January 2025 – Consumer Choice Center

Tomorrow’s Tariffs Will Hurt Everyone

By Sabine El-Chidiac and Elizabeth Hicks

While tariff threats have been a roller coaster ride of will he or won’t he, reports indicate that President Donald Trump’s plan to tack on a 25% tariff on Canada is on track to becoming a reality on February 1. Given the harm tariffs have on Canadians and Americans alike, the best course of action would be to eliminate tariffs as a policy option and focus on working out the issues the United States has with Canada diplomatically. Not only would tariffs from the United States be devastating to both American and Canadian economies, but the proposed retaliations by Canada would further hurt the pocketbooks of the citizens of both countries.

Ontario Premier Doug Ford has been very clear when it comes to Trump’s proposed tariffs: impose tariffs on Ontario, and Ontario could cut off electricity to 1.5 million homes in New York, Michigan, and Minnesota. The federal government also said they would respond with the “single largest trade blow the U.S. economy has ever endured” if Trump follows through with his plan for tariffs, and a future government will likely feel compelled to do the same due to the harsh economic implications tariffs will have on Canada. Rather than allow tariffs to be imposed at any point, the U.S. and Canada must find an off-ramp to protect consumers on both sides of the border. Canada needs a new approach based on political reality and the unique economic interests of both parties in this dispute.

Tariffs are simply another word for taxes, and imposing such taxes on Canada will affect Canadians’ day-to-day lives even more than the cost-of-living crisis already has. Canadian economist Trevor Tombe predicts that if the U.S. follows through on tariffs and Canada retaliates, the Canadian household cost would be $1,900 CAD per person annually. In the U.S., that impact would be nearly $1,700 CAD per person. This is one of the more conservative estimates.

Tariff showdowns tend to be more about a battle of wills and less about positive economic outcomes.

The 1930 U.S. Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act resulted in world trade falling by 66% and U.S. exports and imports crashing by about two-thirds, prolonging the Great Depression. More recently, the 2018 steel and aluminum tariffs imposed by Donald Trump resulted in skyrocketing manufacturing costs for U.S. industries. The ongoing softwood lumber tariffs imposed on and off by the United States have significantly raised American housing prices.

In response to the Smoot-Hawley tariffs, Canada retaliated and imposed harsh tariffs on the United States under Prime Minister R.B. Bennett, sending Canada’s export markets into a spiral and sparking a Canadian economic depression. A very similar story has predictably played out over the 2018 steel and aluminum tariffs and again with Canadian retaliatory tariffs in the softwood lumber feud.

Canada is the United States’ second largest trading partner, with imports from Canada to the U.S. totaling almost $344 billion in 2024 through October. Canada and the U.S. are neighbours and long–time allies, and the integration of our supply chains has resulted in lower prices for consumers in both the US and Canada while increasing the global competitiveness of both countries.

Premier Ford has been promoting a “Fortress Am-Can” program that would have the US and Canada working as a team on various energy-related policy issues, and there has been rhetoric from the Conservative party leader Pierre Poilievre about striking a “great deal” with Donald Trump by increasing Canada’s energy exports to the U.S. This direction can be workable answers to the tariff standoff, and could extend this pause to a permanent reversal on tariff policy.

Many Canadian consumers can barely afford the necessities of life such as groceries, clothing, and housing. Adding tariffs and retaliations to the mix may be the last straw that leads to Canada’s next great depression.

Bahaya Kebijakan Regulasi Minuman Beralkohol yang Terlalu Ketat

Kebijakan terkait dengan minuman beralkohol kerap menjadi isu yang menimbulkan pro dan kontra di berbagai negara di dunia. Aspek kesehatan hingga dampak sosial dari minuman beralkohol kerap menjadi fokus utama dalam kebijakan minuman beralkohol yang diterapkan di berbagai tempat.

Di Indonesia misalnya, aturan yang memberlakukan regulasi ketat terkait minuman beralkohol merupakan hal yang bisa kita temukan dengan mudah. Berdasarkan penelitian dari lembaga independen Komite Pemantauan Pelaksanaan Otonomi Daerah (KPPOD), setidaknya ada 428 peraturan daerah di Indonesia yang meregulasi peredaran minuman beralkohol, di mana 11% dari aturan tersebut mencantumkan pelarangan total (kppod.org, 2021).

Salah satu aturan tersebut yang paling dikenal adalah peraturan Qanun di provinsi Aceh, yang merupakan provinsi yang menerapkan hukum Syariah di Indonesia. Dalam aturan yang diberlakukan sejak tahun 2003 tersebut, seluruh kegiatan produksi dan konsumsi minuman beralkohol dilarang dan diberi sanksi yang keras (kompas.com, 28/6/2022).

Daerah lain misalnya, yang menerapkan varian lain dari regulasi ketat untuk minuman beralkohol adalah kabupaten Sleman. Di daerah tersebut misalnya, minuman beralkohol hanya bisa dijual di hotel mewah minimum yang berbintang 4 dan hanya boleh diminum di tempat. Selain itu, pasar swalayan besar seperti Hypermart juga bisa menjual minuman tersebut tetapi hanya yang golongan A (alkohol maksmium 5%) seperti bir (mediacenter.slemankab.go.id, 2/8/2024).

