Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Trump is going after California’s clean car mandate

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 141 posts

Re: Trump is going after California’s clean car mandate

#111

Post by edanm »

derefr wrote: post #105
triviatise wrote: post #19

In wickard vs filburn the govt made the case that a wheat farmer that grew wheat only for himself was subject to the interstate commerce clause. The reasoning was that he impacted markets by not having to buy wheat and therefore he should be fined for violating farming restrictions. The supreme court ruled in favor of the US govt. This expansion of the commerce clause could lead to trump being able to get something l…

I know the case. If he was literally only “growing wheat for himself” as a subsistence farmer, the commerce clause wouldn’t apply. The reason it applies is that he was already operating a business that does interstate commerce. Such a business, when it makes a choice to not execute a sale that it would have had an opportunity to execute, has “mens rea” for that act’s effects on interstate commerce—because such compan…

> I know the case. If he was literally only “growing wheat for himself” as a subsistence farmer, the commerce clause wouldn’t apply. The reason it applies is that he was already operating a business that does interstate commerce.

Are you sure about that? I don't know that much about the law, but I've always heard of this case specifically because the excess wheat he was producing was for his own consumption.

Wiki seems to agree with this, not mentioning anything about his having a business that I see (although I only skimmed the article and may have missed something).

Re: Trump is going after California’s clean car mandate

#112

Post by dctoedt »

At the zoo years ago, my kids and I saw a bunch of monkeys playing in their enclosure — and pissing and shitting wherever they felt like it. Of course, it was the zoo staff who had to clean up the resulting messes.

I think of those monkeys whenever some executives and their political allies complain about the regulations that keep them from making big messes for the taxpayers to clean up.

Re: Trump is going after California’s clean car mandate

#113

Post by nostrademons »

derefr wrote: post #105
triviatise wrote: post #19

In wickard vs filburn the govt made the case that a wheat farmer that grew wheat only for himself was subject to the interstate commerce clause. The reasoning was that he impacted markets by not having to buy wheat and therefore he should be fined for violating farming restrictions. The supreme court ruled in favor of the US govt. This expansion of the commerce clause could lead to trump being able to get something l…

I know the case. If he was literally only “growing wheat for himself” as a subsistence farmer, the commerce clause wouldn’t apply. The reason it applies is that he was already operating a business that does interstate commerce. Such a business, when it makes a choice to not execute a sale that it would have had an opportunity to execute, has “mens rea” for that act’s effects on interstate commerce—because such compan…

"It’s just like insider trading: not executing a trade that would have otherwise (i.e. given only public knowledge) been in your best interests to execute, where you didn’t execute it because of corporate-internal knowledge, is still just as illegal as the reverse."

Can you provide a citation for that? Every definition I've read (eg. [1]) says that for it to be insider trading, there must be a trade. It doesn't necessarily have to be done by you (eg. U.S. vs. Rajaratnam [2], where an insider was convicted of passing information to a friend for relationship goodwill), nor do you have to be the insider (eg. Martha Stewart [3]) but some exchange of tangible property for financial benefit must have taken place.

It seems very problematic, from an enforcement perspective, to criminalize not doing something, particularly when it comes to trading. I don't see how you could ever prove "would be in your best interest to execute, given only public knowledge", given that the whole point of a trade is that one counterparty believes that it's in their best interests to own the security at the sale price while the other party believes it's in their best interests to not own the security. If there's any market liquidity at all at that price, it implies there's a difference of opinion over whether the security is worth owning. It also seems problematic to try and infer whether your lack of an action was because of inside knowledge or whether it was because you were restricted from stock transactions because of insider trading laws (ironically) or whether you just had too many other things going on to bother trading.

[1] https://www.investor.gov/additional-resources/general-resour...

[2] https://www.businessinsider.com/can-you-be-guilty-of-insider...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ImClone_stock_trading_case

Re: Trump is going after California’s clean car mandate

#115

Post by flukus »

ape4 wrote: post #56

Maybe the EU can adopt the California standards.

