fbpx

Author: Consumer Choice Center

Economías colaborativas: Buenos Aires quedó 9° en un ranking de 44 ciudades de América Latina

El estudio evalúa la disponibilidad de una serie de servicios de movilidad, transporte, alojamiento y actividad física a través de plataformas digitales que conectan a consumidores y prestadores.

En los últimos años, la tecnología ha presentado un sinfín de nuevas alternativas en productos y servicios que han permitido a las personas elegir y modificar sus hábitos de consumo, de acuerdo a sus necesidades diarias. La pandemia del Coronavirus produjo el desembarco de más herramientas, pero fundamentalmente ha acelerado procesos de adopción por parte de los consumidores.

De acuerdo a relevamientos realizados por PwC relacionados a diferentes estudios y encuestas sobre la temática a nivel global, el valor de la industria de la economía colaborativa llegaría a los u$s335.000 millones para 2025, compartiendo un 50% del mercado con el modelo tradicional.La investigación establece que los consumidores consideran que esta nueva manera de hacer negocios ayuda a reducir los costos de consumos diarios, implica mayor eficiencia, reduce la contaminación, genera mayor comodidad a la hora de comprar y construye una comunidad más fuerte, que basa su éxito en la confianza entre oferentes y demandantes.

Buenos Aires quedó ubicada en el noveno puesto del Índice de Economía Colaborativa Latam 2021, un relevamiento que analiza 44 ciudades de Latinoamérica y evalúa la disponibilidad de una serie de servicios de movilidad, transporte, alojamiento y actividad física a través de plataformas digitales que conectan a consumidores y prestadores. El estudio, realizado en conjunto por la red Somos Innovación, Relial y el Consumer Choice Center, también tiene en cuenta la accesibilidad que presentan dichas plataformas, en términos de requisitos, para quienes buscan ofrecer o consumir servicios a través de ellas.

Read the full article here

CCC joins coalition opposing Sohn’s federal communications commission nomination

A coalition of 18 center-right organizations sent a letter to the Senate opposing Gigi Sohn’s nomination to serve as a Commissioner on the Federal Communications Commission.

Sohn has spent decades as a hyper-partisan activist, launching attacks against regulators and elected officials who do not share her views. All of which has been well documented on social media. The letter outlines her past positions and how, if confirmed, Sohn would work to instill policies that would crush innovation, silence conservative speech, and eviscerate intellectual property protections.  

December 1, 2021  

Dear Senators:  

We, the undersigned, represent a broad coalition of organizations who oppose the nomination of Gigi Sohn to serve as Commissioner at the Federal Communications Commission. If confirmed, Sohn would work to instill policies that would crush innovation, silence conservative speech, and eviscerate intellectual property protections.  

The FCC was created by Congress to be an independent regulator and it has broad power over the telecommunications, media, and technology sectors. The agency has been characterized by bipartisan cooperation and accountability to Congress.  

Sohn has spent decades as a hyper-partisan activist, launching attacks against regulators and elected officials who do not share her views. She implied that the ranking member of the Senate Commerce Committee is an industry puppet. She suggested that Republican senators are a threat to the country. She credits center-right news outlets with “destroying democracy” and “electing autocrats.” And she joined the board of an organization after it was sued by major broadcasters for violating the Copyright Act—a case that recently resulted in a $32 million judgment against her organization. Given these views, it is hard to believe that Sohn would give regulated entities a fair shake or operate in a bipartisan manner at the FCC.  

The FCC plays a critical role in protecting and upholding free speech and the First Amendment rights of regulated entities. Sohn’s willingness to use the FCC’s power to silence her opponents is disqualifying on its own.  Sohn has expressed interest in the FCC revoking hundreds of broadcast licenses from a particular broadcaster due in part to the editorial decisions that company has made. She supported a campaign by elected officials to pressure cable and streaming services to drop conservative news outlets. And she closely aligns with an organization who petitioned the FCC to investigate broadcasters whose COVID-19 coverage they disagreed with.

