fbpx

Author: Yaël Ossowski

Oklahoma patients deserve competitive and affordable insurance

Dear Members of the Oklahoma House of Representatives,

As a consumer advocacy organization with a vested interest in promoting consumer access and patient choice, we write to you today to urge you to vote YES on HB1694.

This bill would require dental insurance companies to spend a set percentage of their premiums on patient care rather than administrative bloat.

Known as a medical loss ratio, HB1694 would standardize dental health benefit spending ratios that already exist for traditional healthcare insurance. This would give Oklahoma dental patients lower premiums, increase competition among insurers, and reduce overall bureaucracy and administrative costs to pass savings on to consumers.

Similar bills have passed in other states, empowering dental patients, and ensuring that consumers have a vibrant market of choice in dental care and coverage. 

Every patient has suffered the gnawing experience of trying to scrap back healthcare reimbursements. Passing HB1694 would bring equity in how patients across healthcare sectors are treated and have their premiums used, leading to lower costs and better treatments for dental patients.

The fact that dental insurers aren’t subject to the same rules as every other health insurance industry should be enough reason to pass this bill, with the added benefit of how it will make insurance premiums more transparent and competitive.

Unlocking more funds for dental patients would help save families thousands of dollars a year, and grant them more consumer and patient choice. It’s a fix all Oklahomans deserve. On behalf of consumers, we urge you to vote for HB1694.

Thank you,

Yaël Ossowski

Deputy Director

Consumer Choice Center

Climate-change lawsuits discourage those seeking solutions

When Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison announced lawsuits against fossil fuel companies in 2020, the moment was ripe. Reports on elevated greenhouse-gas emissions were stark, demonstrating both a warming planet and causal evidence that fossil fuels were a lead culprit.

The lawsuit led by Ellison’s office aims to hold accountable “companies responsible for harms associated with climate change,” as his office stated. It accused firms such as ExxonMobil, American Petroleum Institute, and Koch Industries of “consumer fraud, deceptive trade practices, misrepresentation, (and a) failure to warn.” The main premise of the suit seems to be that, by producing oil products and not being more forthcoming on climate impact, or downplaying them, these firms greatly misled consumers.

There is no question that fossil fuels contribute to climate change, and the firms that both produce and distribute those fuels have some culpability.

But considering the global energy crisis that has led to international battles on oil supplies and increased energy costs, are lawsuits the right course of action? Are we, as consumers of these products and also citizens of this planet, victims? If we are victims, then we also happen to be the ones perpetuating harm.

To whom does ExxonMobil or any other oil company sell its products? It’s us, consumers and entrepreneurs. We fill up our cars, SUVs, tractors, and lawnmowers with gasoline. We power our industries, heat our homes, and use fossil-fuel energy in the course of our everyday lives to improve our standard of living. This is especially true in a harsh-winter state like Minnesota.

There are questions about shifting the sources of that energy and how we can move to cleaner and renewable processes and outputs, whether that be nuclear energy or solar and wind.

At least one Minnesota start-up is harnessing geothermal energy to both heat and cool homes — but has been stalled by an unclear regulatory environment. In that case, shouldn’t the focus of regulators and public officials be on addressing the “how” of an energy transition rather than solely addressing the “who” of the energy status quo?

Using civil courts and lawsuits to address that energy question is a targeted approach with an intended outcome that has little to do with energy innovation. Rather, these lawsuits seek financial settlements from oil and gas companies. Every climate-change lawsuit filed by Minnesota’s attorney general, or dozens of other state attorneys general, has a goal of extracting money from energy firms.

This will have no bearing on future investments in energy production, renewable or not, and could logically lead to higher energy costs for consumers if firms are required to settle or pay large sums to both lawyers and states that pursue them.

Climate action via courts is not novel. There are entire university law departments predicated on the idea of suing, pursuing, or otherwise holding energy companies liable for some aspects of climate change. There are grants available from organizations such as the Collective Action Fund for Accountability to public officials with attorney privileges who commit to such lawsuits.

