fbpx

Day: July 1, 2021

Scientific cherry-picking

Power to the young Greens.

“We Greens in the Bundestag stand for a rural-ecological agriculture”, it says on the website of the Green parliamentary group. They advocate GM-free food, low-pesticide agriculture, more organic farming and regional marketing. The Greens take “stand for” seriously, as the party now demands nothing less than a complete ban on industrial agriculture. After years in which the organic shop meant a niche for consumers who wanted to shop differently, organic products should now become compulsory.

This is also making waves abroad. The Daily Telegraph writes that the image of the Greens as a “prohibition party” is returning. Why this is making waves is clear. The Greens are experiencing a constant influx of voters in Germany, and so they and their policies are to be taken as seriously as during their last participation in the federal government.

The Greens also want to ban the gene-editing, which is known through techniques such as CRISPR (clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats). With these systems, researchers can permanently alter genes in living cells and organisms and in future correct mutations at exact locations in the human genome and thus treat genetic causes of disease. The same technology can also be used in agriculture. The Greens see “genome editing” as the same as the question of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), which are also banned.

Here, the Green position is no longer in line with that of its own youth. Already last year, the Green youth in Lower Saxony demanded “a new start for the debate on green genetic engineering without dogmas and a political argumentation on a scientific basis”.

This year, too, there was new criticism. In the party resolution of the Green Youth Saxony-Anhalt it says at the end of March:

“Today it is of fundamental importance to rethink this historical position [a complete ban on GMOs] in order to tackle the coming global challenges.”

The scientific remoteness of the Greens is surprising, since the environmentalists usually argue very scientifically about climate change. Even if the resulting policy proposals are radical and daring, they rigorously cite scientific studies as the basis for their demands. In agriculture, on the other hand, the party behaves dogmatically.

Those who defend GMOs and pesticides in science and politics must have been bought by large international corporations. Sceptics of climate change work the same way here: scientists who prove climate change must have been bought by some influential circles.

The scientific method and fact-based politics fall short of attention.

Where is all this going? Genome editing is important for further scientific progress, but recent decisions by the EU Court of Justice in Luxembourg and the resistance of various environmental activists in Germany quickly put an end to its potential.

For farmers, this means less progress and thus the continued use of equally unpopular pesticides, or copper as a fungicide in organic farming. Meanwhile, research abroad is being accelerated. A further compartmentalisation in trade policy would then again be necessary in order to “protect” the paralysed farmers in Europe from foreign products.

Consumers would lack the choice after such bans. Organic or non-organic remains a major public debate. However, it should not be solved by abolishing conventional agriculture, but by education and innovation.

The Young Greens in Saxony-Anhalt write in one of their demands:

“We reject in principle the stirring up of irrational fears to reach a political goal, this applies also to genetic engineering.”

That’s a good start.

Originally published here.

Don’t ban flavoured vapes

Banning flavours for adult smokers trying to quit tobacco is a huge mistake, one that could have deadly consequences

Earlier this month Ottawa submitted new regulations for vaping products to the Canada Gazette. It wants to ban all vape flavours with the exception of tobacco, mint and menthol.

The rationale behind the ban is that limiting flavours will curb youth access to vaping products. Vapes, of course, should never be in the hands of minors. Their main value is to offer adult smokers substantially reduced risk for consuming nicotine — a 95 per cent reduction according to Public Health England. That reality is why vaping works as a means to quit smoking, something which has been reaffirmed by many peer-reviewed articles. A 2017 study from the University of California using U.S. Census data found that vaping had contributed to a “significant” increase in smoking cessation and as a result it recommended positive public health communications on vaping.

Other national public health agencies have seen the value of vaping as a smoking cessation tool and shifted their approach. Ireland, for example, has started actively promoting vape products to adult smokers trying to quit, while New Zealand has launched an interactive online tool explaining the value of switching to vaping from smoking.

Our federal government, however, is ignoring what is working abroad and is rejecting its usual governing principle of harm reduction. Curbing youth access to vape products is very important but banning flavours for adult smokers trying to quit tobacco is a huge mistake, one that could have deadly consequences. Approximately 1.5 million Canadians use vape products, most of them smokers trying to quit. Research on consumer purchasing patterns shows that 650,000 of those vape users currently rely on flavours that would be prohibited if the ban goes through.

If Ottawa does gets its ban, many of those targeted by it are likely to return to smoking, and that is something no one should be celebrating. This isn’t just a hypothesis on what may happen; it’s what has happened in jurisdictions that have sought to limit access to flavours.

