fbpx

Month: July 2021

Stop using children for your big government political goals

If you want to make an argument on policy grounds, make it with the help of facts and coherent policy arguments.

France and Belgium are seeing thousands in the streets for both the Yellow Vest and environmentalist causes. The reality is that these two groups don’t go together, because while the Yellow Vests express the concerns of real-life working people, the climate protesters are fuelled by the questionable orchestration of youth activists.

The generational divide of both protests

The Yellow Vest movement, now in its third month of protest activity, has riled up low-income and lower middle class workers against the fiscal policies of French president Emmanuel Macron. The same is true in Belgium, which has very large fiscal burdens, including on people with limited incomes. The “Gilets jaunes” movement was sparked by increases in fuel taxes by the government, which is trying to respect promises made at the Paris Climate Accord in 2015. After a number of overwhelmingly large and aggressive protests, president Macron and Prime Minister Edouard Philippe dropped the plans for tax increases.

Meanwhile, France and Belgium are seeing the phenomenon of young people demonstrating at the “March pour le climat” (“March for Climate”). They are demanding the fight against climate change become a key component of government policy in both countries. As someone who has lived in Brussels, I wonder what more the activists would have the government do in addition to the current strict regulations on recycling, highly subsidised public transport, carbon taxes, expensive fuel, expensive heating prices, and subsidies for the construction of passive houses. Any new suggested measures would inevitably increase spending or the level of taxes that individuals will have to pay. After all, carbon taxes are nothing but indirect taxes on consumers.

This will reignite the opposition of the Yellow Vests, who rightfully see fiscal oppression of consumers through climate change action. What is the cause of  such a disconnect? A striking difference is the age discrepancy between both groups of protesters. The Yellow Vests express the concerns of purchasing power of working adults, while the climate change protests are composed of young people being riled up by the media or their parents against what they perceive to be the polluting elite.

Media imagery

During a youth climate protest in Brussels in 2019, 35,000 youngsters showed up, demanding more “climate action.” At the latest Climate March in Brussels, there were a large number of  children carrying signs asking for myriad regulations to reduce carbon emissions.

In response, the Flemish separatist politician Theo Francken posted  the following on Facebook (translated):

“Dad where is my phone?

– Gone.

When do we go skiing?

– Never.

Where will we go on holidays this year?

– We’ll stay home.

Does the heating work?

– Yes, it goes to 18°C.

Can you drive me to football practice?

– You can cycle.

Dad, why are you doing this?

– You convinced me that something needs to be done about the climate.”

Herein lies the truth behind climate change activism: nobody wants to foot the bill. Even more disturbing, and clearly falling into the category of creepy politicisation of the young, is how the media coverage of the protest has evolved. News outlets are happy to exploit youth engagement for the purpose of underlining the importance of climate action.

Slate France writes, “The children of the world are attacking their governments. And it works!“, DH Belgium quotes 4 year-old children saying “we are hotter [for this protest] than the climate”, Le Vif calls the activism “magnificent”. The New York Times calls the protest “a shame for the city where the European Union fixes European Climate Policy”, while the BBC uncritically reports that children were being brought by their own parents in an effort not to miss school.

After recent protests, Belgian news site Het Laatste Nieuws (HLN) gives us “the highlights” seen at climate rallies. In the photo below, visibly underage girls hold signs that would be unimaginable for rallies other than those supporting approved narratives.

The same goes for the activism of 16 year-old Greta Thunberg, who is currently at the center of youth climate protests. Even the World Economic Forum posts a video with her to their Twitter account, without any pushback on the policy proposals she makes:https://twitter.com/wef/status/1087956623358914560

Children are the easy targets of big government advocates

The crux of the issue is this: 16-year-old Greta is a great symbol  for those at the World Economic Forum whoargue for even more taxes on companies, as well as new and higher carbon taxes. The European Union is also more than content to tolerate children’s protests in the heart of Brussels because it drums up support for the introduction of new carbon taxes on an EU-wide level. And when these children grow old and start to work themselves, they will discover that the digital taxes reduced companies’ margins, causing an increase in prices, and that all the different carbon taxes were designed to make a large number of goods unavailable. Reality will hit hard, and, as with the example of the Yellow Vests, it might hit those in power even harder.

If you want to make an argument on policy grounds, make it with the help of facts and coherent policy arguments, not with the guilt-inducing face of a 4-year-old who doesn’t truly understand for what he or she is arguing, nor by primary and secondary school students who enjoyed their day off yelling in the streets before their mother picked them up in an SUV.

