fbpx

Day: July 1, 2021

The intellectual bankruptcy of “gastronationalism”

Consumers should decide what food they want.

Across Europe, food protectionists are back. Using the excuse of COVID-19, they claim that international trade competition is a problem for domestic producers. In several European legislations, it is proposed to impose quotas of local products on traders, in others it is ministers who make calls for “food patriotism”. It is at such times that it is worth remembering the extent to which this gastro-nationalism is problematic.

The Corn Laws were a perfect example of protectionism in the 19th century: the great conservative landowners in Westminster decided that the UK should tax foreign grain heavily in order to benefit local producers. 

The result of this trade policy seems self-evident: while British producers benefited, grain prices soared in the 1830s. As soon as the competition was neutralised, the big landowners were able to raise prices, which mainly harmed the working classes. On 31 January 1849, the disastrous results of the Corn Laws were finally recognised by a law passed in 1846. They were repealed and the import taxes disappeared.

Replacing the word “corn” or “United Kingdom” with any other product or country will not make any difference to the reality of economic principles: protectionism does not work, it impoverishes consumers and in particular the poorest. Unfortunately, this message does not seem to impress our French neighbours. Agriculture Minister Didier Guillaume called on the French “to be patriotic about food” even if “French tomatoes cost more”, according to RTL Radio France. The minister did not mince his words in the rest of his statements on the radio channel:

“Our fellow citizens must buy French. We must develop our agriculture if we want food sovereignty, agricultural sovereignty. But as it is a bit more expensive, we must work to be more competitive. French agriculture must be competitive. The prices paid to producers must be higher than they are today.

Since March, the French government has been in talks with the country’s supermarkets to buy fresh local produce. As a result, France’s largest retail chains, such as Carrefour and E.Leclerc, have shifted almost all their supplies to local farms.

Other countries have gone further than France.

The Polish government has denounced 15 domestic processors for importing milk from other EU countries instead of buying it from Polish farmers.

“The economic patriotism of these companies raises concerns,” the government said in a circular that remained online, even after the list of dairy plants that used foreign milk was removed in the first quarter of 2020.

The opposition comes from Berlin. Ahead of the agriculture ministers’ video conference a few weeks ago, Julia Klöckner, Germany’s agriculture minister, said the Coronavirus crisis underlined the importance of the single market and that EU countries should refrain from implementing protectionist policies to help their economies recover.

“Cross-border supply chains and the free movement of goods are essential to ensure the security of supply for citizens. And that is why I warn against ‘consumer nationalism’. It is only a supposed strength that is quickly fading away. We must not jeopardise the achievements of the internal market,” the statement said.

On the EU side, it is interesting to note that Internal Market Commissioner Thierry Breton seems determined to oppose any protectionist moves (at least outside the protectionist framework already established by the EU itself).

Originally published here.

If You Live in These States Don’t Buy an Electric Vehicle

Some states want to help push electric vehicle adoption. Others don’t. They make it harder and more expensive to drive an EV than not. These are the states that if you’re living in them it is best not to buy an EV. At least not now.

What are states doing that makes them bad?

Banning direct-to-customer sales, extra registration fees, and higher road charges are all ways that some states make it hard to buy an EV. If you’re thinking that this breaks down into red states discouraging EV sales and blue states pushing it, you would be wrong. All 50 states have been graded for their ease or difficulty in making an EV purchase.

The Consumer Choice Center does the rating. And in a surprise finding the 10 states listed as the toughest to purchase an EV through are Alabama, Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Carolina, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. In these states, you can’t make a direct vehicle sale, and it is more expensive registering an EV.  

Of the 50 states, 28 will charge you more to register an EV. Tesla sales have been banned in 17 states because their Franchise Tax laws don’t allow direct sales. And 12 more states have electric vehicle restrictions on sales through some direct-to-buyer laws. Some of these states restrict direct sales but don’t charge a higher fee to register an EV. Others, like Michigan, allow only Tesla to bypass Franchise Tax laws and sell direct. 

“Better policies will reduce significant barriers preventing consumers from fully accessing EVs”

“It is clear that consumers want more access to electric vehicles,” CCC’s North American affairs manager David Clement to arstechnica. “Therefore legislation should make the purchase and ownership of them as convenient as possible. And we urge legislators to put forth better policies that will reduce the significant barriers currently preventing consumers from fully accessing EVs.”

Conversely, these are the top 10 states that don’t have electric vehicle restrictions or higher registration fees when purchasing an EV. They are Alaska, Arizona, Delaware, Florida, Maine, Massachusetts, Missouri, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont. California is not included on this list for a reason.

California is not on the “Best States” list-how come?

Because California now has its licensing fees for EVs based on the consumer price index, they are gradually increasing. Currently, they’re at $100. Gas taxes are used by the state for road improvements and other travel-related costs. Since EVs don’t use gasoline this licensing fee arrangement makes sure California gets EVs to chip in. 

Almost half of all EVs in the US are registered in California. It has the highest adoption rate and also has more charging stations than any other state. Nonetheless, the CCC doesn’t consider it one of the Top 10 friendlier because of its licensing fee arrangement. 

With car companies slated to stop building gas-powered vehicles over the next 10 years, some states will have to adapt fairly soon. While they may continue charging higher fees for EVs, they will also have to increase charging stations. Direct to buyer restrictions won’t be as much of a factor with all car companies now rolling out EVs at a steady pace. 

Originally published here.

Scroll to top
en_USEN