Month: October 2024

What’s the best way to protect your financial privacy? Congress weighing legal options

Right now, members of U.S. Congress are debating the best ways they can act to further protect Americans’ private financial information.

A new bill filed in the U.S. Senate would cut back on how much data banks are required to report to the government, but critics warn the regulations are needed to stop criminals.

Channel 2 Washington Correspondent Samantha Manning has the details on the new legislation and the larger situation of financial privacy in the United States.

Every day, Americans around the country are making millions of financial transactions, from credit card and debit card swipes to wire transfers and stock market deals.

All of those moves are monitored by banks, and if they’re deemed suspicious, reported to the government.

However, those reports aren’t without their opponents.

“Something that we’ve lost as American consumers is financial privacy,” Yael Ossowski, Consumer Choice Center, told Channel 2 Action News. “Essentially, we have financial surveillance.”

Ossoswski said his organization supports a new bill filed by U.S. Sens. Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Rick Scott (R-Fla.) called the “Saving Privacy Act.”

The bill would repeal the reporting requirements under the Bank Secrecy Act, which requires banks to report suspicious financial transactions while still upholding recordkeeping requirements.

Just this past month, U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland announced a major case about Bank Secrecy Act Violations, and T.D. Bank entered guilty pleas for multiple felonies connected to a money laundering scheme.

“T.D. Bank became the largest bank in U.S. history to plead guilty to Bank Secrecy Act program failures,” Garland said when announcing the details of the case.

But critics say the current laws on the books go too far and violate people’s privacy.

Supporters of the Saving Privacy Act argue it strengthens protections provided by the Fourth Amendment, which prevents unreasonable searches and seizures.

“They’re really trying to make sure the government has warrants and more proof if they try to go after your financial data,” Ossowski said.

The Saving Privacy Act also requires an approval from Congress for any new databases that collect personally identifiable information from Americans.

Published on WSB-TV.

Why does Ottawa pay groups to lobby … Ottawa?

Last Friday, anti-vaping activists took to Parliament Hill and called for the resignation of Minister of Addiction Ya’ara Saks. They said they’ve been waiting 14 months for the minister to “strengthen controls” on vaping and she has not delivered. Their main grievance is that vaping products are flavoured, and they repeated their call for all vape flavours to be banned.

This would be a huge step backward in harm reduction. According to the anti-vapers, vape products should only be tobacco-flavoured. On its face this is ridiculous. Why make a product that doesn’t contain tobacco taste like tobacco? And from the standpoint of smokers trying to quit, which many vapers are, why would the government want to limit vapers’ access to only one flavour — which tastes like the product they are trying to quit altogether?

Even stranger than these organizations’ logic, however, is the fact that they’re heavily funded by the very government whose minister they would like to see resign.

Physicians for a Smoke Free Canada, for example, is almost entirely funded by Ottawa and provincial governments. Last year, 85 per cent of its funding came directly from government. In 2020 and 2021, 97 per cent did. There is nothing necessarily wrong with organizations getting government funding, but when the money is used to aggressively lobby government for policy change, ethical questions need to be asked. Why is the government, in other words taxpayers, paying people to lobby itself? And why are certain policy viewpoints getting public support and not others?

Circular self-lobbying not only wastes taxpayer money, it also subverts democracy and erodes the concept of charity by killing charities’ independence. And it is fraudulent: it skews the public debate and political processes by masquerading circular self-lobbying as genuine civil society activism. A group of concerned doctors trying to altruistically convince Canadians to stop smoking is in reality an organization that in 2022 paid one full-time and one part-time employee a total of $104,382 in taxpayer money to lobby the government.

Government-funded NGOs and non-profits need government money because their issues don’t have widespread public support. If they did, they’d be able to fund-raise off that support. But in 2023 Physicians for a Smoke Free Canada, for instance, could only raise eight per cent of its total budget from receipted donations (with another seven per cent from “other sources,” leaving 85 per cent from government.)

Vaping isn’t risk-free. But it is much less risky than smoking — Public Health England says 95 per cent less risky. And clinical trials have shown it is a more successful quitting tool than the nicotine replacement therapies that have been on the market for decades. Research from Queen Mary University in London shows that vaping is about twice as effective as gums or patches in quitting smoking.

And flavours are a main reason vaping is a successful tool for quitting. Morethan two-thirds of vapers use vaping flavours other than tobacco-flavoured, and for good reason. They increase the likelihood of quitting smoking entirely. According to researchers at the Yale School of Public Health, vapes that aren’t tobacco-flavoured more than double the likelihood of quitting smoking.

Around 40,000 Canadians die each year from tobacco-related illnesses. Our smoking rate, though it has fallen sharply over the decades, is still about 12 per cent. You’d think an organization pushing for a “smoke-free Canada” would want to encourage more adults to access products that are exactly that, smoke-free.

