Regulations, and especially environmental regulations have more to do with why manufacturing is leaving the United States than does the differential cost of labor. But don't let that fact worry you. Trump has the union guys and you bamboozled with promises he cannot and will not keep.
It's a tag team between environmental regulations and union labor. I've written about the environmental nightmare in China, here on FR; P.J. O'Rourke had a good chapter on the Eastern bloc in All the Troubles In The World. Part of the issue is labor unions strike in solidarity; the high cost (and fakery) in workman's comp; and US vs. Enmons that allows unions thugs to get away with violence and have immunity for it. That, and unionized government workers ...
Well my "strategy of the commoners" involves using environmental laws against the agencies, as if the rancher was an NGO. The problem has historically been standing. My patent gives me that. So if I set up a business to do that work, I could go after the agency on the ranchers' behalf. Sadly, they wanted a guy on a white horse to do it all for them, so I've set about building the case myself. I'm ten years into that project. The first step was to establish myself as an expert in restoration ecology. I've done that.
Ah, so a counter-Alinksy "live up to their own rules" : similar to the SJWs crybaby snowflakes starting to take out leftist professors for not being pure enough. Have you got to the point that you've been in court yet? I foresee too problems: leftist clients with deep pockets having high-priced lawyers (David Boies-level) on retainer; and activist judges who make up the rulings as they go along (see the recent Supremes decision on gay marriage which read more like a Hallmark Greeting Card than a learned piece of jurisprudence...)
Agency behavior is now almost independent of the administration because it derives its mandates and its budget from court cases rigged in collusion with green groups. Environmental law derives its authrority to violate the Constitution by treaties, lots of them, held at the UN. Maybe you would benefit from a little reading on the topic here and here. Obviously, this is an abridged picture, but it will definitely bring you up to speed as to why limited government and privatization are the context for the correct fix to which Trump has shown himself ill disposed. If I told you the fix for both healthcare costs and the environment were the same, I'd bet you would think I was crazy: insurance deregulation and tort reform.
Don't have time to read your links right now -- IRL stuff -- but I'd appreciate it if you remind me in a couple o' weeks. All I know is the catchphrase "Agenda 21" and the thinking that Obama tried to set up the Iran "understanding" so as to not be a treaty, therefore not subject to review: and also that somewhere I read a panic-stricken piece that Treaties become, like the Constitution, "The Supreme Law of the Land" and some panic over Law of The Sea Treaty (LOST). Also I wrote a piece on FR about how the delegation of regulation by Congress defeated the whole purpose of separation of powers, and how (who was it, now, Burke? or Locke?) inveighed against the legislature allowing the executive to define rules to flesh out vague laws.
But I bet he'd side with citizens over the bureaucracy, when it is clear the bureaucracy is just yanking people around for the fun of it.
Market manipulation with environmental regulations is not about fun; it is about money, BIG money, money so far beyond even Trump's imaginings as to make him into a nothing. I can name you ONE (1) regulation that cost so much money that every child in America could have gone to college for free and it ended up with a significant negative environmental impact that the same players are lining up to cash in on it.
The situation which was tantamount to shooting people over a controlled burn, to allow their cattle to graze, or similar, is what I had in mind: you are extending the conversation to much wider issues. I do not disagree, but it does happen to be a change from the original topic or scope.
What I have in mind for what you are talking about is the whole "Greenhouse gases / Global Warming" bullshit. It is manifestly a lie because not too long ago -- but far before the industrial revolution, and while people were very rare -- large parts of North America were covered with glaciers two miles thick.
These melted without human influence. Therefore warming -- and cooling -- of that magnitude, is known to have occurred without human intervention. Therefore even if there is warming -- which is doubtful -- the burden of proof is on the fanatics to show that it is unambiguously and solely due to human causation. Since the disagreement of the computer models with one another is greater than the magnitude of the observed warming, we are not dealing with science: the error bars are larger than the effect observed, and there is no way to distinguish between the several models, let alone put in meaningful controls.
That makes Scalia "an insider." You flunk.
Have you got to the point that you've been in court yet?
Not yet. I have the accomplishment and am in the process of acquiring the reputation for it. I have been invited to write published technical papers in grassland ecology, archaeology, and anthropology. Getting there.
I foresee too problems:
So do I. However, the law very clearly shows a preference for market solutions over government and has for fifty years.
What I have in mind for what you are talking about is the whole "Greenhouse gases / Global Warming" bullshit.
Nope. It was MTBE. Really, it is a lot bigger problem than you realize. Even Mark Levin doesn't get it. Rush is starting to, but he's fifteen years behind that curve.