Tort law firms such as Arnold and Porter have staked their reputation on lawsuits against energy providers, creating a mounting war chest that will likely leave oil and gas producers with higher attorney fees than investments in renewables or alternative sources of energy. Not to mention higher costs passed on to consumers.

Whatever one’s view on how best to adapt or overcome climate change, the practice of litigating the science in a court of law is a poor strategy. This will not empower nor inspire the next generation of energy entrepreneurs to provide better solutions. There will be more rich lawyers, more clogged courtrooms, and fewer resources available to energy firms that do seek to pivot to better alternatives.

If consumers want an alternative-energy future, shouldn’t we dedicate resources and create the environment for that innovation to occur? Or should we forever cast its fate into the hands of lawyers and judges and those cashing the checks? I would rather choose innovation and creativity over this litigious status quo.

Originally published here

The best answer to TikTok is a forced divestiture 

As consumer advocates, we pride ourselves as standing for policies that promote policies fit for growth, lifestyle freedom, and tech innovation. 

In usual regulatory circumstances, that means protecting consumers’ platform and tech choices  from the zealous hands of regulators and government officials who would otherwise seek to shred basic Internet protections and freedom of speech, as well as break up innovative tech companies. Think Section 230, government jawboning, and consequences of deplatforming.

As such, the antitrust crusades by select politicians and agency heads in the United States and Europe are of primary concern for consumer choice. We have written extensively about this, and better ways forward. Many of these platforms make mistakes and severe errors on content moderation, often in response to regulatory concerns. But that does not invite trust-busting politicians and regulators to meddle with companies that consumers value.

In the background of each of these legislative battles and proposals, however, there is a special example found in the Chinese-owned firm TikTok, today one of the most popular social apps on the planet. 

RELATED: Forcing TikTok’s divestiture from the CCP is both reasonable and necessary

The Special Case of TikTok

Now owned by Bytedance, TikTok offers a similar user experience to Instagram Reels, Snapchat, or Twitter, but is supercharged by an algorithm that serves up short videos that entice users with constant content that autoloads and scrolls by. Many social phenomena, dances, and memes propagate via TikTok.

In terms of tech innovation and its proprietary algorithm, TikTok is a dime a dozen. There is a reason it is one of the most downloaded apps on mobile devices in virtually every market and language. 

Researchers have already revealed that China’s own domestic version of TikTok, Douyin, restricts content for younger users. Instead of dances and memes, Douyin features science experiments, educational material, and time limits for underage users. TikTok, on the other hand, seems to have a suped-up algorithm that has an ability to better attract, and hook, younger children.

What makes it special for consumer concern beyond the content, however, is its ownership, privacy policies, and  far-too-cozy relationship with the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party, the same party that oversees concentration camps of its Muslim minority and repeatedly quashes human rights across its territories.

It has already been revealed that European users of the TikTok can, and have, had their data accessed by company officials in Beijing. And the same goes for US users. Considering the ownership location and structure, there isn’t much that can be done about this.

Unlike tech companies in liberal democracies, Chinese firms require direct corporate oversight and governance by Chinese Communist Party officials – often military personnel. In the context of a construction company or domestic news publisher, this doesn’t seemingly put consumers in liberal democracies at risk. But a popular tech app downloaded on the phones of hundreds of millions of users? That is a different story.

How best to address TikTok in a way that upholds liberal democratic values

Among liberal democracies, there are a myriad of opinions about how to approach the TikTok beast.

US FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr wants a total ban, much in line with Sen. Josh Hawley’s proposed ban in the U.S. Senate and U.S. Rep. Ken Buck’s similar ban in the House. But there are other ways that would be more in line with liberal democratic values.

One solution we would propose, much in line with the last US administration’s stance, would be a forced divestiture to a U.S.-based entity on national security grounds. This would mean a sale of US assets (or assets in liberal democracies) to an entity based in those countries that would be completely independent of any CCP influence.

In 2019-2020, when President Donald Trump floated this idea, a proposed buyer of TikTok’s U.S. assets would have been Microsoft, and later Oracle. But the deal fell through.