Adanya berbagai aturan tersebut, mulai dari regulasi sangat ketat hingga pelarangan total, dimaksudkan untuk mengurangi insentif seseirang untuk mengonsumsi minuman beralkohol. Tetapi, justru berdasarkan penelitian yang sudah dilakukan, regulasi minuman beralkohol yang terlalu ketat malah menimbulkan dampak yang kontra produktif dan menimbulkan efek yang negatif dan membahayakan. Dengan regulasi yang terlalu ketat hingga pelarangan total, maka hal ini akan semakin menyuburkan peredaran produk-produk ilegal yang sangat berbahaya.

Lembaga riset Center for Indonesian Policy (CIPS) misalnya, melakukan riset dampak dari aturan tersebut di 6 kota di Indonesia. Hasil dari riset tersebut menemukan bahwa, meskipun ada pemberlakuan aturan pelarangan peredaran minuman beralkohol, hal tersebut tidak membuat penduduk yang tinggal di kota tersebut menjadi berhenti mengonsumsi produk tersebut.

Bedasarkan wawancara misalnya, di kota Palembang, rata-rata konsumsi alkohol dengan volume ABV yang tinggi (spirits) dan bir masing-masing adalah 3,7 liter per tahun. Sementara itu, di kota lain sepeeti malang misalnya, konsumsi rata-rata per tahun sekitar 1,8 liter untuk bir, dan 2,5 liter untuk spirits (cips-indonesia.org, 2016).

Namun, dari konsumsi alkohol tersebut tidak semuanya dari produk yang legal. Tidak sedikit konsumen yang justru beralih ke minuman alkohol ilegal, atau yang dikenal juga dengan istilah minuman beralkohol oplosan. Tidak jarang, konsumsi minuman ilegal ini berakibat fatal hingga menyebabkan kematian. Dalam 9 bulan pertama tahun 2016 saja, tercatat ada sekitar 127 jiwa melayang karena konsumsi minuman beralkohol oplosan yang ilegal (cips-indonesia.org, 2016).

Hal ini terus berlanjut hingga tahun-tahun sebelumnya. Belum lama ini misalnya, terjadi kejadian yang memprihatinkan, di mana ada sekitar 3 pemuda di kota Sukabumi di provinsi Jawa Barat yang meninggal setelah mengonsumsi minuman beralkohol ilegal yang sangat berbahaya. Mereka sempat dicoba dibawa ke rumah sakit terdekat, tetapi nyawanya tidak bisa diselamatkan (detik.com, 27/6/2024).

Kejadian memprihatinkan seperti ini tentunya bukan hanya terjadi di Indonesia, dan ada banyak pelajaran yang bisa kita ambil dari negara-negara lain. Amerika Serikat misalnya, pada tahun 1920-1933 juga melarang minuman beralkohol, yang dikenal dengan nama prohibition era. Tetapi hal ini justru tidak membuat masyarakat Amerika berhenti mengonsumsi minuman beralkohol, dan justru menyuburkan peredaran minuman ilegal yang diproduksi oleh kelompok kriminal terorganisir seperti kelompok mafia (theguardian.com, 26/8/2012).

Selain itu, aspek lain yang juga sangat penting untuk diperhatikan adalah, korban dari adanya aturan larangan minuman beralkohol adalah kalangan kelas menengah ke bawah. Kelompok tersebut sangat rentan untuk menjadi korban dari minuman beralkohol ilegal karena keterbatasan ekonomi yang mereka miliki, dan mereka tidak sanggup untuk membeli minuman beralkohol yang legal, yang hanya dijual di hotel mewah saja misalnya dengan harga yang sangat tinggi (dw.com, 23/4/2018).

Dengan demikian, adanya aturan regulasi yang terlalu ketat hingga pelarangan dalam implementasinya merupakan aturan yang diskriminatif terhadap kalangan yang tidak mampu dan menengah ke bawah. Masyarakat yang dari kelas menengah ke atas memiliki sumber daya untuk membeli produk minuman beralkohol yang legal dengan harga yang tinggi, atau pergi ke wilayah lain yang memperbolehkan peredaran produk tersebut, di mana hal tersebut tidak bisa dilakukan oleh mereka yang dari kelas menengah ke bawah.

Sebagai penutup, adanya regulasi minuman beralkohol tentu merupakan hal yang perlu, sebagaimana yang diberlakukan di negara-negara lain. Namun, hal tersbeut harus berfokus pada keamanan dan keselamatan konsumen, serta memastikan produk tersebut tidak dikonsumsi oleh anak-anak di bawah umur. Jangan sampai, aturan yang terlalu ketat justru menimbulkan dampak yang kontra produktif yang membahayakan.

Originally published here

The European Union should not choose fear over a measured response to food dyes

It is time to rethink food regulations. The EFSA should revise its attempt to eliminate all risks, in favor of risk-based management which aims to minimize all possible dangers

European Union officials might feel vindicated after the United States Food and Drug Administration decided to ban erythrosine on the 15^th of January 2025. Displayed under the number E127 on EU labels, erythrosine is typically used to give food and drinks a vibrant red color. Since 1994, however, Europe has banned its use in anything other than cocktails and candy cherries, citing supposed worries around E127 and public health in the form of hyperactivity and thyroid problems, including a potential link to higher rates of thyroid cancer. Europeans could claim that they have been keeping consumers safer for much longer than America.

Any such boasting on the issue would be uncalled for. Seeing another agency reach the same conclusion does not give the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), the main body responsible for overseeing the safety and quality of the EU’s food, permission to set aside the scientific and economic facts out of over-precaution.