Originally published here.

Resilience: Prepping for the next virus

Looking at the history of viruses, we would be negligent to think that we can relax and stop worrying about viruses by overcoming the current pandemic

Novel viruses emerge regularly and, in some cases, make it into the human body and potentially causing harm to our health. HIV, Ebola, and SARS were and are just a few new viral threats in the last four decades.

Research on treating the diseases they cause or even finding a vaccine against them has been slow but recently more promising.

Traditionally, it took a few decades from identifying a virus to have an effective vaccine ready to be administered. As an example: Over three decades and $500 billion had to be spent to get close to curing HIV.

All of this dramatically changed with Covid-19.

While Covid-19 poses one of the most devastating public health challenges globally, scientists broke records by finding (multiple) effective vaccines against it within sometimes days and not decades. So while the coranavirus took countless lives, placed billions of people into lockdown, and the global economy in turmoil, there’s a silver lining given the pace of biotechnological innovations protecting us from this threat.

Health systems have several tools on hand to combat a viral threat: Using masks, disinfecting surfaces, social distancing, or applying existing drug treatments to new viruses. But when it comes to creating a general immunity among the population, there’s only one alternative to a large proportion of the population contracting the virus: mass vaccinations.

Thanks to massive advances in gene-editing technology and a deeper understanding of how to utilise messenger RNA to teach the human body to fight viruses, companies like Moderna and BioNTech developed their highly effective vaccines within days. This breakthrough came definitely at the right time and might have reduced the severity and shortened the duration of the pandemic by a significant factor.

Looking at the history of viruses, we would be negligent to think that we can relax and stop worrying about viruses by overcoming the current pandemic. On the contrary, we should utilise the lessons learned in the last year-and-a-half and tweak our regulatory approach to biotech innovations so that these vaccines can make it to patients even faster.

While it took Moderna merely 48 hours to come up with a vaccine, still, it took ten months of regulatory approvals, clinical trials, and other bureaucratic hurdles to overcome before their vaccine could get administered to regular patients. If we look at the lives lost, psychological isolation of people in lockdown, and the economic costs of each day, week, and month between discovering a vaccine and its authorisation, we should ensure to streamline this process as much as possible.

Most existing regulatory frameworks are built on the assumption that it takes at least a decade to develop a vaccine and hence not made for fast and computer simulation-supported development of mRNA vaccines.

A more agile framework would give AI tools and computer predictions a more prominent role to shorten clinical trials. It would also embrace global reciprocity: If one reputable authorisation body has greenlighted a vaccine, patients in other countries should automatically get access to it as well. 

The UAE has recently shown that it approves some of the most innovative medical products as fast or even more quickly than the European Union or the United States.

Reciprocity in vaccine approval facilitates healthy competition among medicines agencies across the world in which pharmaceutical companies run trials and seek approval in those jurisdictions that embrace this agile approach.

Agencies that miss out on this will see fewer trials run in their countries and lose out on attractive biotech investments in their region. Smart regulation will not only create new and booming biotech clusters but also, and even more importantly, allow us to overcome the next pandemic within months and not years. Millions of lives could be saved and billions if not trillions of economic output secured.

Preparing for the next pandemic means developing and embracing a regulatory toolkit that gives as many vaccine developers and manufacturers the air to breathe they need to get these relatively inexpensive lifesavers to the people. The UAE should be at the forefront of this and embrace the most agile vaccine approval framework.

Originally published here.

Consumer Choice Center Joins Coalition Urging PMTA Enforcement Extension

The Honorable Janet Woodcock
Acting Commissioner
U.S. Food and Drug Administration
10903 New Hampshire Avenue
Silver Spring, Maryland 20993

June 30, 2021

Dear Acting Commissioner Woodcock:

On behalf of millions of taxpayers and consumers across the United States, we, the undersigned 23 organizations, believe that, in the interests of public health, adult access to safe e-cigarette products must be maintained in order to reduce cigarette consumption nationwide and save millions of lives.

A substantial body of scientific evidence suggests these products save lives by reducing the use of traditional combustible tobacco products. Pulling e-cigarettes and other vapor products from shelves will harm consumers and small businesses. Therefore, we urge you to pursue a court-ordered extension to allow vaping products to remain available to adult consumers while undergoing their premarket review, as requested by the Small Business Administration (SBA) Office of Advocacy on June 7.