But this solution is not unique.

We have already seen such actions play out with vital companies in the healthcare space, including PatientsLikeMe, which uses sensitive medical data and real-time data to connect patients about their conditions and proposed treatments. 

When the firm was flooded with investments from Chinese partners, the Treasury Department’s Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) ruled that a forced divestiture would have to take place. The same has been applied to a Chinese ownership stake in Holu Hou Energy, a U.S.-subsidiary energy storage company.

In vital matters of energy and popular consumer technology controlled by elements of the Chinese Communist Party, a forced divestiture to a company regulated and overseen by regulators in liberal democratic nations seems to be the most prudent measure.

This has not yet been attempted for a wholly-owned foreign entity active in the US, but we can see why the same concerns apply.

An outright ban or restriction of an app would not pass constitutional muster in the US, and would have chilling effects for future innovation that would reverberate beyond consumer technology.

This is a controversial topic, and one that will require nuanced solutions. Whatever the outcome, we hope consumers will be better off, and that liberal democracies can agree on a common solution that continues to uphold our liberties and choices as consumers.

Yaël Ossowski is the deputy director of the Consumer Choice Center.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is the FTC kneecapping VR before it even gets off the ground?

In a courtroom in San Joe, California today, the US government squared off against a social media company and grilled that company’s CEO about its investments in another technology company, and its general business strategy for the new field of wearable virtual reality.

The app in question, the fitness VR app Within, is poised to be acquired by social media giant Meta (formerly Facebook) for use on its virtual reality headsets and ecosystem.

The deal itself has not yet been finalized, but that hasn’t stopped the nation’s antitrust agency from flexing its muscles in Silicon Valley.

When Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg took the stand today, lawyers from the Federal Trade Commission aimed to pepper him on the overall business strategy of Meta’s well-known pivot to the metaverse, or virtual reality space, and whether his plans were about…business success?

If the FTC succeeds, it will halt Meta’s purchase of the workout app Within, developed by Los Angeles developers beginning in 2014. While that may put smiles on the faces of some regulators and populist politicians in Washington, D.C., it will do nothing for consumers. And it may even harm the future development of this entire sector.

At last estimate, the entire “metaverse economy” is projected to one day be worth either $800 billion or even trillions by 2030. Meta itself has poured in an ungodly $10 billion in the last year alone, and its own products are still rather limited in terms of user adoption.

The fact that the FTC and other regulators are trying to kneecap virtual reality, before it really even begins, is more startling than anything else.

If the last two decades of economic growth and innovation from Silicon Valley have taught us anything, it is that capital, talent, and business acumen are crucial ingredients for success and user satisfaction, but it isn’t everything. A supportive infrastructure, an investment-friendly climate, and a high demand for developers and skilled employees are also necessary and bring with them exponential benefits.

The companies and firms that have spun off from talent formerly of giants like Google and PayPal — not to speak of Elon Musk, Peter Thiel, and the rest of the PayPay Mafia — have undoubtedly made consumers’ lives better, and helped our economy grow beyond leaps and bounds.

Among those successes, there have been thousands more failures, but those have been at the hands of consumers and users rather than government agencies and federal lawsuits by regulators. And if the media coverage surrounding this case gives any indication, it seems much of this action stems not from antitrust law or precedent, but rather as a kind of payback.

The Associated Press ran a bizarre “analysis” last week, framing the FTC v. Meta/Within case as some kind of retribution for Facebook’s acquisition of Instagram in 2012. Back then, that decision was largely panned by technology journalists and never received a peep from regulators. Since then, it is grown to become one of the most popular apps found in app stores.

Considering Instagram’s success in the last decade, thanks to investments and entrepreneurial prowess by Meta, as some kind of evidence to halt all future mergers and acquisitions of a company that over a billion global consumers is not only wrong, but it begs the question of why the FTC is even involved in the first place.

Consumers benefit when competitors compete, when innovators innovate, and when laws provide regulatory clarity and guidance to protect consumers and police bad actors.