Her views on Title II are emblematic of her longstanding tendency to promote policies that over-regulate the industries in the FCC’s jurisdiction. Sohn was one the chief architects of the short-lived Title II common-carriage rules that she claimed were necessary to enforce net neutrality. The rules drove down broadband investment,  increased prices, and decreased the adoption of home Internet service. Sohn has made it clear that she not only wants to reinstate these rules, but wants to take them further, including a ban on “zero-rating,” the free wireless data services that are particularly popular among low-income users. She has also signaled a desire for the FCC to set the price of broadband service, a practice that would be more apt for the Soviet Union than the United States.

When the rules were being repealed by the prior administration’s FCC, Sohn encouraged the far-left activist campaigns that fueled hyperbolic and doomsday predictions about the destruction of the Internet. FCC commissioners received death threats and a bomb threat was called into the FCC moments before the vote to repeal the rules. Sohn works with and supports the organizations who engaged in the tactics and rhetoric that led to these ugly displays.

Throughout her career, Sohn has favored policies that undermine intellectual property rights protections. She spearheaded an FCC proceeding that would have enabled tech platforms to effectively steal and monetize television content without paying for usage rights. Sohn also served on the board of Locast, a “non-profit” that was determined to be illegally retransmitting broadcasters’ content without their consent in violation of the Copyright Act. The case resulted in a permanent injunction that required Locast to pay $32 million in statutory damages. Sohn cannot be an impartial regulator of the broadcast industry after joining the Board of an organization that openly violated that industry’s copyrights. 

As the decisive vote on controversial matters at the agency, Sohn would have the power and incentive to push the FCC towards government control of communications. Further, the Biden Administration has shown a willingness to mislead Senators when it comes to agency leadership, as demonstrated by the bait-and-switch the White House pulled with the Federal Trade Commission, when Chair Khan was elevated after being confirmed under false pretenses. The potential for Sohn to become chair of the FCC makes her nomination all the more concerning. 

Sohn’s confirmation would jeopardize investment and innovation, threaten free speech, and bring partisanship to the FCC. For these and other reasons, we urge Senators to reject Sohn’s confirmation. 

Deputados europeus defendem quebra de patentes a Lira e Pacheco

Congresso Nacional dará palavra final ao veto de Jair Bolsonaro sobre quebra temporária de patentes de vacinas

Parlamento Europeu defendeu que o Congresso Nacional derrube um veto de Jair Bolsonaro sobre a quebra temporária de patentes de vacinas e medicamentos para enfrentar emergências sanitárias. A carta foi enviada nesta quarta-feira (17/11) ao presidente da Câmara, Arthur Lira, e ao presidente do Senado, Rodrigo Pacheco.

Oito deputados do Parlamento Europeu defenderam que o Congresso volte a exigir que donos de patentes transfiram o conhecimento das suas tecnologias. “O direito humano à saúde tem precedência sobre regras em aspectos comerciais de propriedades intelectuais”. O documento faz menção ao acordo Trips, lei de patentes internacional da qual o Brasil é signatário.

Read the full article here

Chemical bothers – how Britain can get better at regulating synthetic substances

If there’s one area where Britain can benefit from better post-Brexit regulation, it’s pulling ourselves away from blanket bans on chemicals that are critical to making the modern world cleaner, cheaper and faster.

PFAS, or Poly- and perfluoroalkyl substances, are a group of over 4,700 individual chemicals, each with specific purposes, that are fundamental to our technologically advanced civilisation. In the medical sector, PFAS are crucial to catheter tubes, stent grafts (used to repair heart damage and heart attacks), and in the anti-viral robes that medical professionals use. Meanwhile, in the fight against climate change, PFAS have been of great importance to sustainability entrepreneurs. Without PFAS, lithium-ion batteries (the key ingredient in electric cars) would be uneconomical and impractical. The gold in catalytic converters, which efficiently catalyses diesel and petrol pollution, is extracted with PFAS products for higher yields, making a reduction in pollution much more effective. Whether it’s heart-stents, fire-protection equipment or fibre-optic cables, PFAS are instrumental in the production of many consumer products. 