It's kind of amusing to contrast the comments here vs a thread on the GDPR. Here many of the comments are along the lines of "it's not fair how California can enforce a law outside it's borders" but the GDPR ones were all "How does the EU hope to enforce this on american companies".

Re: Trump is going after California’s clean car mandate

#116

Post by derefr »

edanm wrote: post #111
derefr wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know the case. If he was literally only “growing wheat for himself” as a subsistence farmer, the commerce clause wouldn’t apply. The reason it applies is that he was already operating a business that does interstate commerce. Such a business, when it makes a choice to not execute a sale that it would have had an opportunity to execute, has “mens rea” for that act’s effects on interstate commerce—because such compan…

> I know the case. If he was literally only “growing wheat for himself” as a subsistence farmer, the commerce clause wouldn’t apply. The reason it applies is that he was already operating a business that does interstate commerce. Are you sure about that? I don't know that much about the law, but I've always heard of this case specifically because the excess wheat he was producing was for his own consumption. Wiki see…

Yes, the amount grown in excess of the law was for his own use; but the amount grown conformant to the law was for sale.

There may not have been an incorporated entity beyond just the farmer as farmer; but, sole proprietorship+ or corportation, there was still a separate abstract entity from the federal government’s perspective whose function was to trade in wheat (a “trading entity” or “Doing Business As” entity.) The farmer was—again, from the federal government’s perspective—the employee and sole shareholder of that entity; and that entity did business selling wheat.

+ (Sole proprietorships are a “hack” of the public API by which individuals interact with the tax system, allowing them to track their DBA revenue and expenses as part of their individual income and expenses. From the government’s perspective, though, when it comes to trade law rather than tax law, there’s always a company on both sides of each trade. In the case of sole proprietorships—including the case of, say, two neighbouring farmers bartering—the trade is just being executed by two "companies" whose identities are foreign-keyed to the individual sole shareholders' identities.)

Under this model, the amount grown in excess of the law was, effectively, grown by a business that sells wheat, and then given to the business’s sole shareholder in place of pay. That transaction caused the shareholder to not have to buy wheat on the market, which means the business made a choice to make this deal, when the business—as an entity that sells wheat—had a responsibility to know that it was breaking the excess law by doing this.

Re: Trump is going after California’s clean car mandate

#117

Post by masonic »

Tuxer wrote: post #43
chrissnell wrote: post #4

These regulations impose an unfair burden on consumers outside of the state, who must pay for California-spec'ed emissions equipment that they never wanted or were required to have. Non-Californians have litte power in the voting booth to resist California's impositions. By going after the exemption, the administration is making things more fair for the folks in the other 49 states.

The lack of regulations regarding car emissions imposes an unfair burden on California's air breathing residents, who must live on the same overheating planet as the other 49 states without any power in the voting booth to make them employ more planet-friendly transportation systems. By keeping the exemption, the state is making things more fair for its residents :)

  the same overheating planet
California-specific fuels have less energy per unit volume, requiring more to be burned per mile, which results in worsened production of CO2 and other greenhouse gases in order to slightly reduce oxides of nitrogen.

Global warming is not an argument in favor of CA's policy.

Re: Trump is going after California’s clean car mandate

#118

Post by derefr »

nostrademons wrote: post #113
derefr wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know the case. If he was literally only “growing wheat for himself” as a subsistence farmer, the commerce clause wouldn’t apply. The reason it applies is that he was already operating a business that does interstate commerce. Such a business, when it makes a choice to not execute a sale that it would have had an opportunity to execute, has “mens rea” for that act’s effects on interstate commerce—because such compan…

"It’s just like insider trading: not executing a trade that would have otherwise (i.e. given only public knowledge) been in your best interests to execute, where you didn’t execute it because of corporate-internal knowledge, is still just as illegal as the reverse." Can you provide a citation for that? Every definition I've read (eg. [1]) says that for it to be insider trading, there must be a trade . It doesn't nece…

I was thinking specifically of a case mentioned previously here on HN, where someone cancelled a monthly scheduled partial stock-liquidation event on corporate-internal news that the company's value would change. IIRC the law said that this was insider trading: there was an evidence trail proving that the trade would have been executed, if not for corporate-internal knowledge.