But this case seems more like a hunt for ghosts of Christmas past rather than protecting us from any real harm. And it may do more damage than regulators estimate.

My colleague Satya Marar summed this up in RealClear last month:

Start-ups depend on millions in investment to develop and deploy their products. Investors value these firms based not only on the viability of their products, but on the firm’s potential resale value. Larger firms also often acquire smaller ones to apply their resources, existing expertise and economies of scale to further develop their ideas or to expand them to more users.

Making mergers and acquisitions more expensive, without strong evidence they’ll hurt consumers, makes it tougher for start-ups to attract the capital they need and will only deter innovators from striking out on their own or developing ideas that could improve our lives in an environment where 90% of start-ups eventually fail and 58% expect to be acquired.

The job of the FTC is not to protect consumers from innovations that have not yet happened. That should be the furthered thing for its mission. Rather, it should be focused on consumer welfare, punishing bad actors that take advantage of consumers, break laws, and promote real consumer harm.

Mergers and acquisitions provide value for consumers because they match great ideas and technology with the funding and support to scale them for public benefit. Especially considering the metaverse is so new, it is frankly bewildering that we would be wasting millions in taxpayer dollars to chase down an investment before it even bears fruit — just because a company was too successful last time.

When it comes to our regulatory agencies, we have to ask who they are looking out for when it comes to consumer wants and wishes: the consumers that wish to benefit from future innovations.? Or incumbent players who want to slay the largest dragon in the room.

In this case, it seems the FTC has stretched a bit too far, and consumers may be worse off for it.

After the FTX Fraud, It’s Time to Be Even More Bullish on Crypto

When the Securities and Exchange Commission announced charges against FTX CEO Sam Bankman-Fried this week, it ended a nearly 2-month-long drama.

Bankman-Fried’s unethical business setup between his hedge fund Alameda Research and crypto exchange FTX (including the 130 related companies now in bankruptcy) were enough of a worry for the broader cryptocurrency economy and devotees of decentralization. But as we’ve come to learn, the abuse of customer money was far worse.

There were billion-dollar loans to Alameda Research and FTX executives and staff, comingling of customer and company assets between the various entities, and seemingly invisible liquidity printed up on one company’s balance sheet while it was actually on another. These meet the classic definitions of fraudulent behavior.

Many perceive the FTX collapse as a novel crypto affair, dealing with digital assets and cryptocurrencies. But FTX’s downfall is best described as a typical financial fraud found on Wall Street.

FTX ran a fractional reserve bank using printed money as collateral, gambling away customer money in risky products while paying out clients using money from other investors.

Bernie Madoff could not have designed it better.

While many will claim that more regulation or oversight is necessary for the crypto industry in the aftermath, the case of FTX seems more like a failure of existing systems than a loophole.

Regulators at the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and members of Congress regularly met with FTX’s team, lavishing praise on their meteoric rise.

Celebrity endorsements, Super Bowl ads and stadium sponsorship deals gave the offshore exchange clout with mega investors such as Kevin O’Leary and Bill Ackman, who still defend Bankman-Fried. Highly regarded banks and investment funds similarly poured billions of dollars into the company’s pockets while doing limited due diligence.

Whatever failure that may be, it is not one of unclear regulation or the speculative nature of digital currencies.

Bitcoin — as a decentralized digital currency — did not cause each of the player in the FTX saga to look the other way.

A prudent approach would be to apply cautious regulation that recognizes the revolution of cryptocurrencies and enforces existing laws.

The answer to preventing the next FTX lies less in creating convoluted regulatory environments stricter than the banking system, as some propose, and more in applying existing laws while promoting a pathway for legitimate entrepreneurship.

Self-dealing, fraud and market manipulation remain illegal and should be prosecuted.

These are basic principles that we have all agreed to follow, and one we hope our public officials recognize, no matter the asset.

Originally published here

Attacks on forestry industry strain credulity

Canadian forest management is an envy of the world, routinely atop the global standings for stewardship and sustainability, writes Yaël Ossowski and David Clement

With an immense land mass filled to the brim with natural resources, Canada is bountiful with energy and industry that provide dividends for its citizens.