South of the border, a nationally representative longitudinal study of over 17,000 Americans showed that adults who used flavoured vaping products were 2.3 times more likely to quit smoking cigarettes when compared to vapers who consumed tobacco-flavoured vaping products. Its authors, Abigail S. Friedman and SiQing Xu, both health policy researchers at Yale University, concluded that: “Although proponents of flavour bans have claimed that tobacco-flavoured e-cigarettes are adequate to help individuals who smoke, these results call for evidence to support that claim before it is acted on.”

San Francisco provides yet another example where banning flavoured vaping products directly correlated with a spike in smoking rates. In a single-authored study, Abigail S. Friedman concluded that the ban on flavoured products doubled the odds that those under the legal age of purchase had smoked recently. The ban, passed to curb youth access to vaping, ultimately ended up shifting minors to cigarettes, which is a public health failure by any measure.

In fact, the economic evaluation of the ban, in the federal government’s own submission, openly admits that a ban on flavours will cause a return to smoking: “They (vapers) would choose to purchase more cigarettes, hence offsetting the loss” retailers will incur as a result of eliminating flavoured vape products.

The link between vaping flavours and quitting smoking is intuitive. Smokers trying to quit are more likely to enjoy a flavoured vape product than something that tastes exactly like the product they are desperately trying to quit using. Regulators here in Canada must know that this is exactly what will happen and yet are pushing onward regardless.

The federal Liberals have steadfastly, even stubbornly, championed harm reduction when it comes to illicit drugs — which makes their stance on vaping all the more incomprehensible. Their approach to illicit substances is the right approach given that it ultimately saves lives, and they should let those same harm reduction principles guide vaping policy. In fact, harm reduction should guide all drug policy, whether those drugs are legal or not.

Originally published here.

Pay transparency is unaffordable for businesses and employees

A misguided way of fighting the gender pay gap.

The new EU Commission president Ursula von der Leyen has promised to move closer to closing the gender pay gap. The new instrument she intends on using is pay transparency—big mistake.

The European Commission works on creating pay transparency in the European Union. To fight the gender pay gap (which exists if you do statistics wrong on purpose), it wants to lay open the salaries of employees to check for discrepancies. Whether that would mean that businesses have to openly declare their contracts to the government or actually have to publicise salaries and other invoices remains unclear, however, some legislation already exists on the matter.

In Austria, a two-year reporting duty applies to private companies with at least 150 employees. It requires income reports to show gender-segregated mean or median pay in full-time equivalents per job category and qualification level indicated in the collective agreement and the number of male and female employees per job category.

In Belgium, the two-year pay reporting duty, introduced by the Gender Pay Gap Act 2012, is limited to the private sector but addresses companies with at least 50 employees. The data to be reported entail gender-segregated mean basic pay and allowances per employee category, job level, job evaluation class (if applied), seniority and education level.

France requires companies with 50 or more employees (and, in a more detailed form, companies with at least 300 employees) to annually draw up so-called ‘comparative equality reports’ concerning the situation of men and women employed, in terms of qualification, recruitment, training, pay, working conditions and work-family balance. Pay refers to the average monthly wage per job category.

Suppose the European Union decides to iron out the gender pay gap through pay transparency actively. In that case, it will create perverse effects inside companies, killing the incentive to ask for a raise.

Let’s say you write newspaper articles (close to home) and renegotiate the rate you receive per article. You end up receiving that raise. As this creates a gender wage gap within the company you’re working for, all female staff needs to get your raise as well, and – as the balance then tilts the other way – all the other male staff will also receive more.

If the company cannot afford to increase the rates of everyone, it is more likely not to give a raise at all. Ironically, if the company hires ONLY men, then that would be completely legal.

The idea that companies should not discriminate purely based on gender is a correct one. It is an arbitrary principle that has no place in a civilised society. The idea that statistical nonsense of gender wage gap statistics is proof of structural misogyny is utterly ridiculous. Women and men make different choices when it comes to education and the workforce — differences that are not accounted for in these statistics.

Therefore, the European Union’s policy on pay transparency is profoundly misguided and should not be implemented.

Originally published here.

Wie der Zugang zu Corona-Impfstoffen beschleunigt werden kann

Die Corona-Pandemie hat gezeigt: die Zulassungsverfahren für neue Medikamente sind zu bürokratisch und zu langsam. Abhilfe könnte eine wechselseitige Anerkennung von Zulassungen durch die Behörden schaffen.

Nun also die Deltamutante. Kaum hat sich die Stimmung der Menschen im Gefolge der Corona-Lockerungen gebessert, droht mit der jüngsten Mutation des Corona-Virus ein Rückschlag im Kampf gegen die Pandemie. Dabei war Experten von vornherein klar, dass auch das Corona-Virus mutieren wird. Neuartige Viren tauchen immer wieder auf, mutieren und schaffen es in einigen Fällen, in den menschlichen Körper einzudringen und unserer Gesundheit potenziell zu schaden. 

