January 2023 – Page 2 – Consumer Choice Center

Tick-tock for TikTok in the EU?

TikTok has become one of the most popular apps for consumers in the European Union, giving the Chinese Communist Party-controlled firm more access than ever to data of European citizens.

Given the very clear issues with the spread of TikTok and its connection to the regime, should EU lawmakers consider US-like legislation (barring federal employees from using the app) or even more radical regulation to protect European consumers from a Chinese government platform?

Zoltán Kész, Consumer Choice Government Affairs Manager, states that there is a real threat of consumers being spied on.

“With more than 230 million TikTok users in the European Union, nearly half the population, we should begin looking into solutions to encourage the governments of member states or even the European Parliament to control the Chinese app’s influence in our institutions.”

“We at Consumer Choice Center believe in free speech and tech innovation, and we also believe in being free from surveillance from despotic regimes. Free trade with private companies is also essential to global trade. Still, when it comes to the communist government ownership in the company, it worries us to see that our liberal democracies may be harmed by the possibility of European consumers’ devices being spied on,” says Kész.

“A new, 21st-century version of liberal democracies must admit that when it is authoritarian regimes involved on one side of the equation, you have to have security measures in place to save our democracies from totalitarians,” concludes Kész.

Hey buddy, consumers don’t need protection from natural gas stoves

January 12, 2023
By Yaël Ossowski
In Blog, Energy, Environment, Technology
1 comment

The degrowther cacophony of environmentalists, bureaucrats, and supposed consumer advocates has found a new enemy to protect you from: the gas stove in your kitchen.

As spelled out by U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commissioner Richard Trumka Jr. in a recent Bloomberg interview, a federal “ban on gas stoves is on the table amid rising concern about harmful indoor air pollutants.”

Trumka joins the chorus of enterprising journalists, academics, and green activists (and even the World Economic Forum) who have taken up the agency’s call to not only make a health case against kitchen stoves that heat food with natural gas, but also the environmental and moral one.

An article in New York Magazine asked, rather innocently, “are gas stoves the new cigarettes?” We all know what follows.

Humbly, Trumka later clarified the agency wouldn’t propose banning them, but would instead only apply strict regulations to “new products,” following cities like San Francisco and New York City, and entire states like New York (no surprise) that have already enacted bans on natural gas hook-ups for new construction. It should be noted that the majority of these proposed actions were based on environmental claims rather than health claims, and the most prominent advocates have been “environmental law” experts and the like.

Of course, they’ll say they don’t want to outlaw gas stoves in your home or dispatch agents to rip them from your kitchens and load them onto flatbeds. That’s silly. They just want to use the force of laws, guidance, and incentives to nudge consumers away from a natural gas standard. The federal government’s ineptly named Inflation Reduction Act will go a long way.

If you voluntarily swap your gas stove for an electric one, the IRA deems you eligible for a tax rebate of up to $840 — which would easily subsidize your lifestyle “choice”. This is similar to the law’s incentives for buying electric vehicles, installing solar panels, and fitting new construction with green-friendly tech.

While subsidies for your home kitchen may be all the rage, it’s understandable why this issue has become a cultural flashpoint.

For average consumers, the advantages of using a gas stove are plentiful. For one, they heat quickly and efficiently, reducing the time and energy used to cook a meal. They offer heat moderation that any meal would require. And because natural gas is a separate utility hook-up, it means that in the case of brownouts or power outages, you can still cook, boil water, and heat your food.

Restaurant chefs are slavishly reliant on natural gas to provide the best source of heat for lunchtimes and dinners for hungry patrons, as are Americans of more modest income who can more cheaply provide food at home using natural gas than increasing their electricity bill.

The disadvantages of natural gas stoves, according to the activists, are they could leak nitrogen oxides into your home, which, when wedded with improper ventilation, presents a risk for childhood asthma and other health concerns. In addition, that gas leakage could contribute to greenhouse emissions, which links it to climate change.

When Trumka first entertained a natural gas stove ban — on a December private Zoom meeting with the Public Interest Research Group Education Fund — the asthma risk was front and center. He went so far as to call it a “hazard,” which boggled our minds at Consumer Choice Center, considering the extent of our work clarifying the errors of legislating based on risks instead of hazards.

For a look into the studies, economist Emily Oster recently did this on her Substack, and her conclusion is that the risks claimed by researchers are actually so minimal that they aren’t worth taking seriously for anyone who has a properly vented kitchen and up-to-date appliances.

While indoor air pollution is indeed a serious hazard, it is not one that affects US households. Hood vents, air conditioning, and modern construction have avoided this issue for nearly all Americans, as the EPA admits. The effect on climate change is also negligent, considering that conversion to all-electric stoves does nothing to clean up the energy grid or move all electricity generation to carbon-neutral alternatives.

Why then is this issue gathering so much steam among consumer advocates like PIRG, which began a campaign against natural gas stoves early last year?

While they may be sincere in their aims, it amounts to yet another crusade against consumer choice. People know the risks of gas stoves and the cost-benefit analysis that comes with purchasing one. Having a gas stove with children running around isn’t ideal, and in most cases, an induction stove is likely even more efficient and desirable.

But the entire purpose of having a variety of stoves is to offer users — professional chefs and home cooks alike — the option that fits best with their lifestyle and budget. There are always risks when it comes to home appliances, energy applications, and what we bring into our homes.

But we would rather trust consumers to make this decision than a regulatory agency with its own agenda.

Time to stop the escalator tax

If you’re like me, this past holiday season was one of relief with a sense of normality. Unlike years prior, Ontario wasn’t in lockdown, or on the verge of one, which meant that finally we could celebrate with our family and friends as we did prior to the pandemic. For many, part of those celebrations include enjoying their alcoholic beverage of choice (responsibly of course), and taking advantage of some much needed time off.

All that said, for those who were holiday shopping, whether that be for gifts, or food, higher prices were prominent across the board. Grocery bills were approximately 11 per cent more expensive in 2022 than they were in 2021, while overall food inflation came in at 10.1 per cent. These are staggering figures, and especially regressive for those with modest or fixed incomes.

These inflationary pressures are the primary reason why the Bank of Canada has been aggressively raising rates, which has drastically increased the cost of borrowing for businesses, and hit hard for anyone trying to qualify for a mortgage, or on a variable rate mortgage.

Unfortunately, the inflationary pain doesn’t end there. Because of the federal government’s escalator tax on alcohol, the price of your favourite drink will increase on April 1 by 6.2 per cent, because the government indexes alcohol taxes to inflation. Add this tax hike to the fact that taxes alone account for around 50 per cent of the price of beer, 65 per cent of the price of wine, and 75 per cent of the price of spirits. This is cruel punishment for the crime of wanting to enjoy an alcoholic beverage and socialize, or relax.

The escalator tax removes that discussion from the democratic process and eliminates consumers from the discussion all together. And by indexing taxation to inflation it uncomfortably punishes consumers for inflationary pressures not caused by consumers themselves.

Now, there are opposing views on the root cause of inflation. On the Conservative side, they’ve argued that inflation is an outcome of poor monetary policy, primarily the Bank of Canada injecting the economy for far too long than the pandemic required. On the other side of the aisle, there is the argument that overall inflation is high because of lingering supply chain issues, and exacerbated by the disruption of Putin’s disgusting invasion of Ukraine. Whatever your view is, it seems incredibly unfair for the government to punish alcohol consumers because the BOC kept their finger on the money printer for too long, or because the pandemic gummed up the global economy with Putin making it worse.

And ironically, having taxation automatically increase prices puts continued upward pressure on overall inflation, and the longer these inflationary times persist, the more aggressive the BOC is going to have to be to avoid a run away scenario. This is a vicious cycle where inflation indexed taxation fuels the problem of inflation, driving rates higher, making mortgages more expensive, and leaving everyone poorer in the long run, except the federal government.

And when we compare how alcohol is taxed in the United States versus Canada, it feels like we’re rubbing salt in the wounds of Canadian consumers. For the average American, buying a case of beer has $4.12 in taxes associated with it. For the average Canadian, the tax paid on that same case of beer is over five times higher, at $20.31. The federal tax rate on beer in Canada is 2.8 times higher than in the United States, while the average provincial tax rate is over six times higher than the average U.S. state tax rate. Of course, there have to be taxes on alcohol, but do taxes really need to be this high?

The government needs to stop its hammering away at the disposable incomes of Canadians, and give alcohol consumers some much needed tax relief. It’s time to say no to the escalator tax.

Originally published here

Compared to Europe, the American farm system is more efficient and sustainable

One of the more notable misconceptions of many Americans is that people in the United States are worse off than their European counterparts. If we were to only look at income, Americans are wealthier than Europeans on multiple data points: the U.S. outperforms GDP per capita for most of the European Union. The American middle class also outperforms the European one, all while challenging what even counts as the middle class in the first place.

Adding to that, primary needs goods are cheaper for most consumers. As I’ve previously written, Americans spend 5 percent of their disposable income on groceries, compared to 8.7 percent in Ireland (the lowest in the EU), 10.8 percent in Germany, 12 percent in Sweden, 17 percent in Hungary and 25 percent in Romania. However, some critics claim the American food system prioritizes efficiency over sustainability, which in turn hurts the environment. Here is where the analysis gets very interesting.

Toward the end of the 1980s, the divergence between Europe and the United States in terms of agricultural output became noticeable. While Europe has retained a steady agricultural production level since about 1985, the United States doubled its productivity between 1960 and the year 2000 and is on route to breaking the 150 percent productivity gain in the near future. Meanwhile, American agricultural inputs are slowly retracting to the levels of the 1960s, meaning the U.S is producing a much larger amount of food with fewer resources. For instance, in maize production, this means that the United States produces 70 bushels per hectare, while European countries make less than 50.

An interesting mix of regulatory action and inaction has led to this divergence. A large contributor started in the 1970s, when Germany introduced the “Vorsorgeprinzip,” now commonly known as the precautionary principle. This policy is a preventative public safety regulation that inverts the burden of proof for the regulatory approval process: For example, a new crop protection chemical can only be approved if it is shown to have no adverse effects on human health or biodiversity. The precautionary principle does not only rely on mere toxicity but extrapolates to a comprehensive and difficult-to-establish level of proof that a product could never represent any harm. This elongated approval processes for new chemicals significantly as the EU enshrined it into its treaties — with the ironic effect that older pesticides remained on the market while newer products could not get approval.

In fact, a demonstration of the ill effects of the precautionary principle, and incidentally another reason why American farming is more effective, have become visible in the field of biotechnology. Genetically modified foods, commonly known as GMOs, as well as newer gene-editing technology, remains illegal in the European Union. Despite the fact that jurisdictions such as the United States, Canada, Brazil and Israel, have been using these plant-breeding techniques for decades, the precautionary principle and Europe’s heavy-handed regulatory approach prevent it from being used.

The European policies have, in fact, made farming less sustainable because Europe has neglected the innovation angle. Take the example of soil disruption. Agriculture is a large contributor to greenhouse gas emissions because carbon dioxide is stored in the soil, and as farmers disrupt the soil through tillage, that CO2 is released into the atmosphere. The more you disrupt the soil, the more you emit. While in the United States, over 70 percent of farming functions on reduced tillage or no-till farming, Europe still produces over 65 percent of its food on conventional tilling. The reason: no-till farming requires a more considerable use of pesticides, which are frowned upon in Europe.

Without innovation, agriculture cannot become more sustainable. While the European Union intends to reduce farmland, cut synthetic pesticide use and keep novel biotech solutions illegal within its “Farm to Fork” strategy (known as F2F), the United States has opted for a different approach. The USDA’s Agriculture Innovation Agenda (AIA) advances the notion that more innovation, through public and private research and investment, makes the food system more efficient and sustainable. The AIA is the forward-looking approach, while F2F attempts to reduce the impacts of farming on the environment by cutting back on farmland use and reducing the toolboxes of farmers to fight pests and plant diseases.

That said, the American food system also faces challenges. American environmental campaigners and trial lawyers appear to want to introduce a European-style regulatory system through the courts — including by suing food companies. The highly litigious American system creates a perverse effect in which you have to convince a judge or jury of the ill effects of a crop protection tool, not a scientific agency staffed with experts in analyzing data. As a result, developing farming chemicals becomes a liability that only large companies can actually afford, leading to market concentration. This is problematic because in an age when we need agricultural efficiency and innovation more than ever, it is essential for competition to reign in the agrochemical and agro-tech sphere. Competition creates the baseline for scientists, industry professionals and farmers to get a variety of choices in the marketplace.

Ultimately, we should recognize the wonders of modern agriculture. The benefits of high-yield farming are apparent: We feed more people more sustainably, all while having to charge them less for it. For instance, we need 60 percent fewer cows yet produce twice as much milk as we did in the 1930s. We need to build on these types of successes to make our food system more efficient and sustainable.

Originally published here

November 2022

November was like a bullet train for us at Consumer Choice Center: we’re very excited to publish our annual Sharing Economy Index, and our North American Affairs Manager David Clement was invited by the ECR party to present to MEPs and stakeholders in Brussels on the topic of PFAS and what smart regulations look like.

The CCC was *very online* this month. We had successful media hits on Orban’s price controls in Politico EU, Brussels Report, and Libération, and some stellar podcast episodes on Maltese cannabis and healthcare competition with Emmanuelle Faubert!

Also, don’t forget to check out our social media campaigns against the EU’s myopic agricultural policies and higher taxes for nicotine products. While you’re at it, don’t mind us asking for some love on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and LinkedIn.

Let’s move on to our top picks for the month!

October 2022

Halloween was hardly the scariest day of October this year. The UK changed their Prime Minister twice in two months, and elections in Brazil created new talking points–to say the least. As always, our team in the Consumer Choice Center has been working tirelessly to defend your rights on every front possible. Before we start, please give us some love on our social media channels because let’s be honest, it is the easiest way to keep up with our work and the team.

Onwards, shall we?

Greens/EFA Report goes after plant researchers.It fails.

If you have been following us closely, you already know that the EU is determined to set the bar very low in quality for agricultural policies. They constantly turn their backs on innovation and technology for the sake of ideological talking points. Worse, they do it at the expense of everyone else.In this piece, our Research Director Dr Emil Panzaru points out the inconsistencies of the Greens’ response to the agricultural crisis in Europe: “uncontrollable” genetic engineering, “unsafe mutations”, benefits of 100% organic farming, and much more. As Emil says, Europe’s agricultural policies are “less about science than it is about the politics in science.” Check it out here.

Politicians Are Coming for the App Store

On the other side of the world, the Wild West is wildin’ as usual. New legislation and an antitrust lawsuit threaten Apple’s monopoly over its App Store. Our Tech Policy Fellow Satya Marar correctly identifies that “It would also encourage investment in developer start-ups and could lower prices for in-app purchases, including for emerging technologies like NFTs, by allowing developers to circumvent Apple’s commissions through alternative digital payment methods.”
Satya also points out to the other unintended consequences of the Open App Markets Act, which may have some negative implications, too. I will leave it to you to find them out in the piece here.

Pentingnya Kerja Sama Internasional untuk Meningkatkan Perlindungan Kekayaan Intelektual di Indonesia

Perlindungan hak kekayaan intelektual merupakan salah satu instrumen yang tidak terpisahkan dan sangat penting untuk meningkatkan inovasi dan pertumbuhan ekonomi. Dengan adanya perlindungan kekayaan intelektual yang kuat, maka kita akan memastikan bahwa para inovator dan pekerja kreatif akan mendapatkan manfaat ekonomi dari karya yang mereka buat.

Inovasi tentu merupakan hal yang sangat krusial untuk mengembangkan industri, khususnya industri yang sangat bertumpu pada kreativitas seperti industri kreatif. Terlebih lagi, kita saat ini tinggal di era digital dengan perkembangan teknologi yang begitu pesat. Menjadi negara yang inovatif tentu merupakan sebuah keharusan.

Tanpa adanya perlindungan hak kekayaan intelektual yang kuat, maka para inovator dan pekerja industri kreatif tidak akan bisa untuk mendapatkan hak mereka atas hasil karya yang mereka buat, karena karya tersebut dapat dengan mudah dibajak oleh pihak-pihak yang tidak bertanggung jawab. Dengan demikian, insentif seseorang untuk berkarya dan berinovasi juga akan semakin menurun.

Di Indonesia sendiri, masih terdapat tantangan yang tidak sedikit dalam menegakkan perlindungan hak kekayaan intelektual. Bila kita pergi ke banyak pusat perbelanjaan di berbagai kota misalnya, dengan mudah kita bisa menemukan banyak produk-produk bajakan dalam berbagai bentuk, mulai dari pakaian, peralatan rumah tangga, dan lain sebagainya.

Kemajuan teknologi, yang tentunya membawa manfaat yang sangat besar bagi Indonesia, juga menimbulkan tantangan lain yang harus bisa kita selesaikan bersama. Melalui berbagai toko di dunia maya misalnya, kita bisa dengan mudah mendapatkan banyak produk bajakan. Selain itu, perkembangan teknologi juga membuat berbagai karya seni seperti musik dan film bisa dibajak dan diakses dengan lebih mudah oleh banyak orang.

Selain itu, hal lain yang juga sangat penting untuk diperhatikan adalah, persoalan mengenai pembajakan karya dan pelanggaran terhadap hak kekayaan intelektual bukan hanya hal yang terjadi di Indonesia. Masalah ini merupakan masalah yang memiliki ruang lingkup global, dan oleh karena itu kerja sama dengan negara lain atau lembaga internasional merupakan hal yang sangat penting.

Tidak sedikit misalnya, barang-barang dan juga produk bajakan yang masuk ke Indonesia yang diproduksi di negara lain. Beberapa waktu lalu misalnya, Bea Cukai Indonesia berhasil menyita lebih dari 800.000 produk pulpen bajakan yang diimpor dari China (dgip.go.id, 9/1/2020).

Indonesia sendiri saat ini sudah melakukan beberapa program kerja sama dengan lembaga internasional terkait dengan penguatan perlindungan hak kekayaan intelektual. Beberapa waktu lalu misalnya, Pemerintah Indonesia, melalui Dirjen Kekayaan Intelektual (DJKI) bersama dengan Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation – Digital Economy Steering Group (APEC-DESG) menggelar workshop internasional di Nusa Dua, Bali (nusabali.com, 29/11/2022).

Salah satu dari tujuan diadakannya acara tersebut adalah untuk meningkatkan kualitas pelayanan publik kekayaan intelektual berbasis digital. Salah satunya adalah melalui peningkatan teknologi, seperti Artificial Intelligence (AI). AI sendiri digunakan oleh DJKI salah satunya adalah untuk pemeriksaan Hak Kekayaan Intelektual untuk memberikan pelayanan yang lebih baik kepada masyarakat (nusabali.com, 29/11/2022).

DJKI sendiri juga sudah membuat program-program kecerdasan buatan yang ditujukan untuk mempermudah layanan pencatatan dan juga pelrindungan kekayaan intelektual. Dalam forum internasional ini, kita juga bisa belajar dari lembaga-lembaga terkait dan juga lembaga perlindungan kekayaan intelektual dari berbagai negara mengenai bagaimana cara terbaik untuk mengimplementasikan kecerdasan buatan dalam rangka memperkuat perlindungan hak kekayaan intelektual.

Adanya forum internasional seperti ini untuk meningkatkan tentu merupakan hal yang patut kita diapresiasi. Melalui forum ini, kita bisa saling belajar dari negara lain terkait dengan perkembangan upaya perlindungan hak kekayaan intelektual, dan juga pada saat yang sama bisa memperkenalkan berbagai hasil karya tradisional negara kita kepada para pembangku kepentingan dari negara lain.

Tidak hanya lembaga negara, kerja sama dengan organisasi internasional dalam rangka upaya untuk memperkuat perlindungan hak kekayaan intelektual di Indonesia misalnya, juga bisa digunakan oleh lembaga non-pemerintah atau pun akademisi.

Beberapa waktu lalu misalnya, diadakan acara Koneferensi Internasional Perlindungan Kekayaan Intelekual (International Conference Intellectual Property Rights) di kota Lombok, yang salah satu poin bahasan pentingnya adalah bagaimana penguatan perlindungan hak kekayaan intelektual merupakan langkah yang sangat penting untuk pemulihan ekonomi di masa pandemi COVID-19 (kumparan.com, 16/10/2022).

Selain itu, tentu ada banyak bentuk kerja sama internasional lain yang bisa kita lakukan dengan berbagai pihak. Salah satunya misalnya adalah melalaui perjanjian kerja sama ekonom dan investasi bilateral dengan negara lain. Indonesia sendiri misalnya, beberapa waktu lalu sudah membuat kesepakatan bilateral dengan Amerika Serikat terkait dengan hal tersebut, salah satunya adalah melalui kesepakatan Indonesia-USA Trade and Investment Framework Arrangement (TIFA) (liputan6.com, 17/5/2018).

Sebagai penutup, perlindungan hak kekayaan intelektual merupakan hal yang sangat penting untuk meningkatkan inovasi dan pertumbuhan ekonomi. Namun, permasalahan tentang pelanggaran terhadap hak kekayaan inetelektual merupakan masalah global, dan tidak bisa diselesaikan oleh satu negara saja. Maka dari itu, kerja sama internasional dengan negara atau lembaga lain merupakan hal yang sangat penting.

Originally published here

Infantilizing teens won’t protect them online, but it could threaten tech freedom

It’s for the children, they say.

A new Californian law that promises to protect minors from harms posed by online platforms like Instagram, Youtube and Tiktok. Instead, though, it threatens to increase censorship of controversial and politically sensitive speech, while slamming start-ups with immense costs and compromising the privacy of those it’s meant to protect.

Set to take effect in 2024, the California Age-Appropriate Design Code Act doesn’t specify tangible harms it’s meant to shield minors from. Nor does it empower parents with oversight over what their kids see online. Instead, it will use the threat of exorbitant fines to force big and small firms alike to identify and “mitigate harmful or potentially harmful” speech to minors, while requiring them to tool their algorithms to “prioritize” content that’s in their “best interests” and supports their “well-being.”

The inherently subjective nature of these terms means that companies will be forced to censor content based on what Big Brother or Big Bureaucracy thinks or says is harmful, while promoting content and speech they approve of. Companies also face lawsuits if the attorney general isn’t happy with how they enforce their own moderation standards. This could easily be weaponized by partisan AGs from either party to score political points by signaling the kinds of content they deem to be inappropriate for minors. In this respect, the law could encourage the kind of collusion between tech giants and the government to suppress or promote viewpoints or agendas that violates the first amendment.

While the law’s intention of protecting minors from age-inappropriate content is commendable, it has a critical flaw. It classifies everyone under 18 as a child, even minors who are nearly old enough to vote, get conscripted or serve on juries. This overbroad definition and the threat of billions in fines means that regardless of what politicians or regulators choose to take action on, companies are still likely to err on the side of censorship when it comes to age-appropriate content. That will likely mean shielding minors from important resources, including research on controversial subjects they might find necessary for school or college projects.

It’s also hard to see how several of the bill’s features, including a ban on enabling auto-play for all videos shown to minors, have anything to do with protecting kids rather than merely undermining the functionality of online entertainment platforms.

But perhaps the Act’s worst features are those around privacy. On one hand, it requires extensive paperwork, including privacy impact assessments and subjective “harm” assessments around new website features and how they could impact minors. This will lead to increased costs for start-ups and delays in bringing new innovations to the market for all users.

The law also requires stricter identity and age verification requirements for minors. This would likely involve collecting and storing sensitive identity information and documentation. With the ever-present threat of cyberattacks that have compromised the servers of even the world’s top tech giants and governments while exposing millions of users’ sensitive personal data to hackers, forcing businesses regardless of size and resources to collect and store such content is a massive privacy risk for those the law claims to protect. These businesses, which differ in data protection standards and capabilities, would become lucrative targets for hackers.

News stories, like Balenciaga’s recent advertising campaigns, apparently showing children with teddy bears in bondage gear, and internal studies linking Instagram use to self-harm and self-image issues for teens, rightly raise concerns about protecting minors online.

But targeted laws around these concrete problems and harms accompanied by better education to empower minors in navigating the online world would be far preferable and beneficial for them than radical legislation that infantilizes teenagers, suppresses speech, compromises privacy, and risks making the internet less functional for everyone.

Originally published here

The Festivus ‘Airing of Grievances’ was made for Canada

In the immortal words of Frank Costanza — ‘We got a lot of problems with you people, and now you’re going to hear about it’

With pandemic restrictions completely behind us, this holiday season is the first since 2019 in which life is starting to feel normal again. Canadians from coast to coast are shopping again, hosting get-togethers with family and friends and carrying on their family’s holiday traditions.

One tradition that is truly special is Festivus. Festivus was invented in the 1960s by the father of Dan O’Keefe, a writer for the hit 1990s comedy show Seinfeld, and became an O’Keefe family tradition. In a Seinfeld episode of December 1997, the show’s chief curmudgeon, Frank Costanza, father of George, introduced the holiday to the world.

Celebrated every December 23rd, this strange fest usually involves an unadorned aluminum pole (to emphasize its origins in anti-commercialism), a Festivus family dinner, feats of strength and the ever-important “Airing of Grievances,” in which, after dinner, each member of the family explains how all the others have disappointed them over the past year.

Well, speaking on behalf of Canadian consumers, directing my sentiments at our public officials and borrowing the immortal words of Frank Costanza: “We got a lot of problems with you people, and now you’re going to hear about it.”

Canadians traveling out of the country this Festivus may be shocked to learn that we still ration flights from many countries around the world. For some strange reason, and with the exception of 24 countries and the European Union, the number of flights allowed to arrive in Canada from an international destination is arbitrarily decided by the federal government. In a modern, globalized world, that’s unacceptable. Canadian airports and international airlines should be able to negotiate and allocate flights based on demand, rather than decree. If a market-based approach is good enough for 24 countries plus Europe, why isn’t it good enough for all countries? We should let the market — i.e., Canadians — determine where they want to travel to, how often and with what carrier.

If you plan to enjoy an alcoholic beverage over the holidays or at any other time of the year, you’ve got grievances, too. Big ones. Most Canadians don’t realize that on April 1st each year — no joke! — the excise tax on all alcohol increases automatically, having been indexed by law to inflation. With no vote in parliament, this “escalator tax” is slated to rise 6.3 per cent in 2023. Add this programmed tax hike to the fact that taxes alone account for around half the price of beer, 65 per cent of the price of wine, and 75 per cent of the price of spirits and your drink of choice may leave a sour taste in your mouth.

To add insult to injury, if you consume more than two drinks per week, you may now be regarded as a “problematic drinker.” Yes, according to the federally funded Canadian Centre for Substance use and Addiction (CCSA), anything more than two beers in any seven-day period is cause for concern. This is the one-two punch of the growing nanny state: increase taxes mercilessly and then shame consumers for what almost every other jurisdiction in the world considers low-risk drinking.

Finally, if any of your favourite holiday recipes include eggs, milk, chicken or turkey (and how many don’t?), understand that you pay hidden taxes on these items because “supply management,” our archaic system of production quotas and tariffs on imports that significantly limits supply, curbs competition and ensures high prices of supply-managed commodities. Peer-reviewed research shows that supply management adds upwards of $500 to the average family’s grocery bill every year, pushing between 133,000 and 189,000 Canadians below the poverty line. With overall inflation at 40-year highs, now would be the perfect time to get rid of it once and for all.

That’s it for grievances for this year — though only because space is limited: and could somebody out there puhlease do something about that! Merry Christmas and happy holidays, everyone. And a happy Festivus for the rest of us!

Originally published here

Orban wants to force private doctors to work for the state

The past decade has taught us that the self-proclaimed national conservative government has little respect for conservative values. It has attempted to nationalize private pension funds and introduce price caps that lead to shortages. And now they’re on to healthcare.

The Hungarian government website has revealed what they think to be the solution to the problems of state-run health care. The government wants to force every doctor to work at least twenty hours a month in the public health care system. Otherwise, their permits would not be granted. Doctors who now only work in private clinics may have to reschedule their workload and working hours. The proposal also mentions that doctors can be forced to carry out their tasks in state hospitals other than where they are stationed, which could mean commutes as long as three hours a day.

The intention is to save the public system. However, the decision will likely backfire. It will generate a significant exodus of mainly young medical professionals, leading to more erosion of public health care and fewer willing medical students who want to stay in Hungary.

Ever since the economic and political transition in 1990, health care has been one of the weakest points of every government. It has been treated somewhat lightly and often tossed aside. Interestingly, it was Fidesz that could have benefited from a healthcare reform pivot more than a decade ago. The Fidesz government’s rise to a supermajority in 2010 was partly due to its 2008 campaign and referendum against the previous government’s plan to have a 1 EUR co-payment structure.

Orban’s party was well aware of society’s attitude towards having to pay for something they had considered a right to have for free. Winning the referendum by a vast majority paved the way for Fidesz’s landslide victory and a two-thirds majority. As for the health care system, however, they slowly dismounted the public system and have not introduced any significant changes, which have led to shortages in doctors, nurses, and other medical staff, plus long waiting lists for surgeries and treatments.

“Reforms are needed in the Hungarian health care system. But changes like this do not bring about the intended consequences. In fact, they take the country back in time.”

Nevertheless, over time, private clinics have sprung up all over the country, taking over the task of the state by reducing waiting lists and, most importantly, providing good health care to customers. It has become a flourishing sector of the economy. As for patients, although people pay their social security to the state, they do not receive any service once they turn to private clinics.

What is the solution? At the moment, it is hard to imagine an entirely private system in Hungary. However, politicians and medical experts should engage in a conversation about a hybrid system that would require the state to allow competition and, most importantly, invite insurance companies to fill the gap between consumers and service providers.

This is the only option to satisfy both the medical profession and patients. In the long run, a shift towards more privately-owned hospitals and better service will actually serve the health of society. Putting doctors in chains will not be beneficial. The big question is: what is the government’s real intention, in any case?

Origianlly published here

Cookie	Duration	Description
__cf_bm	1 hour	This cookie, set by Cloudflare, is used to support Cloudflare Bot Management.
cookielawinfo-checkbox-advertisement	1 year	The cookie is set by GDPR cookie consent to record the user consent for the cookies in the category "Advertisement".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-analytics	11 months	This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Analytics".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-functional	11 months	The cookie is set by GDPR cookie consent to record the user consent for the cookies in the category "Functional".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-necessary	11 months	This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookies is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Necessary".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-others	11 months	This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Other.
cookielawinfo-checkbox-performance	11 months	This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Performance".
CookieLawInfoConsent	1 year	CookieYes sets this cookie to record the default button state of the corresponding category and the status of CCPA. It works only in coordination with the primary cookie.
elementor	never	The website's WordPress theme uses this cookie. It allows the website owner to implement or change the website's content in real-time.
JSESSIONID	past	Used by sites written in JSP. General purpose platform session cookies that are used to maintain users' state across page requests.
viewed_cookie_policy	11 months	The cookie is set by the GDPR Cookie Consent plugin and is used to store whether or not user has consented to the use of cookies. It does not store any personal data.
wpEmojiSettingsSupports	session	WordPress sets this cookie when a user interacts with emojis on a WordPress site. It helps determine if the user's browser can display emojis properly.

Cookie	Duration	Description
__sharethis_cookie_test__	session	This cookie is set by ShareThis, to test whether the browser accepts cookies.
bcookie	2 years	This cookie is set by linkedIn. The purpose of the cookie is to enable LinkedIn functionalities on the page.
lang	session	This cookie is used to store the language preferences of a user to serve up content in that stored language the next time user visit the website.
lidc	1 day	This cookie is set by LinkedIn and used for routing.
pll_language	1 year	This cookie is set by Polylang plugin for WordPress powered websites. The cookie stores the language code of the last browsed page.

Cookie	Duration	Description
__gads	1 year 24 days	This cookie is set by Google and stored under the name dounleclick.com. This cookie is used to track how many times users see a particular advert which helps in measuring the success of the campaign and calculate the revenue generated by the campaign. These cookies can only be read from the domain that it is set on so it will not track any data while browsing through another sites.
_ga	2 years	This cookie is installed by Google Analytics. The cookie is used to calculate visitor, session, campaign data and keep track of site usage for the site's analytics report. The cookies store information anonymously and assign a randomly generated number to identify unique visitors.
_ga_*	1 year 1 month 4 days	Google Analytics sets this cookie to store and count page views.
_gat_gtag_UA_111177680_1	1 minute	This cookie is set by Google and is used to distinguish users.
_gid	1 day	This cookie is installed by Google Analytics. The cookie is used to store information of how visitors use a website and helps in creating an analytics report of how the website is doing. The data collected including the number visitors, the source where they have come from, and the pages visted in an anonymous form.
CONSENT	16 years 4 months 8 days 16 hours	These cookies are set via embedded youtube-videos. They register anonymous statistical data on for example how many times the video is displayed and what settings are used for playback.No sensitive data is collected unless you log in to your google account, in that case your choices are linked with your account, for example if you click “like” on a video.

Cookie	Duration	Description
_fbp	3 months	This cookie is set by Facebook to deliver advertisement when they are on Facebook or a digital platform powered by Facebook advertising after visiting this website.
_tt_enable_cookie	1 year 24 days	Tiktok set this cookie to collect data about behaviour and activities on the website and to measure the effectiveness of the advertising.
_ttp	1 year 24 days	TikTok set this cookie to track and improve the performance of advertising campaigns, as well as to personalise the user experience.
bscookie	2 years	This cookie is a browser ID cookie set by Linked share Buttons and ad tags.
fr	3 months	The cookie is set by Facebook to show relevant advertisments to the users and measure and improve the advertisements. The cookie also tracks the behavior of the user across the web on sites that have Facebook pixel or Facebook social plugin.
IDE	1 year 24 days	Used by Google DoubleClick and stores information about how the user uses the website and any other advertisement before visiting the website. This is used to present users with ads that are relevant to them according to the user profile.
li_sugr	3 months	LinkedIn sets this cookie to collect user behaviour data to optimise the website and make advertisements on the website more relevant.
muc_ads	1 year 1 month 4 days	Twitter sets this cookie to collect user behaviour and interaction data to optimize the website.
personalization_id	2 years	This cookie is set by twitter.com. It is used integrate the sharing features of this social media. It also stores information about how the user uses the website for tracking and targeting.
test_cookie	15 minutes	This cookie is set by doubleclick.net. The purpose of the cookie is to determine if the user's browser supports cookies.
VISITOR_INFO1_LIVE	5 months 27 days	This cookie is set by Youtube. Used to track the information of the embedded YouTube videos on a website.
VISITOR_PRIVACY_METADATA	6 months	YouTube sets this cookie to store the user's cookie consent state for the current domain.
YSC	session	This cookies is set by Youtube and is used to track the views of embedded videos.
yt-remote-connected-devices	never	These cookies are set via embedded youtube-videos.
yt-remote-device-id	never	These cookies are set via embedded youtube-videos.
yt.innertube::nextId	never	These cookies are set via embedded youtube-videos.
yt.innertube::requests	never	These cookies are set via embedded youtube-videos.

Cookie	Duration	Description
__gpi	1 year 24 days	No description
_gtm_session_start	1 hour	Description is currently not available.
_mailmunch_visitor_id	never	This cookie is set by MailMunch which is email collection and email marketing platform. We do not know the exact purpose of the cookie.
AnalyticsSyncHistory	1 month	No description
asp_transient_id	7 days	No description available.
GoogleAdServingTest	session	No description
li_gc	2 years	No description
mailmunch_second_pageview	never	This cookie is set by MailMunch which is email collection and email marketing platform. We do not know the exact purpose of the cookie.
raygun4js-userid	never	Description unavailable.
st_samesite	session	No description
UserMatchHistory	1 month	Linkedin - Used to track visitors on multiple websites, in order to present relevant advertisement based on the visitor's preferences.

Month: January 2023

Tick-tock for TikTok in the EU?

Hey buddy, consumers don’t need protection from natural gas stoves

Time to stop the escalator tax

Compared to Europe, the American farm system is more efficient and sustainable

Pentingnya Kerja Sama Internasional untuk Meningkatkan Perlindungan Kekayaan Intelektual di Indonesia

Infantilizing teens won’t protect them online, but it could threaten tech freedom

The Festivus ‘Airing of Grievances’ was made for Canada

In the immortal words of Frank Costanza — ‘We got a lot of problems with you people, and now you’re going to hear about it’

Orban wants to force private doctors to work for the state

The past decade has taught us that the self-proclaimed national conservative government has little respect for conservative values. It has attempted to nationalize private pension funds and introduce price caps that lead to shortages. And now they’re on to healthcare.

Fun Police

ConsEUmer Podcast

Consumer Choice Center Cast

Recent Posts

Follow us

Contact Info