Government spending money to lobby itself is perverse. The Institute For Economic Affairs in the U.K. calls the organizations that do it “sock puppets.” Should we, as taxpayers and adults, be actively funding individuals and organizations who want to police the choices we make? Absolutely not. This nefarious practice of circular lobbying needs to be ended, if not by this government then by the next.

Originally published here

Internationaler Vergleich: Berliner Hauptbahnhof stürzt im Ranking ab

Der Berliner Hauptbahnhof hat im Bahnhofs-Ranking des Consumer Choice Center (CCC) in diesem Jahr deutlich schlechter abgeschnitten als noch 2023. Stand der Bahnhof im vergangenen Jahr noch auf Platz drei im Qualitäts-Ranking der 50 größten Verkehrsknotenpunkte Europas, fiel er in diesem Jahr auf Platz 13. 

Grund dafür ist ein enormer Anstieg der Zugverspätungen – laut CCC auf 55 Prozent. Fahrgäste mussten demnach im Schnitt 14 Minuten auf ihren nächsten Zug warten. Der Berliner Hauptbahnhof erhielt einen Score von 78.1. Zum Vergleich: Spitzenreiter Zürich erreichte einen Score von 101, Leipzig auf Platz zehn einen von 85. Der höchste erreichbare Wert ist 118.

Ranking: Andere Berliner Bahnhöfe schneiden schlecht ab

Doch auch andere Berliner Bahnhöfe schneiden nicht gut im Ranking ab. Das Ostkreuz landete auf dem letzten Platz mit einem Score von 41. Nur wenig besser wurde der Zoologische Garten bewertet. Der Bahnhof erreichte mit 47 Punkten den vorletzten Platz.

Read the full text here

Lawfare is bleeding the economy

It’s perplexing that Australian policymakers would roll out the red carpet for those who oppose the resources sector — the very industry that drives and powers national prosperity.

Why kneecap your own champions that fund your successful industry?

The single most egregious example of this economic self-harm is so-called “lawfare”; the gaming of the legal system to stop Australian resource projects in their tracks and bleed successful Australian companies dry. We know this well in North America.

Much like Alberta in my native Canada, Australia has a resource-rich western state that is politically and demographically outnumbered, but over-performs when it comes to economic figures.

The resources sector in WA delivered $254 billion in sales in 2022-23, supporting 126,000 full-time jobs (that’s two Optus Stadiums), and generating over $12.7 billion in royalties to help pay for the schools, hospitals, and critical infrastructure West Australians rely on.

Class action lawfare — driven by cashed-up foreign litigation funders — is a clear and present danger to WA’s economy, and to many across the anglosphere.

Four of WA’s five biggest private sector employers — which have at least 70,000 West Australians on their payrolls — are currently facing class actions or class action investigations.

This includes resource giants BHP and Rio Tinto, as well as Perth-headquartered Wesfarmers, and Woolworths. Some of these may have merit, but many others are ill-intended efforts to weaponise Australia’s court system.

And as Australia’s class action industry continues to grow, there’s more pain on the horizon for the resources sector.

After arriving in Australia earlier this year, British class action firm Pogust Goodhead, backed by a billion-dollar loan from American hedge fund Gramercy, pledged to file as many as 10 class actions against Australian companies over the next 18 months.

CEO Thomas Goodhead has identified projects involving BHP, Rio Tinto, and Glencore as potential targets for lawsuits.

Already — just 12 months after the billion-dollar loan was announced — Pogust Goodhead has spent the lion’s share, going after BHP in the English High Court.

Pogust Goodhead’s aggressive pursuit of BHP in Britain over the collapse of Brazil’s Mariana Dam in 2015 — which could see the class action firm and its hedge fund backers make billions in profit — goes on, even after BHP and its partners sealed a $45 billion agreement with Brazilian authorities this week to directly compensate affected communities.

For class-action cowboys, WA, and particularly the Pilbara looms as a target-rich environment.

The same has sprung up in the United States, where opportunistic lawyers, backed by wealthy investors, target the most successful companies in economically powerful industries because they know they have the means to pay up in the form of a settlement.

Then there’s green lawfare pushed by environmental activist organisations, which also actively threatens the livelihoods of WA consumers and workers.

A recent report from the Menzies Research Centre found Australia has become the climate lawsuit capital of the world, giving the Americans a run for their money.

What’s more sinister, if one examines the cases, is that these groups hold up projects based on bureaucratic technicalities, rather than significant breaches that would be cause for concern.

They hold back the economy on ideological grounds, not on serious breaches of environmental or cultural heritage rules.