The EFSA makes much of the hyperactivity claim, citing it as the main reason for outlawing E127 as early as 1994. The reality is that evidence of erythrosine’s harm is limited. Studies that find a link between the dye and hyperactivity and imbalances in the thyroid gland cite what statisticians like to call a small effect size. Put simply, food dyes account for a small part of a much larger problem. Other factors, like personal genetics and underlying environmental factors, better explain children and young adults’ smaller attention spans.

More serious accusations of erythrosine causing thyroid cancer in adults that the EFSA has toyed with are even less well-grounded. Reliable findings refer mainly to experiments on male mice. Of course, one substance being toxic to mice does not make it harmful to humans.

To its credit, the EFSA acknowledges more evidence is needed in its 2011 reassessment of E127, where any potential to create tumors “may be considered of limited relevance to humans” and not related to any changes in cell structure (“genotoxic activity”). Still, it feels the need to keep the substance restricted from the mere possibility of it happening.

Quantity matters, too. Too much or too little, no matter how good or bad, can lead to problems. As such, the EFSA establishes an acceptable daily intake, the amount anyone can consume without threatening an average person’s health. The threshold for erythrosine is relatively low at just 0.1mg per kilogram per day. Yet the consumption rate for 95% of all adults is a mere fraction of that number at 0.0031 mg per kilogram per day, posing no danger to most people. Despite this fact from the EFSA’s own figures, the agency has yet to revise its attitude to E127.

More than anything attempts to create “purely organic” food will collide with the economic realities businesses and consumers face. Items using natural colorants have a much shorter shelf life, forcing manufacturers to use more additives and add extra preservatives to keep their products viable. These workarounds result in more expensive food to make and stock, leaving consumers with fewer and pricier choices than before.

Therefore, instead of mutual congratulations, it is time to rethink food regulations and avoid future mistakes. In a September 2024 article on tackling emerging risks, the EFSA recognizes the need to improve its overall risk communication.

Though a pertinent suggestion, it should only be the start of reform. The regulatory body must revise its generally precautionary instincts (a futile attempt to eliminate all risks) in favor of risk-based management, which aims to minimize all possible dangers.

At the same time, EU policymakers should address substances based on all available evidence rather than preconceived notions that equate “natural” with “good” and “artificial” with “bad”. Real vindication does not come from feeling superior but from improving consumer well-being.

Originally published here

Time to take a pop at GST absurdities

The GST Council (Goods and Service Tax) recently announced a bewildering array of extra tax rates for popcorn, sparking an understandable backlash among economists, businesses, and consumers alike. Salted and spiced popcorn is taxed at 5 per cent if loose, 12 per cent if prepackaged and labelled, and 18 per cent if caramelized. While intended for clarity, this new classification has done more harm than good, causing confusion, adding up needless compliance costs, and leaving consumers bearing the brunt of the damage in the form of higher prices and fewer choices.

The GST system was introduced with the promise of a “Good and Simple Tax.” Yet decisions like this demonstrate how far it has deviated from that vision. Former Chief Economic Adviser K.V. Subramanian aptly summarized the situation: “Complexity is a bureaucrat’s delight and citizens’ nightmare.” The popcorn tax serves as a perfect example of this. A simple grocery store or movie theatre purchase now comes with a dilemma. Is the popcorn pre-packaged? Is it salted or caramel? Each of these questions determines the tax rate and, ultimately, what consumers pay at the counter. These convoluted policies hit the middle and lowerincome groups the hardest, where a small price hike on household essentials can significantly impact budgets.

As one social media user pointed out, this could pave the way for taxing entire restaurant menus differently based on ingredients. Such granular taxation complicates compliance and restricts consumer freedom by penalizing certain choices over others. Moreover, this fragmented approach disproportionately affects small businesses. Smaller popcorn manufacturers and vendors, already operating on thin margins, now face additional compliance burdens. For many, this could mean passing costs onto consumers or shutting down altogether, further reducing options in the market. The popcorn tax exposes a deeprooted issue within India’s GST structure: the strong obsession with micromanagement and over-classification. Taxation should be neutral, refraining distortions that favour one service or product over another. Instead, policies like these fail to regard consumers, the very individuals the tax system is meant to serve.

The GST Council’s decision also raises concerns about transparency and accountability. While the Council justifies that caramel popcorn falls under the “sugar confectionery” category, critics highlighted the inconsistencies in its classification rationale. For instance, previous rulings on similar products have applied lower tax rates despite the presence of added sugar. The popcorn tax isn’t just about popcorn; it’s a symptom of underlying issues plaguing India’s GST system. It highlights the need for a transparent, simplified, and consumercentric tax regime that emphasizes fairness and minimizes bureaucratic complexity. India’s popcorn tax fiasco is not without precedent. Positive examples from other countries highlight how unnecessary India’s GST policy is. New Zealand’s Goods and Services Tax system is often hailed as one of the simplest in the world. Unlike India’s fragmented approach, New Zealand applies a flat GST rate across almost all goods and services, with very few exemptions. This simplicity reduces compliance costs for businesses and ensures that consumers are not burdened with hidden or arbitrary price hikes. The contrast is stark. Where India’s GST causes confusion and inefficiency, New Zealand’s straightforward model fosters fairness and transparency.

The lesson is simple: a streamlined tax system benefits everyone from businesses and policymakers to consumers. The popcorn tax, criticized by industry experts and economists, is just another example of how complex classifications can stifle consumer choice. Indian policymakers should take notes from New Zealand’s playbook. By removing excessive classifications and simplifying tax rates, GST can finally live up to its promise of being a “Good and Simple Tax.” Until then, consumers will bear the brunt of a system that favors bureaucracy over practicality.