HIV, Ebola und SARS waren und sind nur einige der neuen viralen Bedrohungen in den letzten vier Jahrzehnten. Die Forschung zur Behandlung der Krankheiten, die sie verursachen, oder sogar zur Entwicklung eines Impfstoffs gegen sie verlief langsam, aber in letzter Zeit immer vielversprechender. In der Vergangenheit dauerte es ein paar Jahrzehnte von der Identifizierung eines Virus bis zur Freigabe eines wirksamen Impfstoffs, der verabreicht werden kann. Ein Beispiel: Über drei Jahrzehnte und 500 Milliarden Dollar mussten aufgewendet werden, um der Heilung von HIV nahe zu kommen. All dies hat sich mit COVID19 dramatisch geändert.

Während COVID19 eine der verheerendsten Herausforderungen für die öffentliche Gesundheit weltweit darstellt, brachen Wissenschaftler Rekorde, indem sie (mehrere) wirksame Impfstoffe innerhalb von manchmal Tagen und nicht Jahrzehnten fanden. Während also das Coranavirus zahllose Menschenleben forderte, Milliarden von Menschen einschloss und die Weltwirtschaft in Aufruhr versetzte, gibt es angesichts des Tempos biotechnologischer Innovationen, die uns vor dieser Bedrohung schützen, auch einen Hoffnunsschimmer am Horizont.

Bürokratische Hürden

Gesundheitssysteme haben mehrere Werkzeuge zur Hand, um eine virale Bedrohung zu bekämpfen: Die Verwendung von Masken, die Desinfektion von Oberflächen, soziale Distanzierung oder die Anwendung bestehender medikamentöser Behandlungen gegen neue Viren. Aber wenn es darum geht, eine allgemeine Immunität in der Bevölkerung zu schaffen, gibt es nur eine Option: Massenimpfungen.

Dank massiver Fortschritte in der Gen-Editing-Technologie und einem tieferen Verständnis dafür, wie man Boten-RNA nutzen kann, um dem menschlichen Körper beizubringen, Viren zu bekämpfen, haben Unternehmen wie Moderna und BioNTech innerhalb weniger Tage ihre hochwirksamen Impfstoffe entwickelt. Dieser Durchbruch kam definitiv zur richtigen Zeit und könnte die Schwere und Dauer der Pandemie bedeutend reduziert haben.

Mit Blick auf die Geschichte der Viren wäre es fahrlässig zu glauben, dass wir uns mit der Überwindung der aktuellen Pandemie entspannen und aufhören können, uns um Viren zu sorgen. Im Gegenteil, wir sollten die Lehren aus den letzten anderthalb Jahren nutzen und unseren regulatorischen Ansatz für biotechnologische Innovationen optimieren, damit diese Impfstoffe noch schneller zu den Patienten gelangen können.

Während Moderna nur 48 Stunden brauchte, um einen Impfstoff zu entwickeln, gingen dennoch zehn Monate mit behördlichen Genehmigungen, klinischen Studien und anderen bürokratischen Hürden ins Land, bevor der Impfstoff regulären Patienten verabreicht werden konnte. Wenn wir uns die verlorenen Menschenleben, die psychologische Isolation der eingeschlossenen Menschen und die wirtschaftlichen Kosten jeden Tages, jeder Woche und jeden Monats zwischen der Entdeckung eines Impfstoffs und seiner Zulassung ansehen, sollten wir alles tun, um diesen Prozess so weit wie möglich zu straffen. 

Schnellere Zulassung durch Reziprozität

Die meisten bestehenden regulatorischen Rahmenbedingungen basieren auf der Annahme, dass es mindestens ein Jahrzehnt dauert, einen Impfstoff zu entwickeln und sind daher nicht für die schnelle und computersimulationsgestützte Entwicklung von mRNA-Impfstoffen gemacht. Ein agileres Rahmenwerk würde KI-Tools und Computer-Vorhersagen eine prominentere Rolle einräumen, um klinische Studien zu verkürzen. Es würde auch eine globale Reziprozität beinhalten: Wenn eine seriöse Zulassungsbehörde grünes Licht für einen Impfstoff gegeben hat, sollten Patienten in anderen Ländern automatisch auch Zugang erhalten. 