Whether that means reserves of oil, softwood lumber, or iron ore used to make steel, responsible use of these resources makes Canada punch above its weight when it comes to economic growth, productivity, and a strong standard of living.

While these jobs continue to power the nation, many environmentalist activist groups — both foreign and domestic — have continued to call our country to task on the sustainable production of our natural resources. And too often, their bombastic and unfounded claims are accepted wholesale by many media outlets.

In only the latest example, the US NGO Natural Resources Defense Council partnered with Nature Canada to release a report making the shocking claim that carbon emissions from the forestry sector are even more than oilsands production.

Instead of applying a critical analysis to a claim that has been rejected by Natural Resources Canada and international experts, The Canadian Press accepted the activist groups’ claim, accusing our own agencies of “using questionable methods to underestimate emissions from the forest industry.”

Even though our government ministries use internationally accepted standards for calculating emission levels from activity, NRDC and Nature Canada aim to paint Canada as a powerhouse, not of responsible resource management, but reckless greenhouse gas emission.

This stands against science. According to the United Nations, Canada’s forest area has remained relatively stable for the last 30 years, despite the surge in forestry industries, wildfires, and clearing for residential use. That means Canada is actually a global leader in replanting and repopulating its forests, especially compared to Brazil, China, and other nations with large forests.

If this is true, why then are activist groups claiming that Canada’s industry providing us with both construction wood and paper (used in now-mandated cardboard food packages) is more of a polluter than oil extraction?

The major claim in the report is that industry emissions must be combined with those from naturally-occurring wildfires, plant diseases, and invasive insects, none of which are understood to be commercial activity undertaken by Canada’s loggers. Rather, these are part of nature’s ordinary life cycles that we can only hope to mitigate and limit, if not prevent.

Considering that The Canadian Press and other outlets that reported on these claims didn’t reject them outright is concerning. But more concerning is what these activist groups seek as a result of their flawed findings.

Just days after the report’s release in October, activists were meeting with senators and ministers to “force the hand of policy-makers themselves,” potentially leading to restrictions and emission limits that would hurt not only Canadian jobs and industry, but also significantly skew our fight against climate change.

It is worth remembering that Canadian forest management is an envy of the world, routinely atop the global standings for stewardship and sustainability.

Cardboard, made from pulp sourced in our forests, is now the destined alternative to plastic for food packaging products, mostly due to restrictions and bans sought by these same groups.

The aim of making Canada a global leader for sustainable climate progress is noble, and one that we should all agree on. However, that must be done with scientific facts and evidence, not the twisting of facts and caution to fit the narrative of heavily funded environmental groups with another agenda.

If our news media aims to both inform and educate our citizens, it will have to do a better job of calling out misinformation on all sides. That is the only way we will be equipped to deal with climate issues going forward.

Originally published here

Biden Administration’s abandonment of Section 230 undermines tech innovation that will harm and disadvantage consumers

Washington, D.C. – Yesterday, lawyers from the Biden Administration filed an amicus brief in a Supreme Court case that will undermine future American tech innovation and inevitably harm and disadvantage online consumers.

In Gonzalez v. Google, the Supreme Court is asked to decide whether YouTube can be held liable for content on its platform, and more specifically its algorithms. The argument brought by plaintiffs is that the algorithm that recommends content based on user preference is not covered by Section 230 of the Communications and Decency Act, and other legislation, and that Google (YouTube’s parent company) can be held liable.

Such a ruling would have a sweeping impact on Internet freedom of speech and tech innovation based here in the U.S.

Yaël Ossowski, deputy director of the consumer advocacy group Consumer Choice Center, responds:

“In a global race to defend freedom and innovation online, it’s beyond disappointing to see the Biden Administration take a position that undermines Section 230, American digital entrepreneurship, and freedom of speech online,” said Ossowski.