Recent examples include the Australian Conservation Foundation’s pursuit of Woodside over its Scarborough gas project, and the Environmental Defenders’ Office botched action against Santos over its Barossa gas project. Both ultimately failed but stymied the projects for years.

With that in mind, how do policymakers stop green activists gaming the system and foreign hedge funds gambling on lawsuits against Australian companies that provide value to consumers?

The short answer is it’s not easy. But bipartisan action in the US Congress shows the way, and it all starts with transparency and disclosure.

Republicans and Democrats have come together to introduce the Litigation Transparency Act, which would force disclosure of financing provided by third parties.

They’ve also put forward the Protecting our Courts from Foreign Manipulation Act which would block foreign sovereign wealth funds from funding class actions in American courts.

Policymakers in Australia should heed the same call and do right by Australian consumers, workers, and citizens.

Originally published here

Deutsche Bahn wieder mal Schlusslicht

Überraschend kommt das nicht: In einer US-Studie belegen die meisten deutschen Bahnhöfe die hinteren Plätze in Sachen Wartezeit und Aufenthaltsqualität. Mehrere Nachbarländer machen den Deutschen vor, wie es gehen könnte.

Wer nur Bahnhof versteht, versteht nichts – oder möchte nichts verstehen. Wie die Deutsche Bahn. Ihr Krisenmanagement knirscht wie eine uralte Dampflok auf dem Weg zum Abstellgleis. Viel Rauch, noch mehr Lärm, aber wenig Tempo. Nun ist schon wieder einmal höchste Eisenbahn. Das Sprichwort, es stammt passenderweise von einem Berliner aus dem Jahr 1847, demütigt die Deutsche Bahn abermals erneut vor der ganzen Welt.

Dieses Mal ist es die inakzeptable Wartezeit auf den bundesdeutschen Bahnhöfen, hierzulande schmerzlich bekannt, aber zunehmend auch im Ausland als unangenehm empfunden. Da fragt man sich: Kann man überhaupt noch Touristeneine Bahnfahrt durch Deutschland empfehlen, und das ohne Warnung oder einen Hinweis auf unerwünschte Nebenwirkungen? Wäre das nicht grob fahrlässig? Denn im Europa-Vergleich der 50 meistfrequentierten Bahnhöfe ist 2024 das Bahnhofsnetz der DB der große Verlierer.

Das jährliche Ranking der US-Verbraucherschutzorganisation Consumer Choice Center bewertet die Deutsche Bahn an sich als problematisch: „Sie steht vor großen Hürden“. Die Analysten des „European Railway Station Index 2024“ stellen bei den Wartezeiten jetzt als Negativbeispiel den Berliner Hauptbahnhof bloß, der von Platz drei binnen eines Jahres auf den 13. Platz abstürzt. Dort müssen Bahngäste nun im Durchschnitt 14,8 Minuten warten; 55 Prozent aller Züge sind verspätet.

Read the full text here

Harris promised to be ‘pragmatic’ — that means dropping Lina Khan at the FTC 

The Biden administration’s most activist regulator may soon need a job — unless the next president taps Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan to stay on for another term.  

With the controversial FTC chair’s tenure having ended on Sept. 26, it will be up to the next president to decide whether Khan will have another four years leading the agency tasked with antitrust enforcement and consumer protection. Vice President Kamala Harris vowed in front of the Economic Club of Pittsburgh last week to be “pragmatic” if elected and not be “constrained by ideology” in how she governs. Given this noble pledge, she must show Khan the door. 

President Biden’s choice of Khan to lead the FTC was an exciting one. Khan, now 35, was and still is young, energetic, and ideologically motivated. She is representative of a critical new generation of Democrats who want to take up the mantle of trustbusting, taking aim at large tech firms. 

Since then, Khan has taken the FTC to war against Microsoft, Meta, Google and Amazon, as well as against corporate mergers between handbag companies, hotels, and grocery stores.  

The most bizarre and revealing defeat for Khan came in court against Microsoft for its effort to merge with Activision-Blizzard, the video game company behind Call of Duty. The case came about because of the FTC’s shift in focus away from obvious harm to the consumer, modeled by her revamped mission statement for the agency. Khan’s FTC removed language stating its commitment to not hindering legitimate business activity while playing its role as watchdog.  

Put more simply, even if a corporate action is known to be legal, Khan will make you fight for it in court.  

When you watch Khan’s recent “60 Minutes” feature, this theme is front and center. Khan says “We’re doing our job, enforcing the law.” She is then interrupted by Lesley Stahl, who adds, “You are. [Businesses are] afraid you’re going to tie them up in court, cost them a lot of money, and they’re saying it’s just not worth it.” Khan nods along. Stahl also asks, “If someone just says, ‘I’m not going to go forward,’ that’s a win?” to which Lina Khan replies, “That’s right.”  