Reziprozität bei der Impfstoffzulassung erleichtert einen gesunden Wettbewerb zwischen den Arzneimittelbehörden auf der ganzen Welt, in dem pharmazeutische Unternehmen Studien durchführen und die Zulassung in jenen Ländern beantragen, die diesen agilen Ansatz unterstützen. Regierungen, die dies verpassen, werden weniger Studien in ihren Ländern sehen und attraktive Biotech-Investitionen in ihrer Region verlieren. Eine intelligente Regulierung wird nicht nur neue und boomende Biotech-Cluster schaffen, sondern auch, und das ist noch wichtiger, es uns ermöglichen, die nächste Pandemie innerhalb von Monaten und nicht Jahren zu überwinden. Millionen von Leben könnten gerettet und Milliarden, wenn nicht Billionen an Wirtschaftsleistung gesichert werden.

Sich auf die nächste Pandemie vorzubereiten, bedeutet, ein regulatorisches Instrumentarium zu entwickeln, das Impfstoffentwicklern und -herstellern die Luft zum Atmen gibt, die sie brauchen, um diese relativ preiswerten Lebensretter zu den Menschen zu bringen.

Originally published here.

WV laws inhibit electric vehicle sales

One of the core components of President Joe Biden’s infrastructure bill is adequately preparing the country for the electric vehicle (EV) revolution.

The Biden administration has earmarked $174 billion for transportation electrification, which has sparked a flurry of investment from auto manufacturers.

GM announced they will be opening a $2.3 billion plant in 2023 to manufacture 500,000 EV batteries, Honda has committed to only sell EVs by 2040, Hyundai will invest $7 billion for U.S. EV production, and Ford has announced that half of all Lincolns produced could soon be emissionless.

But unfortunately for consumers in West Virginia, poor policy at the state level is acting as a major hurdle. West Virginia, who currently ranks tied for last in the U.S. Electric Vehicle Accessibility Index, is actively discouraging the purchase of EVs with their ban on direct-to-consumer sales and their disproportionate licensing fee for electric and hybrid vehicles.

Under the guise of consumer protection, West Virginia has made it illegal for electric vehicle manufacturers, like Tesla, to sell directly to consumers. Dealer franchise laws, which ban direct sale, are a decades-old policy implemented to protect consumers from vertical integration and monopolization.

In today’s age of limitless information at your fingertips and healthy competition in the auto industry, this restriction is far past its expiration date. It does nothing but impede consumer choice while providing no consumer protection value.

That’s why many EV manufacturers have opted out of the dealership model entirely. Due to the innovative nature of electric vehicles, a traditional franchised dealership model may not be the most effective way to get these eco-friendly vehicles to market.

Operating a stand-alone dealership increases costs and adds a middle man into the sale process, which can often inflate prices for consumers.

Beyond the ban on direct sales, West Virginia also punishes EV consumers with higher license and registration fees. The standard registration fee for vehicles in West Virginia is $51.50. For consumers making the eco-conscious choice to buy and register an EV, the registration cost is nearly 400% higher at $251.50.

This is incredibly discriminatory, and a much better approach would be to simply treat EVs on par with standard passenger vehicles.

Unfortunately, some legislators have justified the additional fee to help recover lost gas tax revenue, but that runs counter to the purpose of gas taxes. The purpose of the gas tax, currently at 23 cents per gallon in West Virginia, is to encourage consumers to reduce their emissions, which is exactly what EV consumers are doing when they purchase an EV. It’s strange that the reward EV consumers get for their eco-friendly decision is inflated fees exponentially higher than the alternative. It is unfair that these consumers now shoulder more of the financial burden when they are in fact responding to gas taxes as intended by the tax.

On top of being relatively easy to implement, these policy changes have the added benefit of encouraging EV purchases without taxpayer manufacturing subsidies or complicated tax credits, which have rightfully been criticized for favoring the wealthy.

At the end of the day, the EV revolution is well on its way. By simply getting out of the way, legislators in West Virginia could enhance consumer choice, lower costs, protect the environment and do so without all of the logistical issues that come with corporate welfare and boutique tax credits.

As the famous idiom goes, “a rising tide lifts all boats.” The tide is certainly rising for electric vehicles, but with misguided regulations handcuffing consumers, West Virginians may end up watching from the shoreline.

Originally published here.

It’s time for a single market for savings and investments

Give savers more options.

Saving to invest is an important factor in how consumers build capital. In fact, in many European countries it is seen as a virtue to be meticulous savers, as opposed to lavish spenders. If only governments would act in the same way…

That said, how Europeans save can vary significantly from our American friends. In fact, less than 15% of Europeans (often merely 1% in Central and Eastern Europe, 15% in Germany, up to 40% in the Netherlands invest directly or indirectly in stocks. By contrast, up to half of American households have purchased stocks directly or equity through funds, most of the time as a long-term saving commitment. One reason is that while working with financial services across state lines is seemingless in the United States (think the federal 401k retirement accounts scheme), Europe is on a higher level of complication. 

