Read on Twitter
Will be tweeting about the @CFPB symposium on cost-beenfit analysis for the next hour #regulations
opening question (in so many words): CBA? good, bad, worth it?
Howell Jackson says it's good but benefits harder to quantify than costs (the second part is very true - an important!)
Stephen Hall with @BetterMarkets hits on the ability of industry to weaponize CBA towards biased outcomes - also industry typically holds most relevant data
Another good point on the CBA mythology - Congress does typically NOT require CBA for rulemaking. In other words CBA is not a uniform Congressionally mandated baseline
Brian Hughes with Discover Financial is a big CBA guy, really loves it - says bias are with the people rather than the process (sort of feels like a people kill people not guns argument)
My colleague Amit Narang @Public_Citizen Regulatory Policy Advocate - "The problem is CBA narrows benefits into economic terms which causes them to be undervalued"
Big time CBA/agency economist guy Jerry Ellig uses the preferred right-leaning nomenclature "benefit-cost analysis"
Oh boy the moderator just teed Ellig up to talk about his plan to put an economist in every agency
That is an economist *with decision-making authority* in every agency.
Amit: "I worry that if economists are independent of rulemaking team, they're not going to be informed enough on what is statutorily permissible"
Hall: "The [economic] analysis does not equal the regulatory decision - nor should it"
More Hall: "what really matters in the first instance is the legal analysis"
The economists vs. lawyers conflict is of course a constant theme in regulatory policy
The economists vs. lawyers conflict is of course a constant theme in regulatory policy
Howell: "Any sort of mandatory monetization would be inappropriate for the [CFPB]"
Discussion now on CFPB-specific use of CBA, especially use of monetized values and net benefits
Discussion now on CFPB-specific use of CBA, especially use of monetized values and net benefits
Hall with a great point - CBA is different in the scientific world vs. in the human/policy realm
Larger issue for government policy ---> humans are unpredictable (obvious yes but important)
Larger issue for government policy ---> humans are unpredictable (obvious yes but important)
Ellig maintains "it's not impossible" to correctly quantify benefits
Last but certainly least Q: retrospective reviews!
Haven't heard much from Brian Hughes with Discover Financial btw
Amit: "CFPB should not allow retro review to impede the primary function of the agency"
If necessary at all, retro reviews should limit the function of the agency folks!
If necessary at all, retro reviews should limit the function of the agency folks!
Hughes wants to require a 10 year lookback on regs (on top of existing 5 year requirement)
Also drops name of former SEC commissioner who is now on Discover's board
Also drops name of former SEC commissioner who is now on Discover's board
Ellig with a "do you smoke after sex? idk never checked!" joke
Has a baptists and bootleggers vibe (doesn't mean much but is constantly repeated)
Has a baptists and bootleggers vibe (doesn't mean much but is constantly repeated)
Final Q: How should the CFPB include CBA comments in notice and comment?
Hughes: reach out early to industry
Ellig: use ANPRMs
Howell: early engagement is best
Ellig: use ANPRMs
Howell: early engagement is best
That's all folks!