These chemicals are not, however, without controversy. Multiple, multi-million-dollar lawsuits have resulted from these hardy and resistant substances infecting the environment and entering our bodies. PFAS, when present in water, food, or livestock, can pose a devastating threat to life and health.

However, that does not mean there should be a cross-substance ban on all PFAS, as is being called for by some activists. After all, there are dozens of technologies and processes which have been proven to effectively treat PFAS contamination before it poses a real threat to the environment or human health. 

It’s a question that’s particularly relevant to the UK at the moment. In March of this year, the Government launched their flagship chemicals regulatory regime; UK Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation, & restriction of CHemicals (UK REACH), which has committed to investigating whether a ban for all PFAS substances is suitable. Rebecca Pow, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for the Department of Food, Rural Affairs, and Agriculture has indicated she supports treating all PFAS as a group, rather than on a case-by-case basis. This is a mistake. Chemical regulation is a matter of risk management and mitigation – something that, in our increasingly centralised and planned economy, does not seem to wash with Whitehall.

Activist groups, like Fidra, call for a total ban on PFAS. Would this solve the pollution problem? Not necessarily. Canada, for example, does not produce any PFAS at all, but that just means it relies on imports when it needs these vital chemicals. 

The EU has been keen to promote the removal of PFAS through a movement towards zero-pollutant materials. Whilst an honourable initiative, banning PFAS altogether would be the wrong move.

Instead, by encouraging manufacturers to innovate through tax-free R&D research and other smart incentives, Britain can lead the way in protecting our superior technological products and making the environment safer for us all. Brexit allows for greater diligence in our regulatory sphere, providing us with the opportunity to pursue sensible, risk-conscious regulations.

A ban on PFAS would be a set-back not jut in the fight against Covid, but also climate change and so many other areas of human progress. Indeed, it would be no less than an act of national self-harm – it must not be allowed to happen.

Originally published here

Verzweiflung an der Tanksäule: Ein Überblick über die Besteuerung von Kraftstoff in der EU

Einführung

In diesem Aufsatz wird dargestellt in welchen EU-Staaten die Nutzer von Verbrennungsmotoren die größte Freiheit genießen und welche wiederum die höchsten Steuern zahlen müssen. Ein bedeutender Anteil der Mobilitätskosten in den meisten Mitgliedsstaaten der EU besteht aus Steuern und anderen Abgaben. Hier konzentrieren wir uns auf PKWs. Es werden die Zulassungsgebühren innerhalb der EU analysiert. Darüber hinaus blicken wir in die Zukunft und auf die potentiellen Auswirkungen des kommenden Verbrennerverbots.

Wir sind der Meinung, dass der Anteil der staatlichen Abgaben im Benzin- und Dieselpreis exzessiv hoch ist und dass die EU eine technologieneutrale Politik verfolgen sollte.

Eigentümer von Verbrennungsfahrzeugen zahlen nicht nur beim Kauf (Mehrwertsteuer, sowie KfZ-Zulassung).

Auch das bloße Eigentum am Fahrzeug wird besteuert (z.B. die KfZ-Steuer). Darüber hinaus bestehen länderspezifisch verschiedene Steuern und Abgaben unterschiedlicher Höhe, die sich direkt auf die Kraftstoffpreise auswirken (Energiesteuern, CO2-Abgaben etc.).

Die Mehrwertsteuer für den Kauf eines Fahrzeugs liegt innerhalb der EU zwischen 17 und 27%, wobei Luxemburg den höchsten und Ungarn den niedrigsten Steuersatz aufweisen können. Interessanterweise wird die Mehrwertsteuer auch für Benzin und Diesel angerechnet.

Da Benzin mehr CO2 ausstößt, ist es (bis auf Ungarn) in allen Staaten höher besteuert. In Ungarn und Rumänien zahlt der Verbraucher beim Tanken durchschnittlich die niedrigsten Abgaben, während Italiener, Niederländer und Franzosen am meisten an den Staat zahlen müssen.