“China and the EU are promoting and subsidizing their tech companies and future start-ups massively while our own officials are trying to kneecap them, whether by antitrust litigation by the Federal Trade Commission, Senate bills to break up tech firms, or general hostility to the growth and innovation that Section 230 has afforded to the benefit of consumers,” he said.

“The Biden Administration’s abandonment of Section 230 is concerning and puts much at risk for consumers online.

“The ability of digital entrepreneurs to offer unique and tailored services to consumers who enjoy them would be severely constrained if a Supreme Court ruling upends our modern understanding of the legal system’s protection of platforms online. Added to that, it threatens free speech on the Internet if platforms have an undue obligation to perform content moderation so as to avoid any and all legal liabilities posed by user-generated content.

“For the sake of consumers and American innovation, we hope that an eventual ruling protects the core of our freedom of speech and association online, and protects citizens’ choices to use the services they want. Thus far, the Biden Administration’s views leave us concerned that this is in peril,” he concluded.

Learn more about the Consumer Choice Center’s campaigns for smart policies on tech innovation.

Les vrais progressistes soutiendraient le Bitcoin et l’économie de la cryptographie, et non la réglementeraient

Lorsque les progressistes politiques abordent des sujets tels que l’inflation, les impôts ou les méfaits des entreprises, ils prétendent parler au nom du peuple. Qu’il s’agisse de la classe ouvrière ou des minorités, les progressistes visent à façonner la politique gouvernementale pour protéger ceux qui risquent constamment d’être exploités.

Mais lorsque ces mêmes personnes, comme la sénatrice américaine Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), se tournent vers des technologies innovantes comme Bitcoin et sa progéniture crypto (crypto-monnaies avec un immense potentiel pour autonomiser les Américains des classes moyennes et inférieures), ils préfèrent le rouleau compresseur à la Coup de main.

De nombreux idéaux progressistes pourraient être atteints avec les crypto-monnaies : non détenues par les banques, pas d’intermédiaires, des frais peu élevés, des transactions rapides et une bouée de sauvetage contre une vie piégée de dettes et de pauvreté.

N’importe qui peut télécharger un portefeuille mobile à partir de sa boutique d’applications pour smartphone, générer une adresse Bitcoin et recevoir immédiatement de petites portions de la crypto-monnaie d’une manière sécurisée et sans confiance, quels que soient sa race, son sexe, son orientation, son statut économique ou même son emplacement.

L’auteur Alex Gladstein a fourni de nombreuses histoires sur le Bitcoin offrant une véritable alternative, donnant aux citoyens les moyens d’agir dans les pays où les devises gonflent rapidement ou dans les pays autoritaires avec des contrôles de capitaux.

Pour les près de 6 millions d’Américains qui ne sont pas bancarisés (sans compte bancaire), l’utilisation de crypto-monnaies comme Bitcoin pourrait être une aubaine. Il n’y a aucune exigence de revenu pour utiliser Bitcoin, pas besoin d’une adresse physique et pas besoin d’utiliser une pièce d’identité. 

Pour les millions d’Américains qui envoient des fonds à l’étranger, un nombre croissant d’entre eux utilisent des transactions Bitcoin à faible coût au lieu des services de virement bancaire traditionnels, qui s’accompagnent souvent de frais à deux chiffres.

Cash App, l’une des applications financières les plus populaires, a entièrement Bitcoin intégré pour envoyer et recevoir des fonds entre amis et famille, et un nombre croissant de marchands en ligne et en personne acceptent désormais Bitcoin.

Read the full article here

americans for tax reform

Real Progressives Would Support Bitcoin and the Crypto Economy, Not Regulate It Away

When political progressives address topics like inflation, taxes, or corporate wrongdoing, they claim to speak for the people. Whether it’s the working class or minorities, progressives aim to shape government policy to protect those at constant risk for exploitation.

But when these same individuals, such as U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), turn their focus to innovative technologies like Bitcoin and its crypto offspring (cryptocurrencies with immense potential to empower middle and lower-class Americans) they prefer the steamroller to the helping hand.

