wheelchair that allows users to better control how the wheelchair operates.  It sound like a great idea.  But in listening to this piece at the WSJ I was surprised that the FDA had to approve the wheelchair before it could be produced.  Is the FDA soon going to regulate any type of chair that the disabled might sit in?  What happens if someone with disabilities sits in an unapproved chair?  Will the FDA SWAT team descend on the house?

Obama administration moves to regulation cell phone navigation apps

Does anyone really think that the Obama administration is competent on designing cell phone apps?  People don't want apps that distract themselves from driving, but there are trade-offs people face in usefulness versus distraction.  Will the Obama administration care about usefulness?  From the NY Times:

Getting directions on the road from Google Maps and other smartphone apps is a popular alternative to the expensive navigation aids included in some cars. The apps are also a gray area when it comes to laws banning the use of cellphones or texting while driving. 

The Transportation Department wants to enter the argument. 

The department is intensifying its battle against distracted driving by seeking explicit authority from Congress to regulate navigation aids of all types, including apps on smartphones. 

The measure, included in the Obama administration’s proposed transportation bill, would specify that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has the authority to set restrictions on the apps and later order changes if they are deemed dangerous, much the way it currently regulates mechanical features of cars. . . .

Will Bitcoin prices plummet?: China bans new Bitcoin deposits, what countries are next?

With about 1/3rd of Bitcoin worldwide transactions taking place in China, a Chinese ban could dramatically reduce the demand for the coins.  However, this action just underscores how risky these coins are since other countries could move forward to banning them.  From the Financial Times:

China has blocked the country’s Bitcoin exchanges from accepting new inflows of cash, a move that imperils the much-hyped virtual currency in its biggest market. 

The head of BTCChina, the world’s largest Bitcoin exchange by trading volume, said he had received word at midday on Wednesday that his platform would no longer be able to accept renminbi from would-be Bitcoin buyers. 

“As of right now, we have received notice from our third-party payment company that they will disallow customers from making deposits into our exchange,” Bobby Lee, a former Yahoo developer who co-founded BTCChina this year, told the Financial Times. 

As of early afternoon the Bitcoin price in China had fallen more than 25 per cent on the day to Rmb2,800 ($461) per unit. It has been a rollercoaster ride for the virtual currency, which soared as high as Rmb7395 per unit in early December, up some 50-fold since the start of the year. . . .

Obama's regulatory push is really being unleashed

Americans have seen Obama's regulations end internship programs, declare war on piano teachers,  and make life very difficult for makers of guitars.  In the past even the liberals on the Supreme Court have found some of Obama's regulations going much too far (e.g., striking down Obama's attempt to impose Federal discrimination rules on who religious organizations can have as their religious leaders).  But now with the Democrats' court packing scheme for the DC Circuit, radical Democrats are going to be controlling regulatory decisions for decades.  From The Hill newspaper:

. . . Three of the judicial vacancies are at the powerful D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. The court is charged with ruling on challenges to rules imposed by federal agencies, often making it ground zero for battles over Obama’s regulatory agenda. 

The court’s bench is currently split evenly between judges nominated by Democratic and Republican presidents. But five of six semi-retired “senior judges” who help with the court’s workload were installed during Republican administrations. 

In recent years, the court has dealt a series of blows to the Obama administration’s agenda by striking down regulations on numerous fronts.  

The change in the Senate’s rules come at a time when judges are expected to decide major disputes over provisions in the Dodd-Frank financial reform law, ObamaCare and the president's push on climate change, several observers of the court said. 

“It removes one set of barriers to having regulations in place,” Donner said. 

Beyond blocking regulatory initiatives, the court has had a chilling effect on agencies that regulate the financial sector, advocate groups say. . . .

How to make money in these days: Sell short a company's stock then hire lobbyists to get the government

Sell short a company's stock then have "one chance at salvation: governmental interference." When businesses spend some much time and resources trying to use government to make money, there are other more productive efforts that they aren't doing.  From the Washington Post:

Nearly a year ago, the activist investor Bill Ackman made a huge bet: that investors, if informed that a $7 billion global company with a 30-year track record was a fraud, would run for the exits. 

The wager was a $1 billion short against Herbalife, a multilevel marketing operation that recruits distributors to sell weight-loss products. Last December, Ackman made the case to an investor conference that the company was actually a massive pyramid scheme, preying on "distributors" who pay to sign up before realizing that the product is too expensive to sell. Eventually, he implied, it would collapse under its own weight. 