Originally published here

Should U.S. Billionaires Dictate Health Policy Overseas?

New York’s former Mayor Michael Bloomberg, known for his obsession with paternalistic policies such as banning Big Gulps, or even just the arrogant statement that sin taxes’ regressive effect on poor people is good because they lack the proper education, has continued being active in the world of public health through Bloomberg Philanthropies.

The charity arm of Bloomberg, to which he has pledged the majority of his wealth, estimated at over $50 billion, is highly political.

A reasonable assumption would be that a foundation focused on improving public health would support research into curing cancer, investigating rare diseases and orphan drugs, or alleviating the pain and suffering of American patients. After all, if the ambition of giving back to the country in which he amassed his billions were to be the goal, that would appear to be a laudable action.

However, Bloomberg has just continued his nonsensical political battles in the nonprofit world and expanded all around the world. Its latest obsession: (misguided) tobacco control in Vietnam.

In late November, the Socialist Republic of Vietnam passed a law that would ban nicotine alternatives such as vapes and heated tobacco products. Together with the World Health Organization (WHO), Bloomberg Philanthropies “supported” — most likely meaning financially — efforts to ban safer nicotine products.

Curiously, conventional cigarettes, with all the adverse health effects we have all known about for many decades, remain both legal and sold by Vietnam’s own billion-dollar state-owned tobacco monopoly, Vinataba. With its 12,000+ employees and $8 billion in revenue, which is about 12% of Vietnam’s yearly tax revenue, the Vietnam National Tobacco Company is a not-so-insignificant money collector for the state.

So, while Bloomberg and the WHO sell this as a victory for public health, officials in Hanoi are more likely to view it as a means of neutralizing competition in its monopoly.

The question is: While the Vietnamese state might have something to gain from a financial decision veiled as a public health boost, why does Bloomberg support a measure that drives people away from devices that help people quit smoking and bring them back to conventional cigarettes?

We need not look for any particular conspiracy here; it’s not money that the New York billionaire needs more of. His charitable foundation is nothing but the elongated arm of his paternalistic and ideological obsession.

Whether it’s sugar, fat, or nicotine, the public health brigade stops at nothing to regulate choices they deem unhealthy.

But at least for sugar and fat, there’s a case to be made that they aren’t healthy choices to begin with. The public utility of a Big Gulp is that as a consumer, I want to have it, not that I need it, and yes, in a free society, that needs to be enough of a reason to keep it.

Sugar, like any other product, can be consumed in moderation. However, the substitution effect of nicotine alternatives like vapes and heaters goes beyond that because they help people quit harmful cigarettes. E-cigarettes are around 95% less harmfulthan conventional cigarettes, according to Public Health England, and thus serve a public health objective instead of worsening it.

The problem is that while in developed countries, there are institutions and think tanks able to counterbalance the influence of Bloomberg’s vast array of ideological lobbying for the Nanny State, developing nations are much less equipped to do so in the absence of sufficient public debate. This makes them easy targets for the former New York mayor.

As Michelle Minton lays out in a blog post, the American nonprofit Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids (CTFK), which is funded by Bloomberg, is actively drafting legislation of lobbying for similar types of restrictions on nicotine alternatives in the Philippines, Ukraine, Bosnia, Latin American countries, as well as Africa.

Countries face differing challenges in reducing their smoking rates, which is why they all pursue different policies. Having an American billionaire steamrolling their sometimes legitimate efforts to improve public health with an ideological approach that will backfire, is not just counterproductive, it might very well be the most unhealthy approach of all.

Originally published here

RFK Jr. Can’t Escape His Progressive Record

Cabinet confirmation hearings began in Washington last week for several of President Trump’s picks for top jobs in government. While Marco Rubio passed the gauntlet, we’re still waiting on word of a scheduled hearing for Trump’s most controversial picks: Tulsi Gabbard for director of national intelligence and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to head the Department of Health and Human Services.

RFK’s confirmation will be a blockbuster show of D.C. division, and it should be. The Kennedy heir is not aligned with the MAGA agenda.

Confirmation hearings are famously scripted and predictable. Republicans and Democrats play impressed ally or suspicious truth-seeker for the C-SPAN cameras and bank as many loaded questions as they can for their future campaign ads showing them as fighters. We don’t know what will happen with several nominees, RFK most of all.

The Democrat attorney-turned-failed presidential candidate and successor to the Kennedy family dynasty is maybe the second-most gonzo political figure of our time, behind only Trump. Barack Obama wanted him to head the EPA back in 2008, and today you can find him discussed on Joe Rogan and labeled “the most erudite” and “shrewd” lawyer who has “never lost a case,” according to actor and director Mel Gibson.

For Democrats, there is skepticism about his somewhat fringe views on vaccines and willingness to flirt with conspiracy theories, whether or not they agree with his overall health agenda. Hawaii Democratic Gov. Josh Green called Kennedy “dangerous,” at the same time New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker seems to be on board with Kennedy’s plan for nutrition and public health.

Republican senators are similarly confused about how to approach voting for Kennedy.