While we recognize the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has promised to exercise discretion in enforcement action, this does not provide the degree of certainty necessary for businesses who have complied with all relevant regulations and have not received authorization due to processing delays by the FDA. If an extension is not granted, there could be devastating consequences for businesses, particularly small businesses. Furthermore, any potential reduction in the supply of safe alternatives to tobacco could have a negative impact on public health across the United States and lead to an increase in tobacco-related mortality.

The FDA requires manufacturers and importers of electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS), also known as e-cigarettes or vapor products, to submit a premarket tobacco product application (PMTA). The application must demonstrate to the agency, among other things, that the marketing of the e-cigarette or vapor product would be appropriate for the protection of the public health. Applications for products on the market were due September 9, 2020, with enforcement to commence against unauthorized products from September 9, 2021. Manufacturers have submitted millions of official PMTA applications. However, due to the significantly higher than expected volume of applications, it is highly likely that the FDA will be unable to process all applications prior to the deadline.

In addition, the FDA has withdrawn the final rule published January 19, 2021, which declared that each product must be “appropriate for the protection of the public health” in light of the risks and benefits of the product to the general population. As a result, there is no final rule in place governing the PMTA process and therefore it is possible that a significant number of products may be removed from the market following the deadline. Millions of consumers who depend on ENDS products for their health and thousands of businesses who depend on these products for their livelihood are threatened by this needless bureaucratic uncertainty. The only sure why to avert a disastrous outcome is for the FDA to obtain a court order allowing it to extend the existing moratorium on enforcement by another year.

Should the FDA choose not to do so, we encourage you, in lieu of case-by-case enforcement, to publicly declare that the agency will not enforce the removal of any products that have submitted a timely PMTA application while such application is still under review. This compromise solution would be an effective, equitable, and simple way to provide certainty to the millions of consumers and thousands of sellers of ENDS products.

The PMTA timeline has been changed before. Further delay is appropriate and consistent with regulatory precedent. Last April, a federal judge concurred with the FDA and allowed the PMTA deadline to be modified. A significant motivation behind this extension was the FDA’s expectation that they would receive thousands of PMTA applications and would be unable to fully process all of them by the previous deadline. The agency has received more than 6 million applications, with each application containing thousands to millions of different supporting documents, ensuring that there is a near-zero chance of all PMTA applications being processed on time. The FDA itself has agreed with this assessment. Mitch Zeller, Director of the Center for Tobacco Products, has said publicly that PMTA applications are being reviewed in order of market-share, with the most popular products being reviewed first. Maintaining the September 9, 2021, deadline could disproportionally affect small businesses and impact tens of thousands of jobs.

The vaping industry, unlike many others, was created by small businesses, and these same small businesses continue to drive innovation in the market. As noted in SBA’s letter:

“Small businesses drive the American economy, with approximately 99.9 percent of all firms being classified as small. The vaping industry is a perfect example of that statistic. Small businesses created the industry and have been the drivers of the industry’s major innovations. While the Census Bureau’s Statistics of U.S. Businesses does not report data specifically on the vaping industry, the data show that well over 90 percent of tobacco stores (NAICS 453991) are small. According to industry sources, there are approximately 14,000 ENDS firms located across the country, and there are over 20,000 establishments listed under ‘Vape Shops & Electronic Cigarettes’ in the Yellow Pages.”

Without these entrepreneurs, the vape industry will be consolidated into a few large corporations, causing prices to rise and consumer choice to decrease.

The science on ENDS is clear. Vaping is at least 95% less harmful than traditional combustible cigarettes and is the most effective available method of smoking cessation, more than twice as effective as traditional nicotine replacement therapies like patches or gum. This is why vaping has been endorsed by more than 60 of the world’s leading public health organizations as safer than smoking and an effective way to help smokers quit.

When e-cigarettes entered the market in 2003, the U.S. adult cigarette smoking rate was 21.6%. Due in no small part to increased access to vaping, the U.S. adult smoking rate has plummeted to 13.7% as of 2018. A large-scale analysis from Georgetown University Medical Center estimates that 6.6 million American lives would be saved if a majority of cigarette smokers made the switch to vaping. Furthermore, the analysis finds, increased vaping use among cigarette smokers would “reduce health disparities,” since smoking rates are highest among those with lower income and education, and this reduction would “translate directly into lower medical costs” and “an improved quality of life.”

For these reasons, we strongly urge you to follow the recommendation of the Small Businesses Administration and pursue a court-ordered extension as soon as possible to modify the current September 9, 2021, PMTA deadline. Tens of thousands of jobs and millions of American lives depend upon it.

