fbpx

Month: August 2023

Worst train stations in Europe

According to the latest study “European Railway Station Index”, conducted by the American consumer organization Consumer Choice Center, which operates globally, the worst railway stations in Europe this year were stations in Germany. The good news is that not all German train stations are bad.

The bottom places in the ranking were occupied by three metropolitan stations: the Ostkreuz station (Berlin Ostkreuz), the Gesundbrunnen station (Berlin Gesundbrunnen), the Zoological Garden station (Berlin Zoologischer Garten). Each of them scored only 54 points. The station in the Bavarian capital “München-Pasing” (München-Pasing) received an even lower score – 52 points. The least points at the central station of Bremen – only 39. Last year, the Santa Maria Novella railway station in Florence, Italy and the Haussmann-Saint-Lazare underground station in Paris were the last ones.

Old merit is not enough

For several decades, the Bremen railway station was considered the station of the highest category. This most important railway junction in the north-east of Germany appeared in the middle of the 19th century, and today all trains passing through the city, as well as international ones, stop here – an average of 80 long-distance and 450 short-range trains.

Externally, the Neo-Renaissance building is decorated with four tall red brick towers with coats of arms of German cities, while inside there are magnificent sculptures and an imperial eagle in the center. There are 9 platforms under a glass roof, and annually about 150 thousand passengers use its services. However, only these advantages at the modern pace of life are no longer enough to maintain competition. This year, the Bremen railway station was the worst of the fifty in Europe.

Read the full text here

Pentingnya Upaya Harm Reduction Melalui Inovasi dan Informasi yang Tepat

Sudah menjadi rahasia umum bahwa, rokok merupakan salah satu musuh besar kesehatan publik yang ada di dunia. Di dalam sebatang rokok, terkandung berbagai komponen yang, bila dikonsumsi secara rutin dalam waktu tertentu, bisa menyebabkan berbagai penyakit kronis, seperti kanker dan serangan jantung.

Tidak hanya itu, rokok juga mengandung nikotin yang membuat penggunanya menjadi kecanduan, dan sangat sulit untuk berhenti merokok. Adanya berbagai zat beracun yang membuat penyakit kronis, hingga zat yang membuat penggunanya kecanduan, merupakan kombinasi yang mematikan yang harus dihadapi oleh para perokok.

Oleh karena itu, berbagai yurisdiksi di seluruh dunia memberlakukan berbagai regulasi dan aturan ketat yang mengatur segala aspek industri rokok, mulai dari produksi, distribusi, dan juga konsumsi rokok. Adanya aturan ini bermacam-macam, mulai dari yang paling ringan, seperti mengenakan pajak dan cukai tinggi untuk produk-produk tembakau, hingga yang paling berat, seperti pelarangan total seluruh kegiatan produksi dan konsumsi produk-produk hasil olahan tembakau.

Sebagaimana dengan negara-negara lainnya, Indonesia juga memiliki serangkaian kebijakan yang bertujuan untuk meregulasi dan mengatur peredaran dan konsumsi rokok atau produk tembakau lainnya. Beberapa diantaranya yang sangat umum dan bisa kita amati adalah kewajiban bagi produsen rokok untuk mencantumkan dampak berbahaya dari rokok, adanya cukai rokok yang semakin meningkat, larangan iklan rokok dengan menunjukkan produknya di televisi, dan lain sebagainya.

Namun, sepertinya berbagai upaya tersebut memilki dampak yang belum cukup. Dilansir dari Kementerian Kesehatan Republik Indonesia (Kemenkes) misalnya, Indonesia mengalami peningkatan jumlah perokok dalam kurun waktu 1 dekade (2011 – 2021), dari 60,3 juta menjadi 69,1 juta (badankebijakan.kemkes.go.id, 3/6/2022). Hal ini tentu tidak mengherankan, mengingat bahwa rokok mengandung zat yang dapat membuat penggunanya mengalami kecanduan dan sulit untuk berhenti.

Dengan demikian, dibutuhkan berbagai kebijakan lain yang ditujukan untuk mengurangi jumlah perokok yang ada di Indonesia, yang berfokus pada masalah besar yang membuat seseorag tidak bisa berhenti merokok, yakni karena rokok mengandung zat yang membuat penggunanya mengalami kecanduan. Salah satu dari langkah yang bisa dilakukan adalah dengan menyediakan produk alternatif dari rokok, yang terbukti jauh lebih tidak berbahaya.

Pada tahun 2015 lalu, lembaga kesehatan publik asal Inggris, Public Health England (PHE), mengeluarkan laporan yang menyatakan bahwa vape atau rokok elektrik merupakan produk yang 95% jauh lebih tidak berbahaya dibandingkan dengan rokok konvensional yang dibakar. Oleh karena itu, vape merupakan salah satu alat yang bisa digunakan untuk membantu perokok untuk berhenti merokok (theguardian.com, 28/12/2018).