Gibson wasn’t wrong. RFK is a seasoned environmental activist and attorney who has worked overtime to foil the GOP’s pro-market policy agenda, and it’s still unclear if he believes in the weaponization of government power to carry out his more progressive ideology. For years, RFK’s public statements demonstrate his instinct toward an interventionist progressive government that could “prosecute” Americans deemed climate skeptics and jail the GOP megadonor Charles Koch in the Hague as a “war criminal.”

RFK had a direct hand in halting some vital energy projects that practically every Republican or conservative would be appalled by blocking today.

In his home state of New York, Kennedy succeeded in shutting down not only natural gas fracking but also the shutdown of the carbon-free Indian Point nuclear reactor. He sued to stop hydroelectricity projects in Canada, the Dakota Access pipeline, and even wind farms off the Massachusetts coast.

The organization he represented for years, the National Resources Defense Council, has been a principal player in trying to kill the forestry indistry in the Pacific Northwest and western Canada, which supplies most of the lumber in American homes.

These are serious red flags that demonstrate a value misalignment.

RFK’s MAGA conversion came about thanks only to political convenience. He committed ‘wrongthink’ during the COVID pandemic and needed a new home for his multimillion-dollar activism.

For Republican senators who support the broader aims of MAGA, shouldn’t RFK’s past exploits in courtrooms, legislatures and interviews play a bigger part in whether he’s the right pick for the job to run the country’s largest federal bureaucracy?

His boosters will say that RFK’s focus will be limited to public health and nutrition, but if the Joe Biden years have taught us anything, it’s just how intrusive and all-encompassing an agency like HHS can be. Trump vows he’ll “keep Bobby away from the liquid gold,” meaning oil and gas exploration, but there is no erasing the environmental lawyer’s decades-long record of depriving Americans of more affordable energy.

Right now, environmental activists are launching costly and damaging lawsuits against energy firms claiming their products are damaging Americans’ health and that of future generations. HHS could absolutely play a part in this effort to hamstring U.S. oil and gas, and RFK’s record suggests he would support it.

For these reasons, RFK is a puzzling pick for a rare moment where Republicans hold a trifecta majority in government. There’s no time to waste in making the most of Trump’s agenda. Republicans and Democrats, especially conservatives, should be preparing tough questions for RFK that go beyond cable news theatrics.

Originally published here

Did Trump issue tariffs against Canada today?

Newly inaugurated U.S. President Donald Trump stopped short of implementing 25 per cent tariffs against all Canadian imports on day one but hinted the measure might be just around the corner during his inaugural address on Monday (Jan. 20).

Speaking at an indoor ceremony at the Capitol Rotunda in Washington D.C., Trump didn’t address Canada by name, but focused on the southern border with Mexico, taking aim at perceived threats surrounding illegal immigration and crime.

Addressing a slew of executive orders, Trump confirmed his plans to establish the “External Revenue Service” he said will collect tariffs, duties and revenues from foreign sources.

“Instead of taxing our citizens to enrich other countries, we will tariff and tax foreign countries to enrich our citizens,” Trump announced.

Make other nations pay?

Trump doubled down on his claims that he will make foreign nations pay heavy tariffs, despite warnings from economists that tariffs will lead to higher prices for Americans.

According to Export Development Canada, buyers are usually responsible for paying tariffs and many importers pass these costs down to consumers by charging higher prices.

The Wall Street Journal reported earlier on Monday that Trump planned to issue a broad memorandum to direct federal agencies to study trade policies and evaluate the U.S. trade relationships with China, Mexico and Canada. But the directive stopped short of imposing new tariffs on Trump’s first day in office.

Read the full text here

Az EU-s pénzek csak tönkreteszik a versenyt és a vállalkozói szellemet Magyarországon

Egy karácsony előtti nyüzsgő szombat este a belvárosi éttermekben élénk csevegést és poharak csörömpölését várnánk. És mégis: egy ideális helyen levő létesítmény kísértetiesen üres volt. Amikor megosztottam ezt a furcsaságot egy barátommal, aki maga is étterem-tulajdonos, éles megjegyzést tett: “Ha én is ennyit kaptam volna az uniós támogatásokból, engem is zavarnának a vendégek”.

Ez az egyszerű meglátás sokat elmond a magyarországi üzleti élet helyzetéről. A növekedés és fejlődés elősegítésére szánt uniós források egy olyan rendszert hoztak létre, amely az innováció helyett a kapcsolatokat, a a szolgáltatás helyett az állami támogatásokat, a vevői elégedettség helyett pedig a támogatási kérelmeket jutalmazza.

A magyar gazdaság olyannyira eltorzult, hogy az ügyfelekért folytatott verseny másodlagos az uniós pénzekért folytatott versenyhez képest, amelyek mostanra szintén szűkössé váltak.

Ez a torzulás messze túlmutat egyetlen üres étteremnél. Egy olyan rendszer jelképe, amely megfojtja a vállalkozói kedvet, aláássa a tisztességes versenyt, és elűzi Magyarország legtehetségesebb újítóit az országból.

Az uniós támogatások magyarországi elosztása minden, csak nem átlátható. Az innováció és a gazdasági fejlődés előmozdítása helyett a kormány ezeket a pénzeket egy új gazdasági elit kiépítésére használta fel – a politikai kapcsolatokkal rendelkező üzletemberek kasztját, amelyet gyakran “NER-elitnek” neveznek. A valóságban ennek a kormánypárti, cinkos elitnek a tagjai azok, akik az uniós pénzek haszonélvezői, mivel az Orbán-kormány a pénzeket oligarchái és politikai ügyfelei között osztotta szét.