I guess you could phrase this more clearly as: never investigating a trade in the first place can't be insider trading; but proposing/planning/scheduling a trade and then cancelling that trade, can be insider trading. Where, as well, choosing to execute a competing trade can be considered to cancel the trade that would have been executed in its place.

Re: Trump is going after California’s clean car mandate

#119

Post by joecool1029 »

noelwelsh wrote: post #109
joecool1029 wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since you probably haven’t owned a modern diesel vehicle I’ll tell you why owners don’t like the equipment on small vehicles. (Cars and light trucks) It mostly comes down to the diesel particulate filter (DPF) that reduces visible soot. This is not really a problem outside some major cities. Why don’t we like the DPF systems? Consider something like a VW Golf or Jetta TDI. With these systems you’re adding hundreds of…

How available is biodiesel in the US? I"ve never seen it here in the UK, so it's not a consideration for me. The DPF should be self cleaning if you do an occasional high-speed trip (such as on a highway), so it shouldn't be wasting fuel unless you're doing exclusively city driving (in which case I agree; petrol or electric is better in this situation). Our 2016 Golf Bluemotion gets at least 50mpg in normal driving, u…

>How available is biodiesel in the US?

Wholesale its pretty much everywhere. Retail it depends on the state. Most states have a small % (usually 2-5%) blended into standard diesel to replace the lubricity lost from removing sulfur, but to get B20 or higher you’d have to google.

>The DPF should be self cleaning

Key words, ‘should be’. Do a quick search of dpf problems. They either plug from not completing (though you get dpf light telling you to go race it for a half hour or so to clear) or having some other issue. This causes obstruction and reduces economy more. That or they crack like mine did and plug the egr with soot. Regen takes some time to run, if your commute is 5mi it will not complete.

>Our 2016 Golf Bluemotion gets at least 50mpg in normal driving, usually over 60mpg, and occasionally we crack 70mpg.

(Casual reminder UK mpg different than US mpg, I will convert my experience to UK mpg)

Consistent with my 98 jetta tdi’s mileage. Unfortunately my 2012 golf tdi usually only topped out around 60mpg, I only broke 70mpg in a few extrodinary circumstances. The newer ones have urea injection systems and are a bit lighter.

Also from what I remember UK diesel is usually higher cetane and generally higher quality (also comparing any US/EU spec vehicles, US almost always detuned for emissions and running on poor fuel)

Re: Trump is going after California’s clean car mandate

#120

Post by jonathankoren »

derefr wrote: post #118
nostrademons wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"It’s just like insider trading: not executing a trade that would have otherwise (i.e. given only public knowledge) been in your best interests to execute, where you didn’t execute it because of corporate-internal knowledge, is still just as illegal as the reverse." Can you provide a citation for that? Every definition I've read (eg. [1]) says that for it to be insider trading, there must be a trade . It doesn't nece…

I was thinking specifically of a case mentioned previously here on HN, where someone cancelled a monthly scheduled partial stock-liquidation event on corporate-internal news that the company's value would change. IIRC the law said that this was insider trading: there was an evidence trail proving that the trade would have been executed, if not for corporate-internal knowledge. I guess you could phrase this more clear…

Ahh but that’s because the point of putting the trades on automatic is what allows insiders to trade even though they have inside information. As soon as you put trades on manual you’re opening yourself up to use inside information.

I don’t remember the story, but you can imagine a situation where you scheduled a big buy a year in advance right before earnings. You’ve done this consistently for a few years, and it’s paid off for you. The company has grown consistent quarter after quarter. Only now, this year right before the earnings call, you cancel the purchase.

Now tell me, do you think the company’s earnings exceeded expectations?

Post reply on HN