fbpx

Month: July 2021

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.

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.

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