Ezek a vállalkozások, amelyek gyakran a kormánypárt közeli szövetségesei tulajdonában vagy ellenőrzése alatt állnak, nem piaci potenciáljuk vagy innovatív ötleteik, hanem a rendszerhez való hűségük miatt kapnak támogatást. Sikerüket nem az alapján mérik, hogy hány ügyfelet vonzanak, vagy hogy mennyi értéket teremtenek, hanem azon, hogy képesek-e állami támogatásokat szerezni.

Az eredmény egy olyan üzleti környezet, ahol a kapcsolatok felülírják a szakértelmet, és a klientúra kiszorítja a valódi vállalkozói szellemet. Ezek a politikailag támogatott vállalkozások a piaci erőkre való tekintet nélkül működnek, és olyan torzulásokat okoznak, amelyek az egész gazdaságban éreztetik hatásukat.

The royals coming after American free speech

The British royals are coming after American free speech, just days before Donald Trump is set to take office as president for the second time.

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle expressed outrage that Meta, owner of Facebook and Instagram, changed policy to rely on community notes versus a dedicated fact-checking department.

Ironically, the pair suggested Meta’s policy change “directly undermines free speech.” How exactly? Because, according to Harry and Meghan, Mark Zuckerberg is, allegedly, prioritizing those using social media “to spread hate, lies and division.”

What’s more, the pair suggest Meta’s decision is based on American politics which should “never determine whether freedom of expression and civil and human rights are protected in the online spaces so clearly shaping or destroying democracy.” So much for the War of Independence.

Trump campaigned on a promise to “Make America Great Again (Again).” The former president and now president-elect has made a name for himself with his uber-patriotism — some would say nationalism — and eschewing of more European-style policies on everything from high tax rates to “net zero” environmental and energy standards to immigration rules. In his first term, he battled European leaders on an array of policy matters, including NATO contributions and many European nations’ tendency to rely on the US for their security needs instead of standing up their own national defenses.

Read the full text here

FDA bans red dye No. 3 in Biden frenzy for regulations

The Food and Drug Administration said Wednesday that it was banning red dye No. 3 from food and drugs because it causes cancer in laboratory rats. This move was part of a last-minute regulatory frenzy by the Biden administration that also included a bid to cap nicotine in cigarettes.

Red dye No. 3 gives food and drinks a bright, cherry-red color. It is also known as erythrosine, or Red No. 3, and is found in cough syrups and other medicines.

The FDA said food manufacturers will have until mid-January 2027 to remake their products without the substance, and producers of ingested drugs will have until January 2028.

The administration approved the ban as it cleared the regulatory decks before ceding control to President-elect Donald Trump and his team on Monday.

Regulators revoked the authorization of red dye No. 3 under the Delaney clause, allowing them to crack down on substances that induce cancer in humans or animals.

Industry groups highlighted parts of the FDA statement that found cancer links in rats, though not in humans, while consumer groups hailed the ban as a big step forward.

“Today’s action by the FDA marks a monumental victory for consumer health and safety,” said Ken Cook, president and co-founder of the Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit that promotes health. “For years, Red 3 remained in food products, despite growing evidence linking it to health problems, particularly in kids.”

Read the full text here

Chargeur unique européen : l’emblème d’un continent en déclin

L’UE célèbre l’arrivée du chargeur unique, mais à quel prix ?

Le premier janvier, la règle de l’UE sur les chargeurs communs est entrée en vigueur, ce qui signifie que tous les nouveaux téléphones mobiles, tablettes, appareils photo numériques, écouteurs, haut-parleurs, claviers et de nombreux autres appareils électroniques vendus dans l’UE devront être équipés d’un port de charge USB type-C.

L’argument en faveur de cette nouvelle loi, qui a été élaborée pendant des années, est la normalisation des ports de recharge sur l’ensemble du continent et la prévention des déchets électroniques. En résumé, il s’agit de faciliter la vie des consommateurs tout en protégeant l’environnement.

Cela dit, voici pourquoi cela pose problème.

Même si l’USB-C semble être le chargeur le plus efficace à l’heure actuelle, nous ne pouvons pas prédire comment cette technologie évoluera à l’avenir. Prenons cet exemple : en 2009, lorsque l’Union européenne a proposé pour la première fois un chargeur commun, le micro-USB était considéré comme la norme. Si ce chargeur commun avait été adopté à l’époque, les consommateurs européens auraient-ils été privés des dispositifs USB-C, aujourd’hui plus populaires, qui constituent la nouvelle norme ?

Le temps nous a montré qu’il y a toujours de meilleures technologies qui arriveront sur le marché. En légiférant sur un chargeur commun, l’UE sera responsable du retard de l’innovation qui privera les consommateurs de choix, non seulement aujourd’hui, mais aussi à l’avenir. L’adoption de cette proposition par le Parlement européen et le Conseil pourrait prendre encore de nombreux mois, et d’ici là, de nombreuses entreprises pourraient même trouver de meilleures solutions que celles qui sont actuellement proposées.

Avec l’évolution rapide de la technologie, il n’est pas certain que l’USB-C soit toujours considéré comme la technologie de charge la plus efficace. De plus, comme de plus en plus d’entreprises expérimentent des chargeurs sans fil, il est très probable que les câbles de charge deviennent obsolètes. Si cette proposition est acceptée, les entreprises seront, quoi qu’il en soit, contraintes de fournir cette prise.