Sincerely,
 

Grover Norquist
President
Americans for Tax Reform

Christopher G. Sheeron
President
Action for Health

Marty Connors
Chair
Alabama Center-Right Coalition

Krisztina Pusok
Director
American Consumer Institute

Amanda Wheeler
President
American Vapor Manufacturers Association

Brent Wm. Gardner
Chief Government Affairs Officer
Americans for Prosperity

Ryan Ellis
President
Center for a Free Economy

Andrew F. Quinlan
President
Center for Freedom & Prosperity
 

Yael Ossowski
Deputy Director
Consumer Choice Center


Tom Schatz
President
Council of Citizens Against Government Waste

James Taylor
President
The Heartland Institute

Mario H. Lopez
President
Hispanic Leadership Fund

Julie Gunlock
Director, Center for Progress and Innovation
Independent Women’s Forum

Seton Motley
President
Less Government

Kim “Skip” Murray
Specialist
Minnesota Smoke-Free Alliance

Douglas Carswell
President & CEO
Mississippi Center for Public Policy

Tim Jones
Fmr. Speaker, Missouri House
Missouri Center-Right Coalition

Stefan Didik
Executive Board Member
Neighborhood Business Alliance

Lorenzo Montanari
Executive Director
Property Rights Alliance

Paul Gessing
President
Rio Grande Foundation

David Morris
Vice President
Smoke-Free Alternatives Trade Alliance

Lindsey Stroud
Director, Consumer Center
Taxpayers Protection Alliance

Casey Given
Executive Director
Young Voices

The full letter can be downloaded HERE

June 2021

Hello! 
Are you feeling the heat? Because we are on 🔥, and not just because it’s July. The team has been working around the clock to defend you and your consumer choice! Let me take you through the last few weeks.

The headaches of getting an electric car 

Liz and David worked out the very informed EV Accessibility Index 2021 — for each state in the U.S, they looked at regulations of direct-to-consumer sales and licensing fees for electric vehicles. Turns out that unlike driving a Tesla, buying one is not so seamless in many places around the country. 
READ MORE

Drinking in public? 

David went head to head with Dr. Samantha Wells on whether to allow drinking in public in Canada. He makes the very important point that a ban all too often hits marginalised communities. Cheers David ! 🍷
READ MORE

Caring for your teeth 🦷

Liz and Yaël wrote a fascinating new policy note on dental reform in the United States. Dental insurance plans leave a lot to be desired, so to give them some teeth (pun intended), this primer makes important recommendations. Check it out!
READ HERE

The ConsEUmer podcast now has 30 episodes! ️

Every Thursday on Spotify and Apple/Google podcasts: the ConsEUmer podcast, giving you updates on consumer choice around Europe and its neighbours. 30 episodes and some great guests recorded, edited, and uploaded. I recommend you check out some of the older episodes, and stay tuned for amazing content that’s yet to come!
READ HERE

Speeding up access to vaccines 

In his latest op-ed for the German newspaper Wirtschaftswoche, Fred explains what needs to be done to allow more people to get vaccinated. “Preparing for the next pandemic means developing a regulatory toolkit that gives vaccine developers and manufacturers the breathing room they need to bring these relatively inexpensive lifesavers to the people”, Fred writes, and he’s totally right!
READ HERE

LATAM Sharing Economy Index 2021 🛴

When it comes to the sharing economy, all eyes should be on Latin America. The region’s digital lag, combined with generally low trust in government institutions and problems inherent to developing economies, such as low wages, and corruption, make it especially receptive to innovative solutions.

The LATAM Sharing Economy Index 2021 was created in collaboration with Somos Innovacion, and provides essential consumer information about the best cities to rent a scooter, get a taxi on a ride-sharing platform, or book an Airbnb.
READ MORE

Say hi to our newest additions to the team! 
The Consumer Choice team keeps growing! Say hello to our Graphic Designer Luka Dzagania, our Fellow Amanda-Ellen Gibbs, and our Adjunct Research Fellow Dr. Kimberlee Josephson! We are glad to increase team #consumerchoice and fight the good fight! 
LEARN MORE
That’s a wrap for this month! Stay tuned on all of our social media channels for more info on our current activities. Defending consumer choice is more important than ever, in the world of nannies and cronies. If you want to support our work, please consider making a donation.
DONATE

Bill Wirtz
Senior Policy Analyst

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.

Scroll to top
en_USEN