Um unlauteren Wettbewerb zu verhindern besteht in der EU eine Mindesthöhe an Abgaben, mit denen die Mitgliedstaaten verschiedene Energieprodukte belasten müssen. Durchschnittlich beträgt die Quote an staatlichen Abgaben zwischen 44 und 59% des Kraftstoffpreises. 

Hohe Zulassungskosten

Die Anmeldegebühren sind länderspezifisch, teilweise bestehen auch Anmeldesteuern. Bulgarien, Estland, Deutschland, Lettland, Luxemburg, und Rumänien sind die einzigen Staaten, die einen Fixbetrag nutzen. In allen anderen Staaten beeinflussen andere Faktoren, wie der Wert des Autos, Effizienz und CO2-Emissionen die Höhe der Gebühren. Schweden ist der einzige Staat, in dem keine Anmeldegebühren anfallen.

In 11 von den 27 Mitgliedsstaaten fallen verschiedene CO2-Steuern beim Autokauf an.

Die höchsten Gebühren bestehen in Dänemark. Die Kosten setzen sich zusammen aus einer Gebühr für den “versteuerbaren Wert des Fahrzeugs” (definiert als der Verkaufspreis inkl. einer Mindestgewinnspanne von 9% (sowohl von Verkäufer als auch Importeur), plus Mehrwertsteuer). Die Zulassungssteuer kann bis zu 150% des versteuerbaren Werts des Fahrzeugs betragen, wenn der Wert 27 174€ übersteigt. Die steuerliche Politik und deren Folgen und Komplexität sind mögliche Erklärungsansätze für die niedrige pro-Kopf Anzahl an Fahrzeugen in Dänemark, die an osteuropäische Staaten erinnert.

In Staaten mit einem ähnlichen pro Kopf BIP beträgt die Anzahl an Fahrzeugen durchschnittlich 563 pro 1000 Einwohner. Dänemark weist lediglich 480 pro 1000 auf.

Die gesetzlich vorgegebene Versicherung wird mit einer Steuer von 25% belastet. Jede Fahrt ohne Versicherung kostet um die 33€, bei einer Polizeikontrolle können sogar um die 134€ anfallen.

Die EU sollte technologieneutral werden

Sowohl für Elektro-, als auch für Verbrennungsmotoren gibt es verschiedene Argumente. Der wichtigste Kritikpunkt ist aber, dass durch das Verbrennerverbot eine Technologie der anderen vorgezogen wird. Das ist der falsche Ansatz: Der langsame Ausbau von Ladestationen erweist sich als Problem, darüber hinaus bestehen beträchtliche Unterschiede bei der Verfügbarkeit je nach Mitgliedstaat. Die Wahl sollte bei Verbrauchern liegen: bei einer gesteigerten Nachfrage nach Elektrofahrzeugen, würden Hersteller ihr Angebot freiwillig anpassen und stärker auf E-Autos ausrichten. 

Die EU und andere staatliche Institutionen sollten keine spezifischen Technologien fördern, aufzwingen, oder umgekehrt bekämpfen.

Um die Freiheit der Verbraucher zu schützen, sowie um Innovationen zu fördern, sollten Staaten und Regierungen neutral sein. Sie dürfen nicht “per Dekret” bestimmen, wer Gewinner und wer Verlierer ist. In manchen Situationen ist es die beste Strategie den Markt zu beobachten und ihn machen zu lassen, sodass Verbraucher die Option wählen können, die am Ende gewinnt.

Why ‘hazard based’ agricultural chemical regulation doesn’t work

In many ways, various governments have passed regulations with a “one size fits all” mentality. More often than not, however, this approach wrongly limits consumer choice, and more importantly creates tremendous externalities which are often left unaddressed. Our goal is to highlight instances where the “one size fits all” approach has failed consumers and explain why.

Concern over glyphosate in food has become a major topic the last couple of years and has gained a lot of media attention in a recent study where they found that organic beers and wines contained small traces of glyphosate – a pre-harvest herbicide and harvest aid used on cereal crops like wheat, oats and vegetable seed oils like canola and sunflower. However, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s safety limit for glyphosate is 100 times greater than the amounts found in the beer and wine samples, and thus, the risk of human contamination is extremely low.Nevertheless, policymakers want to ban glyphosate which would reduce crop yields and make beer and wine even more expensive.

You probably heard about the “Beepocalypse” – the catastrophic scenario in which declining honeybee population is caused by pesticides. However, honeybees aren’t actually declining but increasing. Occasional reductions in honeybee populations are multifactorial, but varrora mites and the viruses they carry are likely the leading drivers, nutrition being another big factor. According to a USDA bee researcher: “If there’s a top ten list of what’s killing honey bee colonies, I’d put pesticides at number 11″. By creating a “one size fits all” regulation and thus banning pesticides, policymakers could make the mite problem worse which would actually harm honey bee colonies instead of protecting them.

Read more here

El vapeo y tu derecho a consumir

No es algo novedoso encontrarnos con algún político deseoso de regularnos nuestra vida personal: como lo es con el alcohol, el azúcar, el tabaco o las demás drogas, también el acto de vapear ha caído dentro de la misma bolsa.

Como sucede con todo, a los políticos y demás legisladores poco les importa la voz del consumidor, mucho menos la defensa de los derechos de los usuarios.

Pero vayamos por partes. Aunque nunca o quizás alguna vez hayas oído el término “vapeo”, muy probablemente hayas visto a alguien “vapear”. Pues, vapear es, simple y sencillamente, el acto de fumar un cigarrillo electrónico o también llamado “vaporizador”.

Qué nos importan los cigarrillos electrónicos, podrás preguntarte. Pues, quizás a muchos no les importe, pero hay personas a las que sí. Y más importante aún, existen legislaciones, regulaciones y prohibiciones que además de violar las libertades de los consumidores, están perjudicando a los individuos y, como siempre, causando consecuencias opuestas a las que dichas legislaciones buscan conseguir.

Read the full article here

President Joe Biden’s signature infrastructure package has passed. What does it mean for Kansas?

After months of pushing and prodding, with no shortage of false starts and apparent dead ends, a $1 trillion-plus infrastructure package championed by President Joe Biden is on its way to becoming law.

The measure passed the U.S. House of Representative on Friday after members reached a deal to approve the package, sending it Biden’s desk. He is expected to formally sign it into law in coming days, praising lawmakers for reaching a deal in his remarks Saturday.

“We did something that’s long overdue, that long has been talked about in Washington but never actually been done,” he said.

Read the full article here

Why people not profits should determine if social causes receive contributions

CEOs and board members are free to use their wealth as they see fit, but shareholder wealth should not be tampered with.

Fundraising campaigns are gearing up for the holiday season and November’s Giving Tuesday will set important benchmarks for 2022, reinforcing America’s long and important history of philanthropy

According to U.S. News, U.S. citizens are consistently the world’s most generous individuals, and the propensity to give goes beyond monetary factors. Civic engagement is also a core component of American culture, and time invested in various forms of activism continues to be a common practice within the US (most recently demonstrated at school board meetings). 

Activism, however, has evolved as younger generations took on the charge in 2020 and leveraged social media for social causes. Digital protests and social movements were on full display last year — and Big Business took notice and took part in a big way. 

Read the full article here

What Tommy Boy Teaches Us About Entrepreneurship and the Regulatory State

The go-get-em attitude seen in ‘Tommy Boy’ is just one of the key ingredients to entrepreneurial success.

Regulations attempt to manage and control complex systems according to what has been deemed as appropriate behavior – and therein lies the problem. Complex systems are complex and what is “appropriate” is subjective and tends to be situationally dependent.

For regulatory bodies that are on the outside looking in, data can be misleading and algorithms can be misconstrued, and this was depicted in a recently released policy report by the Consumer Choice Center. Regardless of whether they concern talcum-based baby powder or crop-protecting pesticides, the report explains how blanket bans and one-size fits all approaches overlook the idiosyncrasies present within industries and the long-term implications of imposed restrictions.

Read the full article here

Scroll to top
en_USEN