Lorsque Apple a décidé d’abandonner le port pour casque d’écoute pour les iPhone en 2016, beaucoup étaient sceptiques. Mais les consommateurs ont fini par apprécier la technologie sans fil et le fait de ne pas avoir à s’occuper de fils qui s’emmêlent toujours mystiquement dès qu’on les met dans sa poche. Si l’UE ou tout autre organisme gouvernemental avait tenté d’intervenir et de remédier à ce « désagrément », nous n’aurions probablement pas pu profiter des avantages qu’ils procurent.

La joie avec laquelle la Commission européenne célèbre la « victoire » tant attendue sur les entreprises technologiques grâce à la réglementation commune sur les chargeurs est terriblement révélatrice de l’état dans lequel se trouve actuellement l’Union européenne.

L’Europe produit-elle des géants de la technologie, à l’exception peut-être de Spotify ? Non, elle leur impose des taxes. L’Europe est-elle à l’avant-garde en matière de nouvelles fonctionnalités ? Non, et en réalité, en raison des réglementations européennes, les consommateurs européens ne bénéficient pas des nouvelles fonctionnalités du logiciel iOS. Résout-elle ses problèmes grâce à un environnement favorable aux entreprises ? Non, elle met en avant ses vertus par des réglementations mesquines et inutiles.

Une armée de bureaucrates se sont fait pression les uns sur les autres pendant près de 16 ans pour faire adopter ces règles. Des milliers de traducteurs l’ont traduite dans toutes les langues officielles de l’UE, les parlementaires ont perdu des milliers d’heures à en débattre, les machines de Bruxelles vont encore perdre des milliers d’heures à scanner les articles des fournisseurs de technologie non conformes, rendant ainsi impossible la vente de millions d’articles que les consommateurs auraient encore pu acheter et charger avec les câbles existants.

Notre obsession de la réglementation est le début de notre disparition en Europe. Nous ne voyons aucune opportunité dans la technologie, seulement des menaces pour notre mode de vie. Un mode de vie qui est de plus en plus statique.

Il suffit de se rendre dans de nombreux pays comme la Corée ou le Japon pour se rendre compte que nous ne sommes qu’un musée destiné à être apprécié par les touristes. Oui, nous produisons des fromages et des vins fantastiques – et nous devons continuer à le faire – mais cela ne peut pas être l’essence même de l’Europe. Nous étions autrefois un continent d’innovation et d’esprit d’entreprise, et nous semblons avoir tout abandonné pour avoir une chance de paraître vertueux et respectueux de l’environnement, aux yeux de ceux qui nous rabaissent. Il est temps que nous nous libérions de notre désir de ne jamais laisser l’innovation se produire.

Originally published here

Biaya Tarif Impor Tinggi dan Proteksionisme

Kebijakan yang mendukung globalisasi dan ekonomi terbuka saat ini seakan mengalami penurunan popularitas. Di berbagai negara, kelompok populis mendapatkan peningkatan suara, dan tidak sedikit yang berhasil memenangkan pemilu.

Globalisasi dan perdagangan bebas dianggap oleh sebagian pihak sebagai akar dari segala masalah ekonomi yang menimpa para pekerja dan pelaku usaha di berbagai negara.

Untuk itu, kebijakan ekonomi terbuka harus dibatasi melalui berbagai kebijakan proteksionis, seperti tarif dan juga kuota, dengan dalih untuk melindungi kepentingan dalam negeri.

Tidak hanya di Amerika Serikat, Indonesia sendiri juga mengalami gelombang peningkatan skeptisisme hingga penolakan terhadap kebijakan ekonomi terbuka dan perdagangan bebas.

Dengan mudah kita bisa menemukan berbagai politisi dan para pembuat kebijakan yang menolak keras kebijakan tersebut, dan mendukung adanya pembatasan perdagangan bebas.

Beberapa waktu lalu misalnya, muncul wacana mengenai kebijakan untuk menerapkan biaya tarif yang tinggi terhadap barang-barang impor, khususnya dari China. Tidak tanggung-tanggung, tarif yang dikenakan cukup tinggi, hingga mencapai 200 persen, untuk menyikapi banjirnya barang-barang dari China di tanah air (cnnindonesia, 5/7/2024).

Barang-barang yang berasal dari China tersebut sangat beragam, dan kebanyakan merupakan barang-barang konsumsi sehari-hari seperti pakaian dan produk-produk tekstil. Tidak hanya itu, barang-barang yang menjadi bahan industri seperti baja misalnya, juga berpotensi akan terkena biaya tarif sebesar 200 dari pemerintah (cnnindonesia, 5/7/2024).

Wacana mengenai kebijakan tersebut sendiri pada awalnya memang digaungkan pada saat pemerintahan Presiden Joko Widodo, di beberapa bulan terakhir pemerintahan Beliau. Pada bulan Oktober lalu, Indonesia melantik presiden baru, yakni Prabowo Subianto. Namun, belum ada pernyataan eksplisit dari pemerintahan yang baru untuk menganulir atau membatalkan kebijakan tersebut.

Selain itu, penting untuk dicatat bahwa banyak pejabat tinggi seperti menteri yang sebelumnya menjabat di bawah Presiden Joko Widodo yang sekarang juga kembali menjabat. Oleh karena itu, wacana kebijakan tarif tersebut merupakan hal yang masih memiliki kemungkinan untuk diterapkan.