Inggris sendiri menjadi salah satu negara yang secara resmi sudah menjadikan vape sebagai salah satu alat yang bisa digunakan oleh para perokok untuk berhenti merokok. Badan kesehatan Inggris, National Health Service (NHS) misalnya, menyatakan bahwa vape bisa membantu perokok untuk mengatur dan mengelola keinginan mereka akan nikotin, Telah ada banyak bukti orang-orang perokok yang dapat menghentikan kebiasaan merokoknya dengan bantuan vape (nhs.uk, 10/10/2022).

Sayangnya, diseminasi informasi mengenai upaya harm reduction untuk mengurangi jumlah perokok dengan bantuan vape dan produk nikotin alternatif lainnya masih sangat kurang, termasuk juga di Indonesia. Untuk itu, diperlukan semakin banyak diseminasi informasi mengenai hal tersebut agar para perokok dapat semakin terbantu untuk berhenti, dan jumlah perokok aktif dapat semakin ditekan dan berkurang.

Pada tanggal 10 Mei 2023 lalu misalnya, diselenggarakan acara Innovation Summit Southeast Asia 2023 oleh lembaga Center for Market Education (CME), Property Rights Alliance, dan Tholos Foundation. Acara tersebut dilaksanakan di ibukota Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, dan membahas berbagai topik seputar inovasi, baik dari sisi institusi, aspek ketahanan pangan, perdagangan bebas,dan juga harm reduction (gatra.com, 2/6/2023).

Dalam salah satu panel yang membahas mengenai harm reduction misalnya, para panelis menyatakan bahwa sangat penting untuk mengimplementasikan program harm reduction yang bertumpu pada inovasi, salah satunya adalah melalui produk-produk nikotin alternatif. Pelarangan belaka merupakan kebijakan yang tidak efektif karena setiap individu akan cenderung berupaya untuk mencari kesenangan, salah satunya tentu melalui rokok.

Untuk itu dibutuhkan serangkaian kebijakan agar program harm reduction bisa terlaksana dengan baik. Misalnya, dengan kebijakan perpajakan yang berbeda untuk mendorong inovasi dan meningkatkan insentif perokok untuk beralih ke produk lain yang terbukti lebih aman (gatra.com, 2/6/2023).

Dalam panel tersebut disampaikan juga mengenai “The Tobacco Control Plan for England” yang dirilis oleh Pemerintah Inggris pada tahun 2017 lalu. Dalam rencana tersebut, disampaikan mengenai peroduk alternatif yang bisa berperan mengurangi berbagai resiko kesehatan yang disebabkan oleh rokok. Tidak hanya Inggris, Jepang juga menjadi salah satu negara yang memperkenalkan produk nikotin alternatif pada tahun 2013 dengan pengguna yang semakin meningkat, dan jumlah perokok yang semakin menurun (vapeboss.co.id, 29/5/2023).

Di sisi lain, bila ada negara yang mengambil langkah pelarangan, bukan tidak mungkin hal tersebut justru akan menjadi hal yang kontra produktif, karena akan semakin menyuburkan peredaran produk-produk ilegal. Selain itu, melalui pelarangan, hal ini juga akan semakin membuka kesempatan korupsi yang lebih besar liputan6.com, 22/5/2023).

Sebagai penutup, adanya acara seperti Innovation Summit Southeast Asia 2023 ini merupakan sesuatu yang penting untuk menyebarkan pentingnya inovasi, dan juga mendiseminasikan informasi mengenai harm reduction. Terlebih lagi, Indonesia sendiri merupakan salah satu negara dengan jumlah populasi perokok tertinggi di dunia.

Semoga, melalui diseminasi informasi mengenai harm reduction yang semakin meningkat, akan semakin banyak perokok di Indonesia yang beralih ke produk lain yang lebih tidak berbahaya. Dengan demikian, akan semakin sedikit perokok aktif di Indonesia, dan kesehatan publik akan semakin membaik.

Originally published here

New EU rules on essential oils will hurt honest businesses and consumers

For many people, the European Union and its institutions have always meant overregulation and bureaucracy. Their beliefs are fed from time to time by specific rulings or proposals. This time it is the European Union’s Chemical Agency (ECHA) that has set sight on essential oils as substances needing strict control. You are most likely using essential oils without knowing it and with no harm done. Hundreds of such water or steam-distilled extracts make it into insect repellents,perfumes, cosmetics, and other toiletries like shampoos in small doses that havepassed skin and allergy testing. But the ECHA is not planning to consult their safety record and actual levels of exposure (what, in public policy speak, one would call ‘risk-based thinking’). Instead, it will amend CLP (Classification, Labelling, and Packaging ) and REACH rules to mark essential oils as hazardous complex chemicals of more than one constituent substance. Suppose one molecule in the mix could be characterized as a threat under isolated laboratory conditions or deduced via statistical reasoning. In that case, policymakers can label these natural oils dangerous or ban their usage altogether.

Legitimate producers and European consumers alike have no reason to welcome the news. Inflation, the rise of prices across the European economy, has not yet subsided – the EU’s average annual rate stood at6.4% in the EU (5.5% in the euro area), above the ECB’s price stability target of 2%. However, the average masks considerable variation in which poorer EU countries are affected more than their well-off counterparts. Luxembourg’s annual rate is amere 1%, whereas Hungary registers 19.9% (the highest in the EU), Poland at 11%, Romania at 9.3%, and Bulgaria at 7.5%. Because consumers in poorer countries tend to spend more of their income on essential goods and find saving money hard, they are likely to suffer disproportionately because of inflation.