The FTC under Khan has made it the position of the federal government to oppose reflexively and antagonize all mergers, treating any market consolidation with hostility. That posture amounts to a corporate tax on mergers and acquisitions.  

Candidate Harris shares Khan’s proclivity for blaming inflation and higher prices of gadgets and groceries on corporate misbehavior. But if Harris wins the presidency, she will have done so on the promise of understanding middle-class concerns. You don’t see Harris campaigning in the suburbs against one-day Amazon Prime deliveries and Prime Day deals on televisions, which is exactly what Khan is up to in her case against Amazon.

Donald Trump, if he wins in November, will certainly fire Khan, but Harris would have to contend with a tough reconfirmation battle for Khan to keep the job. Khan would struggle to maintain the same level of Republican good faith she received at the start of the Biden administration. High-profile defeats in federal court and agency resignations, including a commissioner’s public rebuke in the pages of the Wall Street Journal, would be the main event of a confirmation hearing, and seriously degrade any wavering support for Khan to continue leading the FTC.  

Before grabbing the top spot for antitrust enforcement, Khan was a fresh face with a paper trail of hot takes on how to break up Amazon. Today she’s a federal official with spurned former colleagues willing to speak out against her “disregard for the rule of law and due process” and Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey results showing a dramatic drop, from 87 percent to 49 percent, on the question of whether “senior agency officials maintain high standards of honesty and integrity” within the FTC.  

Khan has broken trust and morale within the agency while simultaneously performing on “60 Minutes” and Comedy Central’s “The Daily Show” as a media darling and anti-capitalist icon.  

There is nothing “pragmatic” about Khan. It’s why she was hired — to throw the kitchen sink at corporations and test the constraints of congressional oversight of the FTC. She did just that. Were she to retain Khan, Harris would betray her message of common-sense government responsive to policy results.  

Biden brought Khan into the fold for what you could call “bold, persistent experimentation” around antitrust, and it has been a failure. Harris can be a fresh leader by correcting that mistake.  

Originally published here

Lina Khan’s Partisan Pivot Should Be the Beginning of Her End

Democratic candidates are crisscrossing the country to garner support before November’s elections. Joining campaign events alongside the likes of Senator Bernie Sanders, Democratic Rep. Ruben Gallego, and Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi will be an unlikely star and supposedly independent federal employee, Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Chair Lina Khan. 

Khan is due to travel to Austin, Chicago, and Arizona to stump for Democratic candidates, trumpet her antitrust record at FTC such as the effort to break up Amazon, and spin why voters should be clamoring for more. 

The head of an independent government agency publicly tying her fate to Democratic electoral prospects is not normal, and key lawmakers have taken notice of Khan’s plans. In a short tenure which expired last week, Lina Khan has gone from DC darling to political pariah. Remarkably, both political parties have found common ground in their condemnation of Khan’s regulatory actions as the head of the FTC. Her partisan tour is a mark of desperation, and Congress must check the politicization of the FTC by reconfirming Lina Khan in the event she’s asked to stay in the job. 

Khan’s overreach has stunted the economy, harmed consumers, and negatively impacted middle America. From her crackdown on so-called “junk fees” to her anti-growth merger policies hamstringing consumer companies, Khan’s agenda has rightfully faced growing bipartisan backlash.

Her unilateral actions have sent shockwaves through industry, creating a climate of uncertainty that stifles innovation and investment. Rather than focusing on safeguarding consumers and promoting fair competition, the organization has opted for overzealous regulation that a former commissioner called “disregard for the rule of law and due process.” A company that turns profits is guilty until proven innocent with Lina Khan at the FTC’s helm.

As a result, rather than investing in new technology or innovations, companies have been forced to beef up their legal departments out of fear over FTC lawfare. The metric of consumer welfare, which informed antitrust law for nearly a generation, was chucked aside for a hyper-active legal movement that sees every corporate boardroom as an opponent. 

Instead of thoroughly researching the law to drive legal change, the commission hastily pursued court action and lost three of its highest-profile merger cases that dealt with popular consumer and patient products. This series of losses includes Microsoft’s acquisition of Activision Blizzard, Meta’s acquisition of Within, and Illumina’s acquisition of Grail. 

What Khan and many of her ideological allies fail to realize is that mergers are a natural cycle of competitive free enterprise. Many mergers play a vital role in sustaining companies, preserving jobs, and supporting local economies, such as the proposed Nippon Steel takeover of US Steel, which would help sustain thousands of jobs in America’s heartland. Or the failed Frontier-Spirit merger, which now puts an entire airline’s future in jeopardy. Spirit Airlines, one of the best travel options for consumers on a budget, is now exploring Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

To counter these losses, the agency is now seeking to revise its merger-review policy, which is even facing opposition from former Obama administration officials and ex-FTC chief economists. This all stems from an ideological position that aims to cut down big players rather than sound economic or policy reasoning.