Adanya wacana mengenai kebijakan penerapan tarif 200% tersebut tentu merupakan hal yang sangat patut untuk kita perhatikan, karena dampaknya akan terasa langsung bagi banyak lapisan masyarakat. Kebijakan ini tidak hanya berdampak kepada jutaan konsumen, tetapi juga ke berbagai pelaku usaha di Indonesia.

Barang-barang tekstil dari China yang terancam terkena tarif misalnya, bukan hanya barang-barang produksi, tetapi juga barang-barang konsumsi. Semakin meningkatnya harga barang-barang tekstil seperti pakaian yang disebabkan oleh tarif yang tinggi tentu akan semakin menambahkan beban bagi dompet konsumen di Indonesia, karena mereka harus membayar harga jauh lebih tinggi (kompas.com, 4/7/2024).

Tidak hanya dari sisi konsumen, para pelaku usaha yang bergerak di bidang penjualan pakaian misalnya, juga akan mengalami tantangan yang berat. Saat ini, tidak sedikit dari pedagang tersebut yang mendapatkan marjin keuntungan dari omset yang sangat kecil dari barang yang dijualnya. Pedagang pakaian di pasar Tanah Abang misalnya, yang merupakan salah satu pasar terbesar di Jakarta, mengalami pendapatan yang terus menurun hingga hanya mendapatkan omset sekitar 2-3 juta rupiah per hari (sindonews.com, 13/8/2024).

Dari angka omset tersebut, margin yang didapatkan rata-rata pedagang pakaian di pasar diperkirakan sekitar 20-30%, atau sekitar 400-900 ribu per hari (cekbeli.com, 8/1/2025). Adanya biaya tarif yang sangat tinggi tentu akan semakin memperkecil marjin tersebut, dan tidak mustahil akan mengancam berbagai pedagang pakaian di Indonesia untuk gulung tikar.

Wacana mengenai kebijakan untuk menerapkan tarif yang tinggi ini juga mendapat respon kritik di parlemen dari beberapa anggota Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat (DPR). Salah satu anggota komisi 6 DPR misalnya, mengatakan bahwa kebijakan ini tidak menjamin akan menekan jumlah barang impor, dan justru akan berpotensi meningkatkan peredaran barang-barang impor ilegal (liputan6.com, 1/7/2024).

Dari aspek diplomasi, kebijakan pengenaan tarif yang tinggi untuk barang-barang impor dari China tentu menimbulkan risiko yang tidak kecil. Lembaga think tank peneliti ekonomi dan politik Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) misalnya, kebijakan ini berpotensi bisa menjadi boomerang bagi perekonomian Indonesia (tempo.co, 1/7/2024).

Indonesia misalnya, merupakan salah satu negara anggota World Trade Organization (WTO). Penerapan kebijakan untuk mengenakan tarif yang tinggi tersebut berpotensi akan membuat Indonesia digugat oleh negara-negara anggota WTO lainnya, seperti China, atau pun negara lain yang barang ekspornya ke Indonesia dikenakan tarif yang tinggi oleh pemerintah (tempo.co, 1/7/2024).

Selain itu, bukan tidak mungkin pula, kebijakan tarif ini akan menimbulkan tindakan pembalasan dari negara lain seperti China untuk menerapkan tarif yang tinggi bagi barang-barang dari Indonesia. Dengan demikian, hal ini berpotensi akan menimbulkan lanskap perang dagang baru, yang tentunya tidak akan menguntungkan siapa pun, dan justru akan merugikan para konsumen dan juga berbagai pelaku usaha (tempo.co, 1/7/2024).

Hal yang harus menjadi fokus Indonesia harusnya adalah bukan membatasi perdagangan dan menerapkan kebijakan proteksionisme yang ketat, melainkan harus beruapaya untuk memperkuat kualitas dan daya saing industri domestik. Hal ini mencakup berbagai langkah, seperti inovasi, meningkatkan teknologi, dan juga mengembangkan keterampilan.

Sebagai penutup, di era globalisasi dan interdependesi ekonomi antar negara yang semakin kuat, tentu Indonesia harus mampu berkompetisi dengan negara-negara lain untuk menyediakan produk dan jasa yang inovatif dna berkualitas. Hal tersebut tentu harus dicapai dengan memperbaiki kualitas manusia agar dapat semakin inovatif dan meningkatkan keterampilan, bukan dengan menutup dan membatasi perdagangan yang nantinya akan menimbulkan dampak yang kontraproduktif.

Originally published here

Month: January 2025

Tomorrow’s Tariffs Will Hurt Everyone

Bahaya Kebijakan Regulasi Minuman Beralkohol yang Terlalu Ketat

The European Union should not choose fear over a measured response to food dyes

It is time to rethink food regulations. The EFSA should revise its attempt to eliminate all risks, in favor of risk-based management which aims to minimize all possible dangers

Time to take a pop at GST absurdities

Should U.S. Billionaires Dictate Health Policy Overseas?

RFK Jr. Can’t Escape His Progressive Record

Did Trump issue tariffs against Canada today?

Make other nations pay?

Az EU-s pénzek csak tönkreteszik a versenyt és a vállalkozói szellemet Magyarországon

The royals coming after American free speech

FDA bans red dye No. 3 in Biden frenzy for regulations

Chargeur unique européen : l’emblème d’un continent en déclin

Biaya Tarif Impor Tinggi dan Proteksionisme

Follow us

WASHINGTON

BRUSSELS

LONDON

KUALA LUMPUR

OTTAWA