Similarly, legal producers (who make it an objective to comply with the rules fully) in these countries will see a generalized rise in the cost of services, leaving their financial prospects uncertain. By demanding more onerous procedures, the ECHA’s ruling makes it harder for suppliers to bring their goods to the market. As fewer goods are available to buy, the measure is fuelling the momentum of rising prices, which leaves consumers even worse off than before.

The ECHA’s decision is particularly damaging when considering how the European essential oils market works. Notably, smaller companies drive the industry in the EU. No less than 95% of the world’s supply of bergamot comes from 4500 Italian families cultivating it in the Calabria region. The Essential Citrus team in Portugal extracts oil from over 350 citrus varieties in Alejento. Estonia’s Tedre-Farmuses a one-of-a-kind carbon monoxide method to distill oil from 2.5 hectares of raspberries. As such, these enterprises have much smaller profit margins, meaning they are less likely to be able to afford to operate in an environment with costlier restrictions and where their dedicated buyers are scared away by frightening warning labels. With their loss comes a loss of revenue, potentially endangering the 2.29 billion euro European clean beauty market and more economic woes for consumers.

Policymakers, producers, and consumers should encourage the ECHA to reverse course and avoid this outcome. Preliminary discussions began on the 30thof June when the EU’s Permanent Representative Committee requested that the EU Commission re-evaluate the classification for essential oils four years from now. But that should only be the start. Better still, regulation should focus on the genuine threat from fraudsters who overpromise and underdeliver on the medical effects of essential oils using concrete evidence (like safety tests grounded in plausible levels of exposure) rather than hypothetical reasoning.  Consumers can then stay safe without making the cost-of-living crisis more complicated than it already is.

Originally published here

Harm reduction, not policing, will boost public health in Alabama

By: Elizabeth Hicks & Stephen Kent

In a landmark move earlier this year, Alabama state lawmakers passed first-of-its-kind legislation effectively outlawing the use of cigarettes and vaping products in vehicles when a child 14 years of age or younger is present. That law is now in effect statewide. While the intent behind this legislation is undoubtedly noble, the treatment of vaping and smoking as equals is going to cause real harm in Alabama. This will not go the way lawmakers think. 

The idea of the new law is simple. Adults should not be subjecting young children to cigarette smoke and adversely impacting their health when the kids have no say in the matter. Smoking, after all, is a choice that adult consumers make for themselves. 

Older folks who grew up in the heyday of cigarette smoking often share some memories of being in smokey cars with the windows rolled up, toughing it out at a time when smokers weren’t widely aware of the hazard posed by second-hand smoke to their passengers. That time is past. 

Acknowledging this fact, we have to all ask ourselves what protection is owed to young passengers in the car with smokers, and also what kind of laws will reduce harm for both children and their parent/guardian in the driver’s seat. Alabama Representative Rolanda Hollis made an effort to address this in HB3, but the law’s failure to make distinctions between cigarettes and vape products which have been shown to be 95% less harmful than traditional cigarettes, is not going to be a net benefit to public health. 

Alabama is a state that sees a staggering number of smoking-related fatalities, close to 8,600 deaths annually, along with nearly $309 million in Medicaid costs incurred by the state. Reducing these harms is important, and it should start with incentivizing cigarette smokers to switch. Passing laws that insinuate the two products are equally harmful reads to a smoker as an excuse to keep on with the product they’re accustomed to. Switching can be hard, but the potential for small social benefits like not being kicked to the curb every time you want to smoke is one of those things that makes the switch to vaping easier. The same goes for smokers behind the steering wheel. 

Harm reduction strategies work. There is little evidence, however, to show that punitive measures like $100 fines for smoking in the car whilst parenting is going to be a boon to public health in states like Alabama. 

As is well known, cigarettes contain a harmful cocktail of chemicals and tar, which contribute to respiratory diseases and cancer. These components are not present in the vapor produced by e-cigarettes.  Toxicologist Igor Burstyn of Drexel University noted that the contents of e-cig vapor “justifies surveillance,” but that exhaled vapor contains so little contamination that the risk to bystanders is insignificant. This has been supported by Public Health England’s updated review of evidence in 2018. 

Tacking financial penalties to vaping in the car, even with the windows down and fresh air flowing in, smacks of the early days of COVID-19 alarmism when police were arresting people for being outside at public beaches or doing watersports. When it comes to vaping, the level of risk and the effort that will be required to police the activity, just don’t line up. 

Yes, nicotine fuels both products in question, and there’s no getting away from its addictive qualities for the smoker. If the Heart of Dixie wants to lead the way in protecting public health, it is never too late to embrace harm reduction strategies when it comes to smoking. 

Elizabeth Hicks is the U.S. Affairs Analyst and Stephen Kent is the Media Director for the Consumer Choice Center

Split up Amazon, Prime and AWS? If Biden’s FTC breaks up Bezos’ company, consumers lose.