Many progressive ideals could be achieved with cryptocurrencies: not owned by banks, no middlemen, low fees, fast transactions, and a lifeline from a trapped life of debt and poverty. 

Anyone can download a mobile wallet from their smartphone app store, generate a Bitcoin address, and immediately receive small portions of the cryptocurrency in a trustless, cryptographically secure manner regardless of their race, gender, orientation, economic status, or even location. 

Author Alex Gladstein has provided plenty of stories of Bitcoin providing a real alternative,  empowering citizens in countries with rapidly inflating currencies, or in authoritarian nations with capital controls.

For the close to 6 million Americans who are unbanked (without bank accounts)  using cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin could be a godsend. There are no income requirements to use Bitcoin, no need for a physical address, and no need to use an ID. 

For the millions of Americans who send remittance payments abroad, a growing numberuse low-fee Bitcoin transactions instead of traditional wire transfer services, which often come with double-digit-percentage fees.

Cash App, one of the most popular finance apps, has fully integrated Bitcoin for sending and receiving funds among friends and family, and a growing number of both online and in-person merchants are now accepting Bitcoin.

While there will inevitably be some technical challenges, especially for senior citizens not enamored by technology, the experience of growing adoption in developing countries gives hope to the idea that cryptocurrencies could be a progressive triumph.

The disintermediation from corporations or politically connected entities should thrill a populist champion like Senator Warren, who has made her reputation fighting banker-bailouts and criticizing cozy relationships between financial institutions and the Federal Reserve.


Unfortunately, in the wake of the collapse of FTX, one of the world’s largest cryptocurrency exchanges, progressives like Senator Warren want to completely snuff out the crypto ecosystem, rather than simply enforce the laws to rid it of bad actors.

The actions of FTX CEO Sam Bankman-Fried, the crypto wunderkind and once-second-largest political donor to Democrats, now alleged to be the kingpin of an $8 billion fraud or Ponzi scheme, have brought us to this moment. The allegations include blurry accounting silos between customer and company accounts, missing funds, and billions of dollars’ worth of tokens given to his own hedge fund Alameda Research to leverage economic power in the crypto markets.

Senator Warren has a right to be outraged, as do millions of FTX customers with funds either missing or locked up in bankruptcy, and millions more crypto-holders are now dealing with the price fallout.

But as the Senator states in a recent op-ed, these alleged crimes are addressed by existing law enforcement and regulatory agencies, whether the FBI or SEC. Fraud, insider dealing, and market manipulation aren’t suddenly different because they occur with crypto tokens.

Where the Senator strays too far is in seeking to completely dismantle crypto alternatives and the economy supporting them.

One of her objections is the industry of proof-of-work mining that uses electricity and computing power to confirm new blocks and protect the Bitcoin blockchain. In her view, these firms are “polluters,” straining electricity grids. In any other progressive era of economic growth, these firms would be championed as innovative upstarts charting the American dream. 

The growing share of miners using renewable energy and repurposing methane pollutionfrom gas and oil wells to fuel machines, thereby capping greenhouse gas emissions, would be enough to headline any global climate change conference. But in progressive states like New York, lawmakers have all but killed this.

That same mentality drives Senator Warren’s desire to ramp up surveillance on each and every crypto transaction. This would also be a dangerous precedent.

Donating crypto to a pro-choice charity or an environmental activist group could make someone a target of figures who oppose these causes. Tech-savvy grandmothers sending crypto payments to their grandchildren, or workers who opt to receive their payments in Bitcoin, would effectively be treated as criminals. Elevating government power to this degree, while reducing our individual liberties, is far from progressive.

While it is nowhere near as mainstream as its proponents would hope, Bitcoin was created because of the flaws of the traditional banking system. Using regulations and laws to strangle it down into Banking 2.0 not only misses the point, but it erases the opportunity for millions of Americans who want an alternative.

Our political officials should moderate their knee-jerk instinct to regulate a new technology like Bitcoin into oblivion. Technological progress should be an inevitable part of a pro-growth agenda in political capitals, and Bitcoin is only one example. