The Fein Print
@thefeinprint.bsky.social
The Truth Is In The Fein Print - Bruce Fein, Jeffrey Wernick, Dennis Kucinich & Ryan Christian
Every Monday 12 ET.
https://bitchute.com/thefeinprint
Every Monday 12 ET.
https://bitchute.com/thefeinprint
Jensen Huang wants federal regulation. That should tell you everything. When the dominant player in a market demands centralized oversight, they're not asking for accountability. They're asking for protection.
The Chicago School taught us this decades ago. Neither party is listening.
The Chicago School taught us this decades ago. Neither party is listening.
December 11, 2025 at 4:11 PM
Jensen Huang wants federal regulation. That should tell you everything. When the dominant player in a market demands centralized oversight, they're not asking for accountability. They're asking for protection.
The Chicago School taught us this decades ago. Neither party is listening.
The Chicago School taught us this decades ago. Neither party is listening.
It doesn't matter whether capture happens through Democrats writing compliance mandates or Republicans centralizing control in Washington while calling it freedom. The result is the same: higher prices, worse products, frozen innovation, protected incumbents.
December 11, 2025 at 4:11 PM
It doesn't matter whether capture happens through Democrats writing compliance mandates or Republicans centralizing control in Washington while calling it freedom. The result is the same: higher prices, worse products, frozen innovation, protected incumbents.
AI policy—whether through formal "One Rulebook" regulation or informal cronyism—is precisely the kind of "additional" activity Coase warned about. A government already operating beyond its competence, with industry incumbents jockeying for favor rather than competing on merit.
December 11, 2025 at 4:11 PM
AI policy—whether through formal "One Rulebook" regulation or informal cronyism—is precisely the kind of "additional" activity Coase warned about. A government already operating beyond its competence, with industry incumbents jockeying for favor rather than competing on merit.
Coase wasn't an anarchist. He conceded that a smaller government might do some things well. But his conclusion should guide us: "Until we reduce the size of government, we won't know what they are."
December 11, 2025 at 4:11 PM
Coase wasn't an anarchist. He conceded that a smaller government might do some things well. But his conclusion should guide us: "Until we reduce the size of government, we won't know what they are."
His explanation? Government has grown so massive that it has reached "negative marginal returns. Anything additional it does, it messes up."
December 11, 2025 at 4:11 PM
His explanation? Government has grown so massive that it has reached "negative marginal returns. Anything additional it does, it messes up."
"Almost all the studies—perhaps all the studies—suggested that the results of regulation had been bad, that the prices were higher, that the product was worse adapted to the needs of consumers, than it otherwise would have been."
December 11, 2025 at 4:11 PM
"Almost all the studies—perhaps all the studies—suggested that the results of regulation had been bad, that the prices were higher, that the product was worse adapted to the needs of consumers, than it otherwise would have been."
And Ronald Coase, reflecting on decades of empirical research at the Journal of Law and Economics, delivered the most damning verdict of all:
December 11, 2025 at 4:11 PM
And Ronald Coase, reflecting on decades of empirical research at the Journal of Law and Economics, delivered the most damning verdict of all:
The relationship between business and state that the founders feared—and that Chicago economists spent careers documenting—is being reconstituted under the banner of "America First."
December 11, 2025 at 4:11 PM
The relationship between business and state that the founders feared—and that Chicago economists spent careers documenting—is being reconstituted under the banner of "America First."
When executives must make pilgrimages to the Oval Office and announce pledges to stay in favor, that's not capitalism. It's court politics.
December 11, 2025 at 4:11 PM
When executives must make pilgrimages to the Oval Office and announce pledges to stay in favor, that's not capitalism. It's court politics.
This isn't deregulation. It's industrial policy wrapped in populist branding. The government isn't stepping back—it's picking winners. The market isn't free—it's curated.
December 11, 2025 at 4:11 PM
This isn't deregulation. It's industrial policy wrapped in populist branding. The government isn't stepping back—it's picking winners. The market isn't free—it's curated.
... flow to the well-connected, export permissions are granted at executive discretion with 25% fees attached, and access to policymakers depends on political alignment rather than merit.
December 11, 2025 at 4:11 PM
... flow to the well-connected, export permissions are granted at executive discretion with 25% fees attached, and access to policymakers depends on political alignment rather than merit.