FTC and Lina Khan think consumers need to take one for the team when it comes to sacrificing their savings, in both time and money, that Amazon creates.

Lina Khan is not tired of losing. Fresh off her latest defeat in court in pursuit of antitrust enforcement against Microsoft, President Joe Biden’s Federal Trade Commission chair is reportedly ready to launch the fight of her career to break up Amazon.

Since Khan began work in 2021, the FTC has put Amazon on constant defense, but it has all been a prelude to her goal of forcing the company to split. 

To consumers, the entities of Amazon, Amazon Prime and Amazon Web Services are ubiquitous and synonymous. The overall business includes online retail, physical stores, subscription services, advertising services, cloud computing, logistics and third-party seller services. Each component supports and serves the others, resulting in incredible efficiency, lower operating costs and, in turn, steep price cuts for consumers. 

It’s no wonder that Amazon enjoys almost as high of public approval and trust asthe U.S. military, 72% favorable according to a 2021 Harvard-Harris poll. That’s a shocking statistic given the broader trend of institutional distrust in this era. 

Biden’s FTC thinks consumers need to take one for the team when it comes to sacrificing their savings, in both time and money, that Amazon creates.

Khan’s vision of what constitutes a monopoly is not what most people, or the law, recognize. Her antitrust framework, denounced by former Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, as “hipster antitrust,” considers predatory pricing, consumer rip-offs and a lack of competition as an old-fashioned way to think about antitrust.

It’s all well summarized in a 2018 profile in The Atlantic, where Lina Khan observes with disdain the lower avocado prices in an Amazon-owned Whole Foods. Consumers and their revealed preferences are the problem the FTC really seeks to solve in their coming attack on Amazon. 

Amazon has become a part of the American landscape

To most Americans, Amazon is no longer just a company; it’s part of the scenery where they reside. Amazon vans are in each neighborhood, and a box emblazoned with the Prime logo could be due on your own doorstep any minute now. This is what happens when you have 200 million consumers worldwide signed up for a service that makes their lives easier. 

Maybe you’re someone who resents the world that I’ve described; maybe you see Amazon’s omnipresence as dystopian. You’re entitled to that opinion, but fighting on those terms is not what the FTC was created to do.

The FTC of today is engaged in a war on “the curse of bigness,” a sentiment expressed by Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis in 1934, and it is true that Amazon’s business is very big.

Even if you’re not a loyal Amazon customer, though, we all know someone who has found work with the company, upgraded to a better TV at a better price on Prime Day, or used Amazon’s web services that power millions of websites for businesses worldwide. 

Khan’s lawyers at the FTC say Amazon “forces” merchants to use its distribution services and requires them to lower their prices to benefit from a coveted spot within the Amazon marketplace. They’ll have to prove it and prove that merchants have no other avenue by which to do business if not for Amazon’s terms. 

Some of Amazon’s practices may appear heavy-handed or self-preferential to regulators, but they don’t constitute anything remotely close to consumer harm, the rubric by which antitrust doctrine has been followed for a century. There are no cartels, no robber barons and no secret deals that raise prices for consumers. If anything, Amazon’s incentive system for vendors on its platform seems purposefully designed to deliver on founder Jeff Bezos’ self-described “obsession” with consumers. 

We’re all the winners here. Why can’t Khan and the FTC let it go? 

Federal Trade Commission should focus on Amazon’s real problems, not its popularity with consumers

Let’s give her agency some credit, however, as there are relevant and concerning issues that the FTC has addressed in cases where Amazon has been in the wrong.

Fake reviews pollute the online commerce platform and deceive consumers into buying things they wouldn’t otherwise buy. The FTC is taking worthwhile action there.

Ring, Amazon’s home security doorbell product, has supplied police departmentswith countless hours of neighborhood surveillance footage, raising important privacy concerns for consumers and unwitting neighbors. 

But rather than focusing solely on how consumers are harmed by specific bad practices, the FTC is overstepping its mandate. It’s part of a broader case against Amazon, with the goal of disassembling the company and its services so many of us enjoy. 

That’s because for Khan the FTC exists to fight “the curse of bigness,” and only sometimes will that overlap with consumer interest – as was the case with her failed bid to block Microsoft from acquiring Activision-Blizzard. 

American consumers deserve a free economy with robust competition, plentiful choices and services that add value to their lives.

If Khan and her fellow commissioners were mindful – rather than disdainful – of the choices that consumers willingly make, they’d focus on bad actors instead of such a trusted brand doing right by its customers. 

Originally published here

Russian propagandists are constantly reinventing reality

Propagandists have proven to be highly adept in constantly reinventing reality in autocratic countries, particularly Russia, where the fact that reality has constantly debunked the Kremlin’s claims could not wholly shake Russian confidence in its war on Ukraine.

“Oceania had been at war with Eastasia and in alliance with Eurasia. But that was merely a piece of furtive knowledge which he happened to possess because his memory was not satisfactorily under control. Officially, the change of partners had never happened. Oceania was at war with Eurasia: therefore Oceania had always been at war with Eurasia”, wrote George Orwell in his novel 1984.