The S&P 500 Index had an average annual growth performance of 8%. Most Europeans can only dream of such annual yields that double one’s investment every nine years. The compound effects of this are even more significant. If a 29-year-old invests €40,000 at such an annual performance rate in stocks, she has €640,000 at age 65, and that does not even include additional cash injections into her investment account. For comparison, the average wealth of adults in Western Europe is around €250,000 (with a much lower median wealth).

But when we think of “investors” or buying and trading stocks in Europe, we picture wealthy individuals and large corporations. But in fact, lower-middle-class consumers can have their share in the world economy and guarantee themselves long-term growth if we ease the burdens on them purchasing stocks. Instead of propagating fear, legislators and regulators should embrace small-scale private investments and provide consumers with information. For too long, we have seen investors painted with a broad brush. Only in popular shows such as Shark Tank and Dragon’s Den have investors anywhere near the necessary appeal towards the more general public. At the same time, in parliaments across Europe, the mere word is side-eyed with suspicion.

In understanding the average European, buying shares is reserved for a financial elite or individuals with fortunes and large companies.  In reality, all classes of people can have a share in the global economy and secure long-term growth if we ease the burden on them when they buy shares. 

Instead of spreading fear, legislators and regulators should encourage small private investments and provide information to consumers. For too long, stock market investing has had a negative connotation. Unfortunately, it is only through popular shows such as Shark Tank and Dragon’s Den that people are discovering the appeal of investing. 

The European Union’s Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID) is currently under review. Legislators should take advantage of the situation to make it easier for people to invest, not more challenging to do so because of new regulatory changes. Legislators should create a true single market for equity investments and lower the barriers for companies offering equities and exchange-traded funds (ETFs).

Historically, stock markets have outperformed other types of savings systems. Currently, only a tiny proportion of Europeans are enjoying single-digit growth in their retirement savings. European policymakers should create a culture of citizen-shareholders through smart regulation and stop denigrating financial markets, as they can bring wealth to a large share of European savers.

Originally published here.

Pentingnya Peran Perusahaan E-Commerce dalam Menangkal Pembajakan Produk

Layanan e-commerce atau toko online saat ini merupakan layanan yang tidak bisa dipisahkan dari keseharian kita, terutama kita yang tinggal di kota-kota besar. Meningkatnya pengguna internet secara sangat pesat tentu memiliki korelasi yang sangat berkaitan dengan naiknya jumlah pelanggan yang berbelanja melalui dunia maya.

Saat ini, dengan sangat mudah kita menemukan berbagai produk dan barang yang kita butuhkan dan kita inginkan melalui berbagai layanan toko daring. Mulai dari bahan-bahan pangan, alat-alat rumah tangga, elektronik, produk-produk pribadi, hingga barang-barang kolektor.

Pertumbuhan ini semakin dipercepat dengan adanya pandemi COVID-19 yang masih terus berlangsung hingga hari ini. Pandemi ini telah mengharuskan banyak orang melakukan aktivitas mereka di rumah, dan kelebihan utama layanan toko daring adalah Anda bisa melakukan aktivitas belanja yang sebelumnya harus dilakukan secara fisik di tempat Anda. Diproyeksi, perdagangan online di Indonesia pada tahun 2021 ini akan meningkat 33,2% dari Rp253 triliun tahun 2020, menjadi Rp337 triliun pada tahun ini (indonesia.go.id, 23/2/2021).

Naiknya jumlah pelanggan dan pengguna toko-toko daring juga memberikan kesempatan yang semakin luas kepada para pedangang, terutama para pedagang kecil. Bila sebelumnya, seseorang kalau ingin menjadi pedagang mereka harus menyewa toko fisik, dan memiliki modal yang tidak sedikit, saat ini mereka bisa berjualan dimanapun mereka inginkan, dan mendapatkan pembeli dari seluruh penjuru negeri.

Semakin meningkatnya industri layanan e-commerce juga sangat menguntungkan para pelanggan, karena mereka bisa lebih mudah mendapatkan barang yang mereka inginkan. Sebelum adanya internet, kita harus bepergian secara fisik untuk mencari suatu barang, dan bila barang yang kita inginkan tidak ada di toko tersebut, kita harus berpindah dan mencari toko yang lain. Aktivitas ini tentu bukan hanya menguras energi dan waktu, tapi juga uang untuk transportasi.

Perkembangan layanan e-commerce sepertinya merupakan sesuatu yang sudah tidak bisa kita bendung lagi. Semakin meningkatnya pengguna internet, dan juga semakin cepatnya koneksi internet, maka pada saat yang sama layanan toko daring juga akan semakin meningkat dan menarik semakin banyak pelanggan.