Additionally, the FTC is catching heat on its proposed final rule to ban non-compete agreements. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce was successfully able to freeze the order after a court injunction, arguing the FTC overstepped its authority in issuing the rule.

Another overzealous initiative by Lina Khan is her crackdown on so-called “junk fees”, or back-end charges commonly found in consumer services and transactions. They can include a wide range of charges – from hotel resort fees and airline baggage fees to banking overdraft charges and cable TV installation costs. Seeking to increase transparency and safeguard consumers is noble, but Khan’s assertive approach has resulted in a series of new regulations that will only end up costing consumers more.

This regulatory crackdown has left many firms scrambling to comply, resulting in a constriction of consumer options, higher overall costs, and a general sense of disorder and uncertainty. This has undoubtedly caused confusion and frustration for both companies and the consumers they serve.

Both sides of the aisle are rightly apprehensive about Lina Khan’s leadership at the FTC and the agency’s overall effectiveness. Consumers even more so. Her misguided priorities threaten the very competitiveness that fuels our nation’s economy and rewards consumers every day.

In today’s economic climate, prioritizing innovation, job creation, and growth is crucial, and the FTC’s initiatives must reflect these objectives. The FTC needs to realign its focus and avoid overstepping its boundaries. American consumers and businesses alike benefit from having an effective and focused competition watchdog, but as Lina Khan finishes her term at the FTC, it is nowhere to be found. 

Originally published here

Bloomberg’s Crusade: The Impact of Anti-Vaping Policies on India

In recent years, there’s been a paradigm shift in the global landscape of tobacco control, with the restriction of nicotine vaping products becoming a significant policy focus over and above the general reduction in smoking. Michael Bloomberg’s philanthropic efforts are in the vanguard of shaping such health policies globally, exerting financial power to influence tobacco regulations worldwide and safeguard the population from the “potential harm” of vaping.

Bloomberg’s anti-vaping crusade is well documented in the West. Vapers in America are well aware of Michael Bloomberg and his patronage for policies that ban or restrict vaping. Across the globe, his web of charities and specific groups enjoy millions of dollars in grants, as we’ve seen with recent restrictions on vaping products in Mexico and Singapore. For years, Bloomberg has donated lavish amounts of money to a network of monetarily tied universities, nonprofits, and activists and orchestrated their collective effort to instigate fear over vaping products and force governments into embracing draconian norms to promote a new form of prohibition. Bloomberg has fully funded numerous organizations that are working to promote policies in his favor globally. These include John Hopkins University, Campaign for Tobacco- Free Kids, the Bloomberg Initiative to Reduce Tobacco Use, The Union, and Southeast Asia Tobacco Control Alliance (SEATCA).

Bloomberg has displayed a whole range of devious tactics to disseminate the same false depiction of vaping as an extension of the tobacco epidemic rather than an effective harm- reduction tool. For instance, in Latin America, Bloomberg Philanthropies has backed numerous non-governmental organizations, such as the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids and UNION, to advocate for more stringent anti-vaping laws for the government. The influence has caused extensive bans on the commercial sale of vaping products in most Latin American countries except Colombia and Costa Rica. His influence has ignited discussion here in India, where the impact of these policies is more complicated due to their conflict with our country’s rich, diverse, and deeply rooted tobacco culture. India has become the latest battleground in Bloomberg’s campaign. Home to an estimated 253 million smokers, this whopping number of tobacco users places the nation in 2nd place worldwide and 1st among Southeast Asian countries in terms of total tobacco consumption.

Vaping has vast potential for harm reduction, yet Bloomberg’s influence has contributed to moving Indian policy in the polar opposite direction. In 2019, a nationwide ban was passed on the production, sale, and possession of e-cigarettes and vaping products. This step was endorsed by anti-tobacco activists like the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. Four years later, however, the step has proven entirely flawed. Despite penalties, e-cigarettes remain broadly accessible online and in storefronts, leading to a flourishing black market where counterfeit products have jeopardized consumer’s health. Not to mention that smokers who might have quit using vaping devices are forced to fall back to traditional cigarettes. As such, the ban in India has dealt a severe blow to public health and jeopardized the lives of hundreds of millions of smokers.

Bloomberg’s harmful impact extends beyond promoting harmful policies. By associating financial aid with the adoption of specific guidelines, Bloomberg and his allies make it challenging for governments to prioritize existing health issues. The public health sector in India is severely overstrained, and this kind of foreign influence only intensifies existing challenges, rendering it harder to address other serious issues as well. Furthermore, Bloomberg’s action underscores the stark contrast between his public statements and the natural consequences of his behavior. Rather than facilitating nations to craft evidence- based remedies to smoking-related diseases, Bloomberg dictates a blanket policy that often results in more harm than good by failing to consider the actual circumstances of the policy (the way the ban was unable to take effect in India).