This was meant to symbolise a fictional world where those in power are highly successful in engineering their own reality, even when substantial changes occur that would normally be expected to shake the population’s trust in their own propagandists.

Unfortunately, real life has proved to be surprisingly similar to Orwell’s fictional world, as Russian propagandists have been trying to explain events on the battlefield in Ukraine.

On February 26, 2022, two days after Russia’s unprovoked invasion of Ukraine, a (now removed) text on the Russian state news agency Ria Novosti declared Russian victory, praising the Kremlin for restoring Russian unity and ending Ukraine’s existence as an “anti-Russia”.

However, total Russian victory soon became impossible, so there had to be a pivot to a new narrative. After all, based on Russian propaganda, the people at home should have been expecting their soldiers to come home soon.

So, an old narrative about NATO provoking war with Russia via its Ukrainian “subject” was refurbished. It was, in fact, NATO and its support for Kyiv that was leading to “military escalation”. In April 2022, RT head Margarita Simonyan, a key pillar of Russian propaganda, declared on Russian state TV that the country was “waging war against NATO”.

Managing expectations

The situation worsened for Russia when Ukraine launched a highly successful counter-offensive in the autumn of 2022, regaining significant lost ground. Propagandists were confused, blaming security services, Kremlin advisers, and the lack of general mobilisation. They, however, quickly returned to their previous claims about Russia being at war with NATO rather than Ukraine. “Brussels” was accused of prolonging suffering by supporting Ukraine and the West. Some claimed the war was lasting longer than expected because Russia “greatly cares about civilians”.

Elsewhere, actors who claim to support peace—such as Hungary’s government—claim that Ukraine has done “what it possibly could” on the battlefield; it could not advance. It stopped being sovereignbecause it could only function off Western money, so it should return to the negotiating table.

As such, expectations have been constantly redrawn by Russian or pro-Russian propagandists regarding the war. From a three-day battle, the expectations were changed because of an alleged fight with NATO or because Russia was “taking care of civilians”. Setbacks were explained by Russia not putting everything it had into the fight.

As of June 2023, the majority of Russians (73 per cent) support the actions of the Russian Armed Forces in Ukraine, according to a poll by Levada, and 54 per cent said the “special military operation” was progressing successfully.

However, only 40 per cent supported continuing military actions—down from 48 per cent in May. Even if we consider measuring public opinion in Russia extremely challenging, data suggest that the complete failure of the Russian armed forces in Ukraine still appears to be a success to most Russians, even though many want an end to the war.

Hearts and minds

It must be noted that the West is currently in an information war with the Kremlin for the hearts and minds of the people, especially Western populations; support for governments aiding Ukraine is not collapsing.

The Kremlin meanwhile is playing a long game, waiting for the exhaustion of the West and its abandonment of Ukraine. This war is deeply asymmetric. The West has barely any access to Russia’s information space, while Russia can (mostly) freely broadcast its messages in Europe and North America by circumventing sanctions or via intermediaries.

Additionally, populations of authoritarian regimes might be more resilient to war exhaustion due to their restrictive information environments.

Overall, the West needs to invest more into improving the resilience of its populations, not via repression but—instead—education, media literacy, and proper strategic communications by governments.

This is, of course, going to take longer than it took for the Kremlin to turn Russia into an autocracy. Investment in these strategic actions must start flowing right now.

Originally published here

The 1983 Video Game Crash and a History Lesson for Lina KhanCoke won’t give you cancer

The youngest chair in FTC history should familiarize herself with how the video game industry has survived and thrived since its inception instead of blocking mergers that would benefit consumers.

The video game industry is getting a lot of attention lately thanks to both exciting tech advancements and unprecedented interference by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The sector has witnessed substantial growth in recent years, which is why antitrust concerns are being raised by Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Chair, Lina Khan. It can often feel like ancient history, but video gaming’s future hasn’t always been so bright in the U.S. In fact, it was almost “game over” for the business at the start of the 1980s.

The 1983 Video Game Crash, as it is known today by industry insiders, left the market for video games with no clear path to recovery. A primary culprit for the industry’s downfall was third party publishers, who were flooding the market with subpar products. Up until this time, Activision was a primary provider of video games, and with interest in gaming growing fast, other opportunistic firms sought to get in on the action by offering lower-priced, lower-quality games to consumers.

Parents would scoop up a handful of these off-brand games for the price of one Activision video game, assuming that their kids would be thrilled. They quickly learn this was not the case.

User reviews didn’t exist at this time and since parents weren’t consulting other children for feedback on the games being sold, it was hard to be clued in on what was worth buying.

Trust in the gaming market dropped, and increasingly risk-averse consumers were hesitant to buy the top-shelf games for fear of being duped again.

It wasn’t until Nintendo released the Nintendo Entertainment System in 1985 that interest in gaming rebounded. Super Mario Bros, along with other addictive games like Tetris, Atari’s Gauntlet, and Sega’s OutRun, restored interest and faith in gaming products. Since then, the industry has grown at an impressive rate.

Access and options for gamers have dramatically improved thanks to techinnovations in mobile gaming, as well as the surge of engagement duringthe COVID-19 lockdowns. Consumers were particularly eager for novel in-home entertainment, and multiplayer as well as online-based gaming allowed them to connect and create affinity networks like never before. And though the pandemic was a nightmare for millions of Americans, gaming has been credited as “a positive force in the field of mental health.”

Today gaming is big business, on track to be worth $321 billion by 2026, which is why Lina Khan and the FTC have their sights set on the sector. Since her appointment as FTC Chair by President Joe Biden, Khan has made clear her negative view of corporate growth, which is unfortunate, given that US gaming firms have yet to catch up with the likes of Japan’s Sony Interactive Entertainment Studios.

The Japanese juggernaut’s long march toward market dominancesolidified in 2020 when Sony released the Playstation 5 (PS5), which quicklybecame the global favorite for next-generation gaming consoles.

In response, Microsoft’s US-based Xbox Games Studios went on defense,announcing its plan to purchase Activision-Blizzard in January 2022. The merger brought Guitar Hero, World of Warcraft, Call of Duty, Diablo, and Candy Crush Saga all under one roof. Microsoft’s interest, therefore, is unsurprising, but this mutually beneficial business transaction between Microsoft and Activision-Blizzard was enough to draw the attention and legal might of Lina Khan’s FTC.

Instead of allowing Microsoft to improve its competitive stance against Sony, the FTC sought to block the merger. The legal battle turned out to be a huge waste of time and resources at taxpayers expense. What is particularly puzzling is the fact that other jurisdictions around the world were already greenlighting the deal, and yet our own government opposed an American firm’s advancement against a foreign entity with 70 percent market share.

Fortunately for Microsoft, Khan’s claims against the merger carried little weight in court. Unfortunately for Khan, her failed filing has led many to call into question her understanding of business and antitrust law. For instance, the FTC asserted that the merger could result in Microsoft restricting Activision-Blizzard games only to Xbox consoles, an unconvincing claim given Microsoft’s standing commitment to maintain the distribution status quo with Sony.

The hypocrisy was clear to gamers watching the case play out in court, who are most all aware that Sony’s popular title, The Last of Us, is only available on PlayStation consoles. And who is to say there is anything wrong with exclusivity in the first place?

The role of the FTC is to ensure consumer welfare in the marketplace, and right now it seems Khan is willfully overstepping her authority. It’s unclear who exactly she thinks the FTC is protecting in slowing down Microsoft. The FTC’s interference is delaying opportunities for gamers and developers at a time when creativity for gaming content is really taking off. Although the 2020 lockdowns surged interest in gaming users, the ability for developers to collaborate and curate new games has been hampered by remote work and other hardships brought on by the pandemic.

If we have learned any lessons from the Video Game Crash of 1983, it should be that improvements in gaming access and quality should be encouraged, not derailed. Today’s gamers have high expectations for new and innovative experiences, and FTC interference only gets in the way of content development and distribution.

Though the great gaming crash occurred just before Lina Khan was born, the FTC’s youngest chair in its history should familiarize herself with how this industry has survived and thrived since its inception. Gamers call the shots, and like other consumers, they’re the most powerful source of accountability for an industry supported by their hard-earned dollars.

The FTC stepped far outside its lane at the expense of taxpayers, and one can only hope that a lesson was learned.

Originally published here

LA JUSTE BATAILLE DE RYANAIR CONTRE LE CONTRÔLE AÉRIEN FRANÇAIS

La compagnie aérienne a interpellé la Commission européenne pour que les contrôleurs aériens français suivent les mêmes règles que leurs collègues d’ailleurs en Europe.

La compagnie aérienne à bas prix RyanAir a récemment présenté à la Commission européenne une pétition de plus d’un million de signatures, dans laquelle elle plaide pour un traitement équitable par le contrôle aérien français.

Au début de l’année, les contrôleurs aériens français ont été en grève pendant une longue période, multipliant par 10 le nombre total de jours de grève de l’année précédente. Instinctivement, on pourrait penser qu’une grève des contrôleurs aériens affecte tous les vols de la même manière, mais ce n’est pas le cas.

Une forme de protectionnisme

Alors que de nombreux vols traversant l’espace aérien français doivent être annulés, les règles protégeant le service minimum des compagnies aériennes au départ de la France permettent à ces opérateurs de décoller et d’atterrir. Ainsi, alors que la compagnie irlandaise a dû annuler 4 000 vols, Air France et ses filiales sont beaucoup moins touchées.

Dans un communiqué de presse, le directeur général de RyanAir, Michael O’Leary, présentait ses arguments :

« A peine 10 semaines après le lancement de notre pétition […], nous avons remis plus de 1,1 million de signatures de citoyens européens fatigués appelant la Commission européenne d’Ursula von der Leyen à protéger les survols lors des grèves répétées de l’ATC. 

Il est inacceptable que des grèves ATC puissent entraîner l’annulation de milliers de vols de passagers européens, alors que la France et d’autres Etats membres de l’UE utilisent des lois sur le service minimum pour protéger leurs vols intérieurs. Les passagers européens en ont assez de subir des annulations de survol inutiles pendant les grèves de l’ATC. 