Namun, dengan segala manfaat positifnya, semakin meningkatnya penggunaan dan layanan e-commerce juga menimbulkan masalah baru, salah satunya adalah aspek pembajakan. Semakin mudahnya kita bisa mengakses dan membeli barang pada saat yang sama juga membuat semakin mudah pula para penjual barang bajakan untuk menjual barang-barang palsu yang mereka buat kepada konsumen.

Persoalan mengenai pembajakan sendiri tentunya bukanlah masalah yang baru terjadi di Indonesia. Masalah ini merupakan masalah besar yang sudah ada sejak lama, jauh sebelum internet hadir dan masuk menjadi bagian dari keseharian kita. Bila saat ini kita pergi ke berbagai tempat pusat perbelanjaan pun, dengan mudah kita bisa menemukan berbagai produk barang-barang palsu yang dijual dengan sangat bebas dan harga yang jauh di bawah harga aslinya. Hal ini mencakup berbagai macam barang, seperti pakaian, perangkat lunak, buku, dan juga barang-barang elektronik.

Hal yang sama juga demikian terjadi di toko-toko daring. Bila kita berselancar di dunia maya, maka dengan sangat mudah kita akan menemukan berbagai barang-barang bajakan yang dijual dengan harga yang jauh lebih murah. Tidak jarang, barang-barang yang dijual tersebut terlihat sangat mirip dari barang yang asli.

Pembajakan karya apapun tentu merupakan hal yang tidak bisa dibenarkan, karena hal tersebut merupakan bentuk pelanggaran hak kekayaan intelektual yang merugikan pihak lain. Bila hal ini terus dibiarkan, maka tentu orang-orang akan semakin malas untuk berkarya dan berinovasi, karena mereka tidak bisa mengambil manfaat dari karya dan inovasi yang mereka buat.

Untuk itu, peran serta aktif berbagai perusahaan penyedia layanan e-commerce untuk menangkal pembajakan adalah hal yang sangat penting untuk dilakukan. Tanpa adanya peran aktif dari berbagai perusahaan penyedia layanan e-commerce untuk menangkal penjualan barang-barang bajakan, maka permasalahan ini tentunya akan terus berlangsung berlarut-larut dan akan sangat sulit untuk diselesaikan.

Isu mengenai pembajakan ini juga menjadi fokus berbagai pihak terkait layanan e-commerce. Asosiasi e-commerce, Indonesian E-Commerce Association (idEA) misalnya, menyatakan siap melawan pembajakan, khususnya pembajakan buku yang sangat marak terjadi di berbagai platform penyedia jasa toko daring. idEA juga mengatakan bahwa setiap penyedia layanan e-commerce harus juga ikut mengawasi barang-barang yang dijual di platform mereka (ekonomi.bisnis.com, 27/5/2021).

Hal ini tentu merupakan sesuatu yang patut diapresiasi. Sikap dari asosiasi e-commerce tersbut untuk melawan penjualan produk-produk bajakan di platform toko daring adalah hal yang harus kita dukung. Semoga, para penyedia layanan e-commerce semakin memperkuat komitmen mereka untuk menangkal berbagai upaya penjualan produk bajakan di platform yang mereka miliki.

Sebagai penutup, perkembangan e-commerce yang semakin pesat telah membawa banyak manfaat, baik bagi para konsumen yang ingin berbelanja, ataupun kepada para penjual agar mereka bisa lebih mudah menjual barang dagangan mereka. Namun, perkembangan tersebut juga menimbulkan tantangan baru, salah satunya adalah platform tersebut memberikan ruang yang lebih besar bagi para pembajak produk untuk menjual barang-barang palus yang mereka buat. Untuk itu, dibutuhkan peran aktif dari para penyedia layanan e-commerce untuk menangani permasalahan tersebut.

Originally published here.

Nebraska should end these in-state obstacles to electric vehicle progress

One of the core components of President Joe Biden’s infrastructure bill is adequately preparing the country for the electric vehicle (EV) revolution. The Biden administration has earmarked $174 billion for transportation electrification, which has sparked a flurry of investment from auto manufacturers.

GM announced they will be opening a $2.3 billion plant in 2023 to manufacture 500,000 EV batteries, Honda has committed to sell only EVs by 2040, Hyundai will invest $7 billion for U.S. EV production, and Ford has announced that half of all Lincolns produced could soon be emissionless. Even here in Nebraska, EV consumers communities like Norfolk and Kearney are building out their charging stations.

