Originally Posted by Owain
Too many syllables?


No, too much bullshit.

Lets read that article together. Here is the link you provided.

Wikipedia on Investors.com
Quote
During the 2016 presidential election in the U.S., IBD was one of two polls that consistently showed Donald Trump in the lead.


So they are either best pollsters in the US, or true believers. Fact checkers give them right-leaning rating, with mixed factuals.

So what do they say?

Quote
How did Trump do? "While there have been some hiccups, overall the Trump administration is on track to finish the first phase (of his regulatory reform program) with $645 million in net annual regulatory savings."


Net regulatory savings. Well, they are speaking budget here. So cutting IRS budget to 0$ would also be a net regulatory saving. However, net regulatory saving says nothing about net effect on economy.

Quote
That might not sound like much in a federal budget usually denominated in the trillions of dollars. But consider this: During President Obama's years in office, more than 22,700 regulations were imposed on Americans at an astounding cost to American consumers, businesses and workers of "more than $120 billion each and every year," wrote Heritage Foundation Fellow Diane Katz earlier this year.


Sounds awful, right? $120 billion each year. Wait, according to whom? Heritage Foundation . Some key people there are part of Trump's team. So this is according to people close to Trump.

So what do they say? They actually say any of what article claims? Here is "study" that is being cited. It isn't peer reviewed, so it is survey or whitepaper at best. However, $120 billion is cited to another Heritage "study". Only there numbers, if you read tables, are only $22 billion a year, and $176 is total since 2001 , and that is total impact of all regulation per year.

Clearly, "more than $120 billion each and every year" is not true according to their own sources. So this figure is misused and misrepresented despite being produced by the same organization. Bad information. Bad "study".

Lets keep reading.

Quote
We're not singling out Obama here, although he was particularly bad by whatever gauge you might care to use. Even so, Democrats and Republicans alike have pledged to reduce the regulatory burden, but very little ever got done.


So they are now actually saying it wasn't all Obama. It was also people before Obama. Another way to understand this is that Obama's administration approach to regulation wasn't atypical.

Lets keep reading.

Quote
That's why AAF analyst Dan Goldbeck was prompted to write, "From almost any perspective, President Trump's Executive Order 13,771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs, marked one of the most significant developments in regulatory policy in decades," adding that it was the "first time in United States history that the executive branch has established a regulatory budget."


Does Dan say any of this? Apparently yes, but there is key detail missing from the quote:

Quote
OMB spelled out the rules affected by the order. The core parameters are as follows:

* Agencies only need to tally up final rules published after noon on January 20, 2017.
* The EO only applies to executive agency rules that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) deem to be “significant” under EO 12,866.
* It exempts rules related to direct national security or emergency concerns and those explicitly directed by a judicial or statutory mandate.
* Agencies can, via written requests to OMB, transfer savings from other agencies.
* Agencies can include savings from legislatively repealed or revised rules. Thus, they can use savings from such actions as the 14 rules repealed by under the Congressional Review Act (CRA) earlier this year.
* If an agency is not in compliance by the end of the fiscal year, they must submit a report to OMB detailing how they plan on coming into compliance. There do not appear to be any significant sanctions for non-compliance thus far.


So turns out, this massive deregulation executive order is asking all agencies to voluntarily scrap not yet implemented rules. Trump would call this FAKE NEWS.

Nothing in your article credibly estimates impact on markets. They only attempt was misquoting or misrepresenting their own data.




[Linked Image]