However, I do believe his regulatory changes impacted 1st qtr. growth and had an important effect on growth since then.
Since Fate has nothing, as usual, perhaps you could respond to my question.Since it was you who made the original claim.
Which of the regulations that Trump rolled back contributed to growth?
Do you have any evidence of this? I am in agreement with you that there are thousands of regulations that need review, revisions and perhaps deletion. But do any that Trump actually rolled back really contribute economically?
"reducing regulation " has become a shibboleth .
Here's some stuff that I've already posted in the tax policy section:
One of the things that the Trump administration has done is require that a cost-benefit analysis is done before releasing new regulations. Although that is the law, it has often not been followed by the regulatory state.
There's an awful lot of regulation involved with forcing the mixing of ethanol into gasoline. It's bad for the environment, it makes no economic sense, and is basically a sop to some political interests over others. https://www.forbes.com/sites/ellenrwald
Many refineries are owned or are legally connected to gas stations. For example, ExxonMobil XOM +0.71% owns refineries and gas stations. Saudi Aramco, which owns Motiva (the largest U.S. refinery) also owns Shell gasoline stations across the southeastern United States. Such refineries can ship unmixed gasoline to their own gas stations where upon the gasoline is mixed with ethanol when the consumer purchases it.
However, Philadelphia Energy Solutions is an independent refinery and doesn’t own gas stations, nor is it legally connected to a larger operation that owns gas stations. As a result, the Philadelphia refinery says it has faced liabilities in the form of a requirement to either purchase ethanol credits or pay a fine to the U.S. government. According to news reports other similar refiners have managed to succeed and people in the industry say that Philadelphia Energy Solutions has been plagued by poor management decisions. However, the U.S. government played a role in regulating one of the most important U.S. refineries into bankruptcy
Obama era decisions were often a drag on the economy. Removing that drag has enabled more normal growth. I posted this on p 29 on 1/31/18.
For example, regulators had put Met Life on the too big to fail list. It was challenged and they lost in court. Then they wanted to appeal. Trump stopped this nonsense. Met Life is not the same as Lehman Brothers once was.
The CFPB was prohibited from regulating auto finance. This was the Dodd Frank law that you talk so highly about. The CFPB decided to go after the $900 billion auto loan industry anyway by going after the banks that do some of the loans. This had nothing to do with protecting the economy. Congress couldn't stop them.
On 2/1/18 p 30 I posted this:
In today's WSJ in the back pages, we learn about the CFPB going after PHH Corp for $109 million. This is a company with a $300 million market cap. (It was lower before the decision.)The appellate court, with a majority of Democratic Judges, rules that the CFPB use incorrect legal interpretations and applied them retroactively. I'll leave it to Freeman to explain the legal nuances.
and on 2/14 I posted this:
Here are some changes in the first 100 days from Wikipedia that impacted economic policy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_100
One of the first acts by the Trump administration was an order signed by Chief of Staff Reince Priebus on January 20, under the subject "Regulatory Freeze Pending Review" to all Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies ordering agencies to immediately suspend all pending regulations and to "send no regulation" to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OFR) until the Trump administration can review them except for "emergency situations" or "urgent circumstances" ...
On January 30, Trump signed his seventh Executive Order "Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs." ...
Finally, I never said that Trump's regulatory changes are the only thing leading to increased growth. Trump has also used carrots (and sticks). By telegraphing his regulatory intent, companies have gained confidence that staying in the US will lead to positive results, and deploying resources elsewhere may lead to negative results. (I have mixed feelings about the last part.)
At a January 23 meeting with leaders of the United State's largest corporations, including Ford's Mark Fields, Dell Technologies' Michael Dell, Lockheed Martin's Marillyn Hewson, Under Armour's Kevin Plank, Arconic's Klaus Kleinfeld, Whirlpool's Jeff Fettig, Johnson & Johnson's Alex Gorsky, Dow Chemical's Andrew Liveris, U.S. Steel's Mario Longhi, SpaceX's Elon Musk, International Paper's Mark Sutton, and Corning's Wendell Weeks promised to reward the companies who stay in the United States with aggressive cuts on U.S. federal regulations governing their companies by "75 percent or more." ...
He also lifted a 14-month-old halt on new coal leases on federal lands
The last thing I want to add is that sometimes businesses can move very quickly if governments get out of the way. Even if construction hasn't started, there's still economic activity that must happen including consultants, executive travel, feasibility studies, legal work, financing work, etc.