And look at what "deregulation" means in practice: tech executives parade through the White House announcing billions in "investment pledges," government contracts...
December 11, 2025 at 4:11 PM
And look at what "deregulation" means in practice: tech executives parade through the White House announcing billions in "investment pledges," government contracts...
This is the opposite of federalism. It is the opposite of competition. It is exactly what incumbents want: a single regulatory body they can capture, a single set of rules they can shape, a single chokepoint through which all competitors must pass.
December 11, 2025 at 4:11 PM
This is the opposite of federalism. It is the opposite of competition. It is exactly what incumbents want: a single regulatory body they can capture, a single set of rules they can shape, a single chokepoint through which all competitors must pass.
The Trump administration claims to oppose regulation while embracing "AI dominance" as national policy and promising "One Rulebook" for AI governance. Consider what that means: not fifty state experiments, not market-driven standards, not decentralized innovation—one centralized federal framework.
December 11, 2025 at 4:11 PM
The Trump administration claims to oppose regulation while embracing "AI dominance" as national policy and promising "One Rulebook" for AI governance. Consider what that means: not fifty state experiments, not market-driven standards, not decentralized innovation—one centralized federal framework.
Regulation is how incumbents make the status quo viable again. It freezes the market in their favor and calls it safety.
December 11, 2025 at 4:11 PM
Regulation is how incumbents make the status quo viable again. It freezes the market in their favor and calls it safety.
The push for AI regulation arrives precisely as incumbents face genuine competitive threat—from open-source models, from Chinese developers, from startups that move faster than legacy players can adapt.
December 11, 2025 at 4:11 PM
The push for AI regulation arrives precisely as incumbents face genuine competitive threat—from open-source models, from Chinese developers, from startups that move faster than legacy players can adapt.
Sam Peltzman explained why this happens when it does: "The status quo exerts a powerful political grip, but when the status quo is no longer viable politically, major regulatory change can occur whether or not sought by the regulated industry."
December 11, 2025 at 4:11 PM
Sam Peltzman explained why this happens when it does: "The status quo exerts a powerful political grip, but when the status quo is no longer viable politically, major regulatory change can occur whether or not sought by the regulated industry."
Nvidia can absorb any compliance regime Washington designs. Its competitors cannot. Federal regulation is the moat.
December 11, 2025 at 4:11 PM
Nvidia can absorb any compliance regime Washington designs. Its competitors cannot. Federal regulation is the moat.
And the incumbents are saying the quiet part out loud. Jensen Huang, CEO of Nvidia—the company that dominates AI chip supply—agrees vehemently: "A federal AI regulation is the wisest." Of course he does.
December 11, 2025 at 4:11 PM
And the incumbents are saying the quiet part out loud. Jensen Huang, CEO of Nvidia—the company that dominates AI chip supply—agrees vehemently: "A federal AI regulation is the wisest." Of course he does.
Who will write AI regulations? Google, OpenAI, Microsoft, Anthropic, Nvidia. Compliance requirements will be calibrated to what trillion-dollar companies can absorb—and what startups cannot. The barrier to entry becomes the regulation itself.
December 11, 2025 at 4:11 PM
Who will write AI regulations? Google, OpenAI, Microsoft, Anthropic, Nvidia. Compliance requirements will be calibrated to what trillion-dollar companies can absorb—and what startups cannot. The barrier to entry becomes the regulation itself.
Jefferson would ask: Who approved this tax? Not Congress. What law authorizes it? None. What limits constrain it? The President's discretion.
That's not the rule of law. That's the rule of rulers.
That's not the rule of law. That's the rule of rulers.
December 11, 2025 at 12:41 AM
Jefferson would ask: Who approved this tax? Not Congress. What law authorizes it? None. What limits constrain it? The President's discretion.
That's not the rule of law. That's the rule of rulers.
That's not the rule of law. That's the rule of rulers.
A 25% fee on Nvidia chip exports to China, collected at executive discretion, granted to "approved customers" by unnamed criteria, is not policy. It's a return to the mercantilist system the Revolution overthrew.
December 11, 2025 at 12:41 AM
A 25% fee on Nvidia chip exports to China, collected at executive discretion, granted to "approved customers" by unnamed criteria, is not policy. It's a return to the mercantilist system the Revolution overthrew.