The stock dropped about 38 percent in a week, but that wasn't enough for Ackman, who'd set a price target of zero. And then, something terrifying happened: The stock started rising again. Activist investor Carl Icahn took the other side of the bet by becoming the company's single biggest shareholder in January. . . . 

But really, he's got basically one chance at salvation: governmental interference. 

At first, that looked like a viable option; the Securities and Exchange Commission opened an investigation almost immediately after Ackman launched his crusade. But the regulator hasn't been heard from since, even as it shut down another pyramid scheme and issued an alert about what such schemes look like. So Ackman has brought the full court press to Washington, hiring lobbyists to counter Herbalife's own, and meeting with the enforcers to make his case. 

"There's reasons we're still short the stock. If we didn't think [regulatory authorities]would take action, we would've given up a long time ago," Ackman said in an interview in D.C, on Tuesday. "We've got an unbelievable amount of resources on this." . . . .

Obama destroys yet another internship program

Boy, aren't these young people lucky not to have these internships?  It is fortunately that the Obama administration is protecting them.  As someone who has had a lot of interns over the years, the notion of paying interns is nice, but they might as well insist on getting paid by their universities to attend there.  Internships often take a lot more work on the part of those running them then on the students produce.  From the New York Post:

They work until 11 at night, lug 40-pound garment bags throughout the city and get scolded for not adhering tape to mood boards correctly. And yet being a Condé Nast intern remains one of the most coveted, sought-after unpaid jobs in town. 

To an aspiring media-ite, a Condé internship is a stiletto stacked in prestige wrapped in promises of opportunity. It is a fancy incubator for future media power players: Fashion designer Whitney Port, author Lauren Conrad and beauty blogger Emily Weiss all got their start interning at the media mammoth. 

So you can imagine the surprise when, last month, Condé Nast announced it was terminating its internship program. Starting in 2014, Condé publications including Vogue, The New Yorker and Vanity Fair will no longer give students the opportunity to toil — and learn — in their hallowed halls. 

The bold decision came on the heels of a lawsuit filed in June 2012 by two former Condé interns: Matthew Leib, who interned at The New Yorker in 2009 and 2010, and Lauren Ballinger, who worked at W magazine in 2009. 

The two sued the media conglomerate for failing to pay them minimum wage  . . .

“The Federal Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law do not allow employers to allow workers to work for free — even if the workers give their consent,” says Leib and Ballinger’s attorney, Rachel Bien at Outten & Golden. . . .

CNN: Insurance Executives are being pressured by White House, threatened with regulatory retaliation

Obama doesn't want the insurance companies to explain that it is Obamacare regulations that are causing people to lose their health insurance coverage.

More fallout from Obama's regulations: Another company kills its internship program

Just a refresher about what Obama did to help young people:

In 2010 his Department of Labor came down hard on unpaid internships – the gigs that can help a young person get her foot in the door and learn about a company or an industry. The view was that kids were being exploited by greedy corporations, who were hiring interns to save money on regular employees. Because this White House can’t imagine a problem that a good dose of regulation won’t fix, the DOL set out new rules governing unpaid internships. 

The DOL mandated that the employer must derive no immediate advantage from the intern’s activities and that the opportunity will be strictly for the benefit of the intern.   They also demanded that the experience be given in an “educational environment,” that the intern must not displace regular employees, that the worker is not automatically hired and that both parties understand that no wages will be paid. It’s hard to imagine a set of rules more likely to shut down these opportunities. . . .

"Derive no immediate advantage"?  Doesn't the Obama administration realize that the students benefit from the training (no one forced them to work for free) and the students might also value seeing what they are doing put to use while they are they?  The claim was that it would be great to make sure that people got paid for their work.  But what a lot of young people have found is that they no longer have jobs.  From the Wall Street Journal:

Magazine publisher Condé Nast, fighting allegations by former interns that they were paid less than $1 an hour for tasks such as proofreading articles and organizing jewelry, is ending its internship program, a company spokeswoman said Wednesday. 

In June, Lauren Ballinger and Matthew Leib, former interns at W Magazine and the New Yorker, respectively, sued the publisher in Federal District Court in Manhattan, alleging that it violated federal and state labor laws. They plan to ask a judge to give their lawsuit class-action status on behalf of Condé Nast interns. 

Mr. Leib alleged that the New Yorker paid him well below minimum wage—in stipends of $300 to $500—for each of the two summers he had worked at the prestigious weekly, where he reviewed and proofread articles. Ms. Ballinger alleged in the complaint that she was paid $12 a day for shifts of 12 hours or more at the fashion magazine. . . . 