But unfortunately for consumers in Nebraska, poor policy at the state level is acting as a major hurdle. Nebraska, who currently ranks tied for last in the U.S. Electric Vehicle Accessibility Index, is actively discouraging the purchase of EVs with their ban on direct-to-consumer sales, and their disproportionate licensing fee for electric and hybrid vehicles.

Under the guise of consumer protection, Nebraska has made it illegal for electric vehicle manufacturers, like Tesla, to sell directly to consumers. Dealer franchise laws, which ban direct sale, are a decades-old policy implemented to protect consumers from vertical integration and monopolization. In today’s age of limitless information at your fingertips, and healthy competition in the auto industry, this restriction is far past its expiration date. It does nothing but impede consumer choice while providing no consumer protection value. That’s why many EV manufacturers have opted out of the dealership model entirely. And, we know from the success of direct-to-consumer platforms in the used car market (where direct sale is legal) that online purchasing is on the rise.

Beyond the ban on direct-sales, Nebraska also punishes EV consumers with higher license and registration fees. The standard registration fee for vehicles in Nebraska is between $15. For consumers making the eco-conscious choice to buy and register an EV, the registration cost is over 500% higher, at $75. This is incredibly discriminatory, and a much better approach would be to simply treat EVs on par with standard passenger vehicles.

Unfortunately, some legislators have justified the additional fee to help recover lost gas tax revenue, but that runs counter to the purpose of gas taxes. The purpose of the gas tax, currently at 28.7 cents per gallon in Nebraska, is to encourage consumers to reduce their emissions, which is exactly what EV consumers are doing when they purchase an EV. It’s strange that the reward EV consumers get for their eco-friendly decision is inflated fees exponentially higher than the alternative. It is unfair that these consumers now shoulder more of the financial burden when they are, in fact, responding to gas taxes as intended by the tax.

On top of being relatively easy to implement, these policy changes have the added benefit of encouraging EV purchases without taxpayer manufacturing subsidies, or complicated tax credits, which have rightfully been criticized for favoring the wealthy.

At the end of the day the EV revolution is well on its way. By simply getting out of the way, legislators in Nebraska could enhance consumer choice, lower costs, protect the environment, and do so without all of the logistical issues that come with corporate welfare and boutique tax credits.

As the famous idiom goes, “a rising tide lifts all boats.” The tide is certainly rising for electric vehicles, but with misguided regulations handcuffing consumers, Nebraskans may end up watching from the shore line.

Originally published here.

We do not need more taxes to respond to the COVID-19 crisis

Reducing corporate taxes allows for improvements in production techniques, technology, and capital investment, which increases productivity and workers’ incomes.

The COVID-19 crisis continues, and the anti-crisis funds swell. In order to provide a direct stimulus, some European countries are taking the sensible decision to reduce tax burdens, while others want to increase them. It is obvious that simplified and reduced taxation would give the necessary boost to consumers and businesses. How can we convince decision-makers to change course?

It is not unbelievable that the COVID-19 health crisis has allowed many political sides to impose policy proposals that require a crisis to convince public opinion. Unimaginable a year ago, the European Council agreed to a European loan and to raise European taxes. Here we are with a much-changed political debate and a discussion of solidarity that reminds us of the 2008 crisis.

On the other hand, Germany has decided on a temporary reduction of VAT until 1 January, from 19% to 15%, respectively from 7% to 5% for the reduced rate. Thus, as of this month, Irish consumers benefit from a reduction in VAT from 23% to 21%. Given that value-added tax is the most unfair tax on consumers, why not implement a similar measure in other countries?

It is also important to understand two crucial economic lessons. First, we know that a reduction in taxes does not necessarily coincide with a reduction in revenues from Laffer’s work. Second, it is important to know that tax cuts without spending cuts will have little effect. 

It should be remembered that the state as such is not a wealth-generating entity. To finance its activities, it has to draw resources from the private sector. By doing so, it weakens the process of wealth creation and undermines the prospects for real economic growth.

As the state is not a wealth-generating entity, any reduction in taxes while public expenditure continues to rise will not support real economic growth. However, fiscal stimulus could “work” if the flow of real savings is large enough to support, i.e. finance, government activities while allowing a growth rate in private sector activities. If lower taxes are accompanied by lower public spending, citizens will have more means to reactivate wealth creation. Thus we will have a real economic recovery. 

This logic applies to corporate tax cuts, which especially in times of crisis, are not a popular measure. However, those who attack such a cut are wrong. They rely on a zero-sum view of the world in which one person’s gains are seen as another’s losses. They assume that corporate owners enjoy almost all the benefits of corporate tax cuts. They rely on highly distorted data to support their arguments and a poor understanding of how the economy works.

