The Crazy Thing Trump Could Do . . .

Guest Post by Eric Peters

Borrowing – bowdlerizing – a line from Shakespeare: First thing we do, let’s kill all the regulators.

Well, maybe not kill them.

Firing them would be enough.

Or even just threatening them with being fired.

Like on Trump’s Apprentice reality show – except for real. Because now it’s President Trump – or soon will be. And if The Donald, as he likes to style himself, intends to make America great again, the best way to do that is to put Americans back to work again. And the best way to put them back to work is to get the regulatory apparat off their backs.

It is hard to do anything in this country anymore except pay taxes – which fund the regulatory apparat.

Henry Ford would likely never have made his Model T – or any of the preceding models – if he’d had to deal with the DOT and EPA. Let alone OSHA. Most people have no idea that it is necessary to destroy a dozen or more cars in crash tests to establish compliance with federal side-impact, offset barrier and roof crush mandatory minimums before one may legally sell a single car. This alone amounts to hundreds of thousand of dollars in costs. A huge corporation can afford this (and can write it off, too).

RELATED CONTENT

Trump Just Shared These 11 Words of Warning for the USD and Gold

Trump Just Shared These 11 Words of Warning for the USD and Gold

 

Barack Just Lost It Over Alan Greenspan's Warning for Owning Gold

Barack Just Lost It Over Alan Greenspan’s Warning for Owning Gold

 

Move Your IRA or 401k to Gold

IRS Tax “Loophole”: Move Your IRA or 401(k) to Gold
Get this No-Cost Info Kit

A latter-day Henry Ford just starting out can’t.

Which is why there aren’t any latter-day Henry Fords. Or at least, none whose names we know. Their efforts – if they haven’t give up – are confined to tinkering that never goes beyond their own garages.

Because if they tried to sell anything not Uncle-approved, they’d risk being SWAT teamed. This happens to little girls selling lemonade curbside, because it’s illegal to do it without the government’s permission ( which of course also costs money).

It’s even worse when it comes to making cars. And has been, for a long time.

The last time someone tried and almost got away with it was just after World War II, when Preston Tucker had an idea for a better Model T. His car was just as revolutionary in its own way as the T had been some 40 years earlier.

And interestingly enough, it touted – wait for it – safety. Decades before the government – according to the Official Fairy Tale – intervened to make sure we had it, because the evil car companies wouldn’t offer it otherwise.

Like most fairy tales, this one’s make-believe, too.

The Tucker pioneered such things as shatterproof windshield glass and a roof that could support the weight of the car in the event of a rollover; it even had a headlight that tracked with the wheels in the curves, something not offered again until recently and without Uncle jabbing his regulatory bayonet into anyone’s backside.

The Tucker was a brilliant car – perhaps too brilliant. Enter Uncle. Arm and arm with GM – which at the time controlled almost 50 percent of the entire U.S. car market (Chevrolet alone had a market share around 25 percent – more than all of GM’s remaining divisions combined enjoy today). The company was targeted for having committed all kinds of regulatory sins – and quickly crushed.

You may have seen the movie.

Things are much worse today. The regulatory apparat has consolidated its power and now micromanages and decrees almost every aspect of vehicle design and – Trade Secret – the established players are in on it. They have embraced the regulatory apparat.

For two reasons:

First, it makes them money. Every cost added by government is passed on to car buyers, plus mark-up. You didn’t think (as an example) that air bags and so on are added at “cost” … did you? There is big money to be made, both up front and down the road. The car costs you more to buy – and it costs you more to fix. Which, by the way, is also why it costs you more to insure. Yes, they (the insurance mafia) are in on the con, too.

Second – and this may be even more important to them – it inures them from upstart competition; from having to sweat latter-day Henry Ford like Preston Tucker and who-knows-who else (whose names we’ll never know, because of the opportunity cost of the regulatory apparat).

If Tucker himself were alive today and decided to have another go at it, he would have to destroy almost his entire initial production run of cars (he made about 51) before the government would allow him to sell any of them. No small start-up can afford this.

Which is why there aren’t any.

This includes Elio, incidentally. The company that’s been developing a low-cost three-wheeler… or trying to. The car is actually developed. The problem is it’s not Uncle approved. Which means it can’t be sold.

Trump could fix this at the stroke of a pen. Or, rather, by calling a press conference.

He could tell the assembled: I can find nothing in the Constitution giving the Congress – much less an unelected bureaucracy that never received any mandate from the voters – legal power to dictate how cars ought to be made. This is something for the market to determine, based on the votes of the buying public’s dollars.

Is it that such outlandish an idea?

Trump is president because he is outlandish. Hew could be a great president by being outlandish. Which in these Red Giant days of the empire, would be to weigh-in for the liberties of ordinary people to buy what they want, not what Uncle tells them they must have.

Whether does so will tell us a great deal about the man and what he actually stands for. Will he side with the established players – who have gone over to the Dark Side and embraced the regulatory apparat? Or will he do the unthinkable and let the market work – and buyers decide?

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
13 Comments
Anonymous
Anonymous
January 12, 2017 3:24 pm

Unfortunately, the Constitution doesn’t give the President the power to just declare law invalid, only a Court can do that. (of course, he can make USSC appointments that will go in that direction and he should do this.)

Bureaucratic law is established by enabling legislation that validates all regulations as law that are created under its authority in accord for proposing and instituting regulation.

Getting rid of most appointed bureaucrats is done easily enough for the most part, but getting rid of those “civil servants” that actually write and propose the regulations is almost impossible unless they do something really, really illegal or offensive to their bosses in the command chain.

It’s up to Congress to undo this, which they have the Constitutional authority to do, and we must put pressure on them to do it or it won’t be done.

Trump can’t do it alone, he needs the people actively behind him to help to the fullest extent they can.

AnarchoPagan
AnarchoPagan
  Anonymous
January 12, 2017 4:46 pm

My understanding, I hope someone will correct me if I’m wrong, is that regulations are not the equivalent of statutory law. They are created by agencies of the executive branch, they can be abolished at will by the head of the executive branch.

Anonymous
Anonymous
  AnarchoPagan
January 12, 2017 6:15 pm

There’s three basic types of law: Statutory law, regulatory law and judicial law.

Statutory law is legislation passed by Congress and signed into law.

Regulatory law is regulations passed by agencies established by Statute (i.e. FAA created to make aircraft and flying safe through regulation and decides that drunk flying is not legal if the pilot is over X.X percent blood alcohol level).

Judicial law is law created by a Court decision (i.e. The court decides segregation is illegal and declares that your kids must be bused to a predominately black school and their kids to your school as a remedy for it. Also a declaration that the penalty phase of Obamacare is not a fine but a tax and therefore legally enforceable.).

They all carry equal weight as law although legislative (statutory) law can be passed to override either of the second two under most circumstances (as long as the Court agrees to it, which actually makes Judicial law the supreme law).

Either an agency or a Court can overturn or modify their own laws at will but cannot directly modify a statute (note that I said directly, they can’t simply change it and therefore have to use circuitous methods to do it).

Teri
Teri
  Anonymous
January 12, 2017 9:55 pm

As far as I’m concerned, regulatory laws are not only unconstitutional, but they amount to taxation without representation—no one elected these people at the various alphabet agencies.

Anonymous
Anonymous
  Anonymous
January 12, 2017 10:42 pm

Couldn’t the President simply not spend money allocated by Congress for a particular agency? That would certainly get the regulators’ attention!

Failing that, the President can elect to use the nuclear option so foolishly granted him by Congress a few years ago. Buried in a defense department appropriation bill was the power allowing the President to order the arrest and indefinite detainment of anyone for any reason whatsoever, all without due process. To get bureaucrats’ attention the President could slam foot dragging regulators with sudden disappearances. If Congress or the courts object, they too can get hosed with this power accompanied with the explanation that this action represents the legal exercise of a legal power stupidly passed into law by an unthinking Congress.

David the Minion
David the Minion
  Anonymous
January 13, 2017 12:32 pm

How to get a rid of a bureaucrat.

You can’t just fire them. But they can resign any time.

So. Assign them new duties. To sit alone in a small, windowless room, with no telephones, no computer, nothing to read and nothing to look at except four blank walls. That’s your job. Sit here for eight hours and do absolutely nothing.

How long could any normal person stand the boredom?

unit472
unit472
January 12, 2017 4:37 pm

I was curious about the Elio. While not a car I would buy , at $7500 and 80 plus mpg, it would meet the needs of many.

The thing is, if you can buy a motorcycle and drive it on our roads, Elio’s vehicle is obviously far ‘safer’ than a motorcycle. The biggest ‘danger’ I face on the road today is trucks. You can’t see around them or even see a traffic light in front of them yet they are ‘approved’ for city streets. Paul Elio’s vehicle, whatever its merits or lack there of is not going to block my view or crush me with its bulk. If a motorcycle or a truck can use our roads surely a Elio type vehicle should be allowed to.

starfcker
starfcker
  unit472
January 12, 2017 5:12 pm

Unit, Eric is being disingenuous. Elio must not be that bright of a guy. There are at least a dozen brands of street legal three wheelers. I see them every day. They figured it out. Not like the guy is inventing the wheel or anything. If you want a cheap, high mileage three wheel death trap, you don’t have to wait for Elio to get it together, just go buy one.

Wip
Wip
  starfcker
January 12, 2017 5:50 pm

But WHY is Elio being denied entry into the market? At $7,500 and a top on it (I can’t recall seeing any street legal 3-wheelers with roofs), I do believe many people would be served.

starfcker
starfcker
  Wip
January 13, 2017 5:48 am

Elio isn’t being denied anything. He’s too dumb to engineer a street legal vehicle.

Iska Waran
Iska Waran
January 12, 2017 4:47 pm

Even aside from the legal complications of getting rid of regulations (& regulators), there’s the PR problem. Getting rid of any of Dodd-Frank will mean headlines of “Banks allowed to rip off widows again”. Lighten up one iota on auto safety regulations and the headline will be “Congress votes to kill babies”.

Doug
Doug
January 12, 2017 6:28 pm

3 wheel deathtraps hardly characterizes the Elio. Small, yes, and enclosed with a steel shell as strong as any other automobile-certainly superior to the fiberglass or open air motorcycle.

Brian Reilly
Brian Reilly
January 12, 2017 9:17 pm

How many airbags, back up cameras, or super complicated (for un noticeable reductions in CO2 or particulate exhaust) would people voluntarily purchase if they could opt out? Well under 50% of autos sold. I say under 10%, but cannot prove it, the government would never allow it.

Would you pay for the little clip that you are supposed to use to keep your dresser from falling on to your toddler, if given the opportunity to opt out and not pay? Do you even have a toddler? If so, does your toddler pull furniture over and die very often?

Would you use DDT (which is effective) to get rid of the bedbugs your brother in law brought on his last visit?

Would your local unit of government issue a permit for you to build a small apartment for your child or mother to live in, over your garage?

Would you choose to put your child into a Common Core curriculum school?

If you feel the need to protect yourself with a firearm, can you do so without informing (at least) the government of this need?

The world will never know the answers to these questions. They won’t even let us ask.