Instead of giving in and repeating the same mistakes in the smoking policy, governments must resist the temptation of easy money from Bloomberg-controlled channels and focus on formulating policies tailored to address India’s specific issues. This solution also includes exploring the benefits of e-cigarettes and vaping products in harm reduction rather than imposing a blanket ban. The fight against smoking should be about saving lives, not advancing a specific agenda. Bloomberg’s influence on vaping laws in India is a cautionary tale of what happens when external forces dictate public health policy. The real solution lies in respecting the rule of law, prioritizing local needs, and adopting a balanced approach to tobacco control, not in bowing to the will of outsiders trying to dictate to people what is right and wrong.

Originally published here

Mandating 23-Hour Hotel Stays: A Flawed Approach to Consumer Satisfaction

KUALA LUMPUR, 21st October 2024 — The Consumer Choice Center (CCC) representative, Tarmizi Anuwar appreciates the government’s efforts to enhance consumer satisfaction and protect consumer rights in the hospitality sector. However, the recent proposal to mandate a minimum 23-hour stay at hotels is a one-size-fits-all approach that does not adequately consider the operational diversity of hotels. “Imposing a fixed period of stay for all hotel types overlooks the flexibility that different travelers and hotel operators need,” said Tarmizi Anuwar, Malaysian Country Associate at Consumer Choice Center.

This policy would create several implementation challenges for hotel operators that will affect consumers. Many hotels rely on a carefully managed balance of check-in and check-out schedules to facilitate room turnover, cleaning, and other services, particularly during high-demand seasons. Requiring a minimum 23-hour stay would strain this balance, increasing labor costs and potentially delaying room readiness for incoming guests. “Forcing hotels to comply with this mandate will lead to inefficiencies that could ultimately raise room prices, affecting consumers who are already price-sensitive,” Tarmizi added.

For consumers, the fixed 23-hour rule could limit options and reduce flexibility, especially for short-stay travelers or business guests. Many prefer the convenience of selecting accommodation based on their specific needs rather than being tied to a minimum stay duration. “This policy risks reducing consumer choice, making it harder for guests to find suitable accommodations tailored to their schedules,” he emphasized.

A more effective alternative would be to adopt flexible check-in and check-out models, as seen in other countries such as Japan and parts of Europe. In Japan, for example, some hotels allow guests to pay for the exact duration of their stay, offering flexibility whether they need a few hours or a full day. “This model empowers consumers to decide how long they wish to stay, giving them more control and improving overall satisfaction,” Tarmizi noted.

Hotels can also explore other ways to enhance customer experience, such as offering 24/7 reception services or self-service check-in kiosks. These options not only reduce wait times during peak hours but also improve customer satisfaction by letting guests control their arrival and departure times.

For younger, more spontaneous travelers, flexible check-in options would be especially appealing. Hotels can offer this flexibility either as a value-added service or as a chargeable option, allowing guests to personalize their experience. “Providing flexibility in check-in and check-out times would not only attract a wider range of travelers but also enhance the competitiveness of the hospitality industry,” Tarmizi concluded.

We encourage the government to engage with stakeholders and consider these alternative, flexible solutions, which prioritize consumer choice and maintain operational efficiency without over-regulating the market.

Playing Politics with Steel Mergers Sends the Wrong Signals

With the presidential race going into its final stretch, every and all political capital that candidates can make in key swing states is being exploited, including union and trade demands that counter long-term American interests.

A recent steel merger controversy displays this problem in extensive detail.

Since late last year, the planned acquisition of U.S. Steel by Japan’s largest steelmaker, Nippon Steel, has made both economic and political waves.

Recently, the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) advised against the acquisition, arguing that after the merger, the United States government would be less likely to seek steel tariffs from foreign entities.

This seemed odd, given that the CFIUS is a non-political body, and the arguments in favor of the merger were apparent from the perspective of jobs, investments, taxes, and the long-term economic viability of vital American industries.

Foreign direct investment (FDI) into the United States represents trillions of dollars each year, creating American jobs and successful American affiliates.

In fact, no successful country in the world survives without FDI, and those who have very little of it turn out to be socialist hellscapes.

Numerous U.S. business groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Alliance for Automotive Innovation, National Foreign Trade Council and United States Council for International Business wrote in a letter to U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, explaining that they “fear that the CFIUS process is being used to further political agendas that are outside the committee’s purview and putting the U.S. economy and workers at risk.”

President Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris have come out against the merger, unsurprisingly so, given that the U.S. Steel. United Steelworkers (USW) would lose influence following an acquisition.

It appears not only that unions more recently have disregarded the economic effects of their actions, but also that Kamala Harris is scrambling for every vote in steel-producing swing states. With terrible consequences.

If the executive allows bodies like the CFIUS to become a pawn for the priorities of the White House, it loses credibility — but more importantly credibility will be lost with foreign allies.

There are good reasons to block mergers with companies emanating from communist China, but preventing acquisitions from friendly nations such as Japan, Korea, Australia, or the E.U., what signal does that send?

Also, how can we expect allies to conduct proper business with American firms attempting to acquire foreign businesses in those countries?

The United States is a trustworthy global economic superpower, and it makes moral judgements on which nations it chooses to engage with. If Japan and other Western-oriented powers will be prevented from entering the American market for short-term political tinkering, then the spotlight may very well go off for American industries.

According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, “majority-owned U.S. affiliates of foreign multinational enterprises employed 7.94 million workers in the United States in 2021, a 2.9 percent increase from 7.71 million workers in 2020.”

In 2023, the total foreign direct investment (FDI) in the United States reached $5.39 trillion, reflecting an increase of $227 billion compared to the prior year.

This figure represents approximately 20% of the nation’s GDP, underscoring the critical role of FDI in not just sustaining the U.S. economy, but helping it grow and create jobs.

Depending on where you stand on the political spectrum, FDI might very well contradict your worldview in which each revival of the industry has to be either a punitive tariff on competitors or through a government subsidy program costing American taxpayers.

FDI is neither of those things; it represents money from outside of the U.S. that sustains the economic power of the country. And that, if you ask me, is worth more than the union vote in a particular election year.

Originally published here

Walgreens Closures: This Will Worsen ‘Pharmacy Deserts’ Across the U.S.

October 15, 2024, WASHINGTON, DC – Walgreens Boots Alliance (WBA) today announced plans to close approximately Walgreens 1,200 stores, representing roughly 10% of its global locations, as part of a larger strategy to streamline operations and bolster profitability. The closures will take place over the next three years and 500 will shutter in the U.S. by August 2025. 

Dr. Kimberlee Josephson, a fellow with the Consumer Choice Center and an Associate Professor of Business Administration at Lebanon Valley College, responded to the unfortunate news: 

“Pharmacies are facing enormous downward pressure on their business model due to consumer shifts toward e-commerce, mail-in-options for prescription medication, and also unionization efforts that have squeezed staffing and quality service for patients when they visit brick and mortar locations.”

READ MORE from Dr. Josephson on pharmacies’ struggle for survival in RealClearPennsylvania | The Hidden Costs of Unionizing PA Pharmacists

The coming loss of over 1,000 Walgreens stores is very damaging to the health and well-being of millions of Americans who live in “pharmacy deserts”, most of all in Midwestern states. The most elderly and low-income individuals often struggle with online shopping, as well as driving 30 minutes or more to the nearest pharmacy. A CNBC report highlighted New Lebanon, Ohio which has a “population of 3,756 – three dollar stores – a Groceryland grocery store – a few fast-food restaurants, a public library branch” and no active pharmacy. 

“The U.S. is on track to have 82 million senior citizens by 2050 and every year we have fewer and fewer community pharmacies ready to serve consumers the medications they need. Online shopping is convenient for consumers and will only increase with time. That’s why this sector must resist ongoing efforts nationwide to unionize pharmacists to the detriment of consumers,” concluded Dr. Josephson, “The loss of this many Walgreens locations adds to a mounting crisis for consumers who need reliable, fast, and personalized care in their local pharmacy.“

Read more in the Cincinnati Enquirer

Consumer Choice Center says Walgreens move will ‘worsen pharmacy deserts’

Dr. Kimberlee Josephson, a fellow with the Consumer Choice Center and an associate professor of business administration at Lebanon Valley College, said in an emailed statement that pharmacies are facing pressure due to consumer shifts toward e-commerce and mail-in options for prescription medication.

Most elderly and low-income individuals often struggle with online shopping, according to the center’s statement, as well as driving 30 minutes or more to the nearest pharmacy.

A CNBC report highlighted New Lebanon, Ohio, which has a “population of 3,756, three dollar stores, a Groceryland grocery store, a few fast-food restaurants, a public library branch,” and no active pharmacy. 

“The U.S. is on track to have 82 million senior citizens by 2050 and every year we have fewer and fewer community pharmacies ready to serve consumers the medications they need,” Josephson said. “The loss of this many Walgreens locations adds to a mounting crisis for consumers who need reliable, fast, and personalized care in their local pharmacy.”