The zero-sum view ignores the fact that voluntary market agreements benefit all participants. Therefore, increasing mutually beneficial trade, as well as reducing taxation, benefits both buyers and sellers. On the other hand, punishing sellers with higher taxes also gives them an incentive to do less with their resources for the service they provide to others.

Reducing corporate taxes allows for improvements in production techniques, technology, and capital investment, which increases productivity and workers’ incomes. In addition, it increases the incentives for risk-taking and entrepreneurship for consumers. This reduces the significant distortions caused by taxation, and these changes benefit workers and consumers.

Centralized collection schemes will show very little results, because the state, in its centralized structure, is unable to know what people really want. If we want to combat the effects of COVID-19 closures, we need to free up the entrepreneurial capacities of citizens, and reduce the regulatory barriers that businesses face.

Originally published here.

Alabamians may not share in the electric vehicle revolution

One of the core components of President Joe Biden’s infrastructure bill is adequately preparing the country for the electric vehicle (EV) revolution. The Biden Administration has earmarked $174 billion for transportation electrification, which has sparked a flurry of investment from auto manufacturers.

GM announced they will open a $2.3 billion plant in 2023 to manufacture 500,000 EV batteries, Honda has committed to only sell EVs by 2040, Hyundai will invest $7 billion for US EV production, and Ford has announced that half of all Lincoln vehicles produced could soon be emissionless. Even here in Alabama, Mercedes has committed to hiring an additional 400 workers at its Tuscaloosa County plant to keep pace with the demand for EVs

But unfortunately for consumers in Alabama, poor policy at the state level is acting as a major hurdle for the EV boom. Alabama, which currently ranks tied for last in the US Electric Vehicle Accessibility Index, is actively discouraging the purchase of EVs with their ban on direct-to-consumer sales, and their disproportionate licensing fee for electric and hybrid vehicles.

Under the guise of consumer protection, Alabama has made it illegal for electric vehicle manufacturers, like Tesla, to sell directly to consumers. Dealer franchise laws, which ban direct sales, are a decades-old policy implemented to protect consumers from vertical integration and monopolization. In today’s age of limitless information at your fingertips, and healthy competition in the auto industry, this restriction is far past its expiration date. It does nothing but impede consumer choice while providing no consumer protection value.

That’s why many EV manufacturers have opted out of the dealership model entirely. Due to the innovative nature of electric vehicles, a traditional franchised dealership model may not be the most effective way to get these eco-friendly vehicles to market. Operating a stand-alone dealership increases costs, and adds a middle-man to the sale process, which can often inflate prices for consumers. And, we know from the success of direct-to-consumer platforms in the used car market (where direct sale is legal), that online purchasing is on the rise.

Beyond the ban on direct-sales, Alabama also punishes EV consumers with higher license and registration fees. The standard registration fee for vehicles in Alabama is $65. For consumers making the eco-conscious choice to buy and register an EV, the registration cost is over 300% higher at $265. This is incredibly discriminatory, and a much better approach would be to simply treat EVs on par with standard gas-powered vehicles.

Unfortunately, some legislators have justified the additional fee to help recover lost gas tax revenue, but that runs counter to the purpose of gas taxes. The purpose of the gas tax, currently at 26 cents per gallon in Alabama, is to encourage consumers to reduce their emissions, which is exactly what EV consumers are doing when they purchase an EV. It’s strange that the reward EV consumers get for their eco-friendly decision is inflated fees exponentially higher than the alternative. It is unfair that these consumers now shoulder more of the financial burden when they are in fact responding to gas taxes as intended.

On top of being relatively easy to implement, these policy changes have the added benefit of encouraging EV purchases without taxpayer manufacturing subsidies, or complicated tax credits, which have rightfully been criticized for favoring the wealthy.

At the end of the day, the EV revolution is well on its way. By simply getting out of the way, legislators in Alabama could enhance consumer choice, lower costs, protect the environment, and do so without all of the logistical and ideological issues that come with corporate welfare and boutique tax credits.

As the famous idiom goes, “a rising tide lifts all boats”. The tide is certainly rising for electric vehicles, but with misguided regulations handcuffing consumers, Alabamians may end up watching from the shores.

Originally published here.

Fun Police

ConsEUmer Podcast

Consumer Choice Center Cast

Follow us

Facebook-f Twitter Instagram Linkedin Youtube Spotify

Contact Info

712 H St NE PMB 94982
Washington, DC 20002

info@consumerchoicecenter.org

© COPYRIGHT 2024, CONSUMER CHOICE CENTER

Scroll to top
en_USEN
it_ITIT pt_BRPT fr_FRFR es_ESES de_DEDE en_USEN