La Commission européenne doit maintenant donner suite à la pétition de plus de 1,1 million de citoyens européens et insister pour que tous les Etats protègent les survols pendant les grèves nationales de l’ATC, comme cela se fait déjà en Grèce, en Italie et en Espagne. »

Le fait que RyanAir se soit tournée à la fois vers la Commission européenne et vers sa propre clientèle est un signe fort que, d’une part, ils s’alignent sur les intérêts des consommateurs, en particulier pendant la période des fêtes, et que, d’autre part, l’approche française consistant à prévoir des exceptions spécifiques pour ses propres industries s’apparente à du protectionnisme.

Un problème européen

Outre l’argument de la discrimination spécifique du marché, la législation française sur le service minimum pourrait devenir la cible de Bruxelles pour la simple raison pratique que la France est trop centrale et trop grande. Voler du Portugal vers l’Allemagne sans traverser l’espace aérien français ajoute des heures de vol à l’horloge. Cela signifie : plus de kérosène, plus d’heures de travail pour le personnel, et aussi des litiges potentiels avec les consommateurs qui ont réservé un temps de vol plus court au départ.

Certains sénateurs se sont efforcés de résoudre ce problème en proposant d’aligner les règles de grève des contrôleurs aériens sur celles de toutes les autres juridictions européennes, notamment en prévoyant qu’ils devront notifier leur participation à une grève 48 heures à l’avance. Cette mesure aiderait les aéroports à atténuer les perturbations. Actuellement, les aéroports ne savent pas combien de contrôleurs aériens vont se mettre en grève et annulent souvent plus de vols que nécessaire – environ 30%, en moyenne, chaque jour de grève.

« Quelque 12 Mds€ ont été perdus à cause des blocages », « la France [étant] à l’origine de 97% de perturbations aériennes au sein de l’Union européenne », affirme le sénateur Vincent Capo-Canellas, qui a déposé cette proposition de loi. Avec 97%, il ne s’agit pas seulement d’un problème interne que la France doit résoudre, mais d’un problème européen. Il est inadmissible que les passagers européens soient pris en otage par la suffisance de contrôleurs aériens qui n’ont même pas la décence d’annoncer leur intention de grève.

Existe-t-il un scénario justifié dans lequel les travailleurs peuvent revendiquer de meilleures conditions dans le cadre de la loi ? Certainement. Cependant, leur profession doit également s’accompagner d’un certain ensemble d’éthique, de compréhension et d’utilité, raison pour laquelle beaucoup d’entre eux l’ont choisie en premier lieu. C’est pourquoi le législateur français devrait durcir les règles relatives aux conditions des préavis.

La Commission européenne devrait également protéger des conditions de marché équitables au sein de l’Union européenne en n’établissant pas de discrimination entre les opérateurs. Manifestement, le système français ne discrimine pas per se RyanAir parce qu’il s’agit d’une compagnie étrangère, puisque les vols des compagnies étrangères au départ de la France sont aussi peu affectés que ceux d’Air France.

Cependant, les compagnies aériennes françaises bénéficient d’un avantage comparatif : au lieu d’effectuer le vol Amsterdam-Madrid en passant par la France – un vol qui risque d’être annulé en cas de grève des contrôleurs aériens – les passagers peuvent choisir de prendre une correspondance dans un aéroport français avec une compagnie aérienne française pour éviter les tracas. C’est pourquoi la Commission devrait exiger des conditions de concurrence équitables pour le service minimum.

Originally published here

Viktor Orban is not the conservative you are looking for

In one of his most recent Friday morning radio interviews, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban claimedthat “big food chains and multinational companies are behaving like price speculators; they are raising prices even in circumstances when there is no basis for doing so.” 

His government has set price caps on various food products, including chicken breasts, and while that policy is being phased out in exchange for a new regime of government-mandated discounts in grocery stores, one must wonder how Orban became a North Star to so many American conservatives. His price control policies and insinuations that the price of an egg is driven by corporate greed more than market conditions puts Orban closer to American leftists such as Robert Reich, Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren than the Republican Party where his fandom resides.

But not even the open socialists of the Democratic Party would follow Orban’s model — because Hungarian anti-inflation policies have been so ineffective that prices are rising more sharply in Hungary than in any other European Union member state.

Such anti-business policies are eerily similar to those advocated by Hungary’s communist-era overlords. In the early 1950s, Hungary’s National Price Office only revised mandated prices three times between 1952 and 1956. It was in 1957 that NPO head Bela Csikos-Nagy reacted to so-called covert price hikes by small businesses that had gained some room to maneuver after the revolution of 1956, warning in an interviewwith Nepakarat that “if we find during a future analysis that the company gets illegal profits from incorrectly setting prices, we will act not only to take away their profits but to cut prices as well.”

Hungary’s first communist leader, Matyas Rakosi, frequently used the word “speculation” in his economic speeches. In 1947, Rakosi told miners in the city of Pecs that the prices of industrial products were rising while wages and expenses were not. “What rose was speculation and illegal work,” he concluded. In the same year, he promised the Communist Party would engage in a “forceful fight” against “speculation and those driving prices up.”

Any casual observer of American politics would pick up on the link between this rhetoric from communist-era Hungary and America’s contemporary left wing. Prices are framed as conspiracies against the consumer, never a result of government mismanagement of the economy. If not for Orban’s right-wing social agenda, Reps. Ilhan Omar, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and Jamaal Bowman would be proud.

Rather than acting as the “conservative icon” Orban is sometimes claimed to be, the prime minister is appealing to the remnants of communist Hungary by casting himself as the bulwark between everyday Hungarians and corrupt corporations. Orban and his officials speak regularly of so-called extra profits and levying windfall taxes on these apparently ill-gotten gains.

Of course, the Hungarian government does not articulate what it considers to be an acceptable level of profit, much like Sanders in the United States doesn’t have to define the “fair share” he so often demands of America’s wealthy. Orban can claim at any time that a firm is earning too much in profits and tax them away, including those of American companies operating in Hungary. What American investor or company would want to do business in Hungary under that cloud of vindictiveness and uncertainty?

Anti-capitalist narratives rippling across time from the days of the Soviet Union are not something that Republicans should accept. Hungarians shouldn’t either, as the country is ranked 77th out of 180 on Transparency International’s Corruption Perception Index. According to its Global Corruption Barometer, 40% of those surveyed said they believed corruption in Hungary had increased in the last 12 months. Corruption can take many forms, one of which is an arbitrary system such as Hungary’s, where businesses can only succeed when they hold the favor of the government.

The Tucker Carlsons of the world may be enamored with Orban’s ability to articulate a common good with a nationalist spin, but it’s hard to believe the reality of Hungary is what Carlson wants.

The myth of Orban as a conservative icon is just that: a myth. Orban is neither a conservative nor a limited-government advocate but merely another politician in a long sequence of Hungarian leaders who exploit resentment to keep themselves in power. And with power, Orban’s regime can continue to grant billions in state and EU funds to government-friendly oligarchs. It’s understandable that conservatives wish to find a model in the international community by which to explain Trumpism and fit it into the conservative ecosystem of ideas, but Orban is not it — or at least he shouldn’t be.

Originally published here

Government Interference in Energy, Gaming Is Harming PA

Small businesses throughout Pennsylvania have faced many hardships over the past few years, ranging from supply-chain bottlenecks to overbearing bureaucratic mandates. And the toll has not gone unnoticed, as evidenced by President Joe Biden’s visit to the state shortly after taking office. 

During his March 2021 visit, President Biden noted that some 400,000 businesses in the state were facing closure. His policies, however, have not helped: the administration’s 2023 budget proposal does little to alleviate burdens for Pennsylvania business owners. 

In fact, the Biden administration has called for increasing taxes on residents and businesses even though Pennsylvanians already pay one of the nation’s highest tax rates. Higher gasoline prices are also likely, given that Biden is pushing new energy regulations that will inhibit alternative energy supply. Gas prices in Pennsylvania are already among the highest in the U.S., and state residents’ home heating billshit record highs at the end of last year.

All of this explains why the state’s natural gas reserves should be leveraged. A recent Wall Street Journal article credits natural gas for keeping energy bills manageable during this hot summer; and for Pennsylvania residents, natural gas is beneficial not only for lowering energy costs but also for driving economic growth. Pennsylvania’s total natural gas storage capacity is the fourth-largest in the nation, at about 763 billion cubic feet, and fracking generates substantial economic spillover effects, providing jobs and investment opportunities.

In addition to infringing upon energy supply, the Biden administration is also interfering with private business deals – most recently within the gaming sector, another important industry for Pennsylvania. 

Recently, Biden’s Federal Trade Commission chair, Lina Kahn, sought to block Microsoft’s acquisition of game developer Activision-Blizzard. Fortunately, the FTC’s case fell short in court, and Microsoft’s Xbox users can look forward to better options when subscribing to its Game Pass plans.

The Microsoft-Activision deal improves gaming choices for consumers and also helps elevate Microsoft’s status in the global gaming market. Tencent, headquartered in China, and Sony, based in Japan, presently dominate the gaming realm.

Microsoft’s acquisition of Activision-Blizzard is an important step for Pennsylvania’s economy since, according to Fortune magazine, Pennsylvania is one of the top 10 states for video-game development. The state’s gaming sector is thought to be worth over $80 million locally. It is alarming that Khan and the Biden administration sought to stifle America’s competitiveness in this sector, especially when international jurisdictions greenlighted the transaction. When the EU is a better champion for an American firm’s aspirations than our own federal government, something is clearly amiss.

Thanks in part to such restrictive economic policies, Pennsylvania now ranks 44 out of 50 in business environment for economic growth. And, according to the 2023 State Business Tax Climate Index, the state ranks 42 out of 50 for corporate taxes and 33 out of 50 for tax rates overall. Heading into the 2024 presidential election, the Biden administration should recognize Pennsylvania’s political importance and ease regulatory restrictions to allow the state’s residents to prosper.

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