In Defence of the Black Market

Written by Nicolai Heering

A black-market economy, an underground economy, or a shadow economy are terms for economic activities that bypass any type of legislative restriction, including taxation. Invariably, the knee-jerk reaction of most people is to say that is a bad thing. But is that always true?

Consider the case of Italy. Italy is notorious for red tape, ludicrous bureaucracy, and rather inefficient government. Yet, the Italian economy somehow continues to defy such obstacles. In 2023, the economy grew by 0.9 per cent compared to 0.1 per cent in the UK. So, although not impressive, 0.9 per cent is still substantially more than the presumably better organised economy of the UK. Although statistics on the size of the black-market economy are, by their very nature, hard to come by, anyone who knows Italy fairly well will know that its size is substantial. Arguably, that is what keeps the Italian economy afloat since money can flow where it is needed without much let or hindrance, and trade that would otherwise be impeded by government red tape can proceed.

Italy is but one example of an economy where the black market is a force to be reckoned with due to overregulation. Looking outside of Europe, Brazil is another. Although heavily overregulated – the country was most recently ranked 124th in the world for ease of doing business – Brazil most likely survives because of the “jeitinho brasileiro.” Literally, ‘the little Brazilian way’, meaning an informal way of overcoming formal obstacles. In 2023, the Brazilian economy thus grew by 2.9 per cent – much more than the 0.1 per cent growth rate of the British economy, which was ranked 8th for ease of doing business in the same survey that ranked Brazil 124th. Again, the probable explanation is the size of the black-market economy. A large one in Brazil and a much smaller one in the UK.

Of course, the downside of having a large black-market economy is that it facilitates crime, which – apart from all the personal tragedies and injustices that it causes – also impacts the economy negatively. Witness the existence of the powerful mafia in Italy and the dangerous gangs in Brazil. Therefore, in the interests of reducing the size of the black-market economy and thus the crime that relies on it, it needs to be more attractive for people and businesses to act within the law. For that to happen, a major cull of unnecessary and obstructive legislation is obviously required. But that is not all. Strict and impartial enforcement of the remaining legislation is also required as businesses and individuals need to be able to rely on equitable law that enforces contracts and creates a level playing field. Otherwise, they will have little incentive to act within the formal economy rather than the informal one.

Looking at the economies of the world, it would seem that they can be largely grouped as follows:

  1. Countries with overregulation and strict law enforcement. The overregulation stifles the economy, and the strict enforcement of unjust laws prevent the black market from compensating for the overregulation. Some examples are Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea. The only people preferring this Group are likely to be mid-level and senior members of government who are able to maintain an acceptable standard living at the expense of their fellow countrymen.
  2. Countries with overregulation where lax law enforcement allows the black market to at least partially compensate for the overregulation. E.g. Italy, Brazil, and Indonesia. Some people may prefer Group 2 given the flexibility and, perhaps, cheaper and more relaxed way of life available in those countries.
  3. Countries with comparatively light regulation but strict and impartial law enforcement. This Group includes countries such as Singapore, Switzerland, and certain parts of the United States such as Texas and Florida. Group 3 is arguably the most attractive of the three given the strength of the economies of the countries in that category and how desirable they are to live in.

So how do countries in Group 3 ensure that they remain in that Group, and how can countries in the other Groups aspire to membership of it? The answer seems self-evident: Don’t overregulate, don’t overtax, and treat people equally before the law. 

People turn to the black market when they have few other attractive options. They may have been regulated out of a job that should not have been regulated or have been faced with the prospect of punitive taxes that should not have been punitive. If politicians wish to reduce the black-market economy, only a significantly leaner and equitable regulatory regime combined with efficient and impartial enforcement is likely to wilt the black-market economy and bring economic activity back into the safer formal economy.

Nicolai Heering is the Financial Freedom Fellow at the Consumer Choice Center and is a passionate advocate for smarter financial regulations to improve consumers’ lives.

en_USEN
it_ITIT pt_BRPT fr_FRFR es_ESES de_DEDE en_USEN

Follow us

Facebook-f Twitter Instagram Linkedin Youtube Spotify

WASHINGTON

712 H St NE PMB 94982
Washington, DC 20002

BRUSSELS

Rond Point Schuman 6, Box 5 Brussels, 1040, Belgium

LONDON

Golden Cross House, 8 Duncannon Street
London, WC2N 4JF, UK

KUALA LUMPUR

Block D, Platinum Sentral, Jalan Stesen Sentral 2, Level 3 - 5 Kuala Lumpur, 50470, Malaysia

OTTAWA

718-170 Laurier Ave W Ottawa, ON K1P 5V5

info@consumerchoicecenter.org

© COPYRIGHT 2025, CONSUMER CHOICE CENTER

Also from the Consumer Choice Center: ConsumerChamps.EU | FreeTrade4us.org