By a 48 to 23 percent margin Americans say that there is too much regulation rather than too little, gap up dramatically from 2008

A new Gallup poll shows that Americans are more likely to think that there is too much regulation than too little.  In 2008, 38 percent thought there was too much regulation and 27 percent thought that there was too little.  Now that gap has grown to 48 to 23 percent.

Even Democrats are slightly more likely to say that there is too much regulation compared to 2008, though during the Bush administration they were more likely to think that there was too much regulation.

Did banning PCBs cause other more harmful chemicals to be used to replace them?

From Fox News:

If you purchased a couch before 2006, there’s a possibility it could be filled with foam containing the chemical polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDE) – a substance banned in California and phased out by manufacturers nationwide after it was linked to low IQ in children.
Fortunately, new research from the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) indicates that the 2006 ban on the substance has had impressive, far-reaching effects, indicating that taking fast action against toxic substances can create huge benefits for human health.
“PBDEs became more in vogue as a substitute for PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyl ethers), which were banned in the 70s and used to reduce flammability,” Tracey Woodruff, the director of UCSF’s program on reproductive health and the environment, told FoxNews.com. “They’re found in computers (and) a lot in foam, polyurethane foam used in coaches, to decrease flammability.”
However, PBDEs quickly fell under scrutiny after studies started to show an association between exposure to the chemical and low IQ.  Further concern was raised when studies revealed that increasingly large quantities of PBDEs were appearing in women’s breast milk. . . .

Germans revolt against idea of government regulating what they eat, it is too bad New Yorkers can't be as independent

It looks like the German Green Party might face some backlash from their plan to mandate that people eat vegetarian food one day a week.  Here is a very rough translation from the German newspaper Bild:

The Greens with their plans to introduce a nationwide vegetarian day after the election, caused outrage.
Approximately 40 000 users have already voted in large BILD.de voting. The intermediate result: Nearly three-quarters of readers (72 percent) do not want to leave prohibit sausages, schnitzel and meatballs in the cafeteria and holding a Veggie Day superfluous.
The idea of ​​Green: Once a week should be the only meat dish and no meat sauces it in public canteens NO!
The Veggie Day is part of the election platform of the Green Party, he should be "the standard". Reduce meat consumption of the Germans: The aim of the green party.
"A Veggie Day is a wonderful day to try out how we feed ourselves once without meat and sausage. Vegetarian cooking is in fact more than just let the meat away, "said Green Party leader Renate Künast to IMAGE - and tweeted a vegetarian recipe. The hint that the court could also be prepared with chicken or fish, but immediately caused derision in the network. . . .
"People are smart enough to decide for themselves when to eat meat and vegetables and when not. People constantly make rules is not my understanding of freedom and liberality "said Brüderle to IMAGE.
"What's next?" He asks. "Jute-Day, Bike Day, Green Day shirt? You are on the road again, the green Jacobins, and want people be told what to eat and how they live they have "criticized the FDP leadership man.
Also Federal Minister Ilse Aigner diet (CSU) is against the Greens advance. "We generally hold bit of paternalism," said a ministry spokesman. "In the end we need a balanced diet. As part of this meat. "The federal government had done a lot to give the canteens recommendations.
Erik Bertram, Chairman of the "Ring of Christian Democratic Students" and member of the CDU Federal Board told BILD: "Apparently Renate Künast is the heat of recent days has increased slightly to his head. Instead of a 'Veggie Days' we prefer to call one days free heat for green Bevormundungspartei! Their know-it prohibitive demands once again reveal an anti-liberal spirit. "
A daily meat and fish tender in the German canteens is essential for a balanced diet of students. . . .

This proposal has resulted in some leaving the party.  From Reuters:

Like other Germans once attracted to the world's most successful pro-environment party, Suska is now turned off by the Greens -- and his defection helps explain a sudden drop in support before Germany's September 22 election. 

"The Greens have this 'ecological dictatorship' feeling about them now," says Suska, 45. "I used to always vote Greens. But not anymore. No one likes to be told what to do. It feels like the Greens are going to make everything more expensive." . . . 

There were other problems for the Greens, such as problems over pedophilia.  

On the campaign trail, the Greens faced an uphill battle after it was revealed in May that that senior Greens from the 1980s argued that sexual acts between adults and children should not be punished. 

It was an issue that the Greens could not shake in the campaign.
Proposed tax hikes on high-income earners did not go over well with the party's base of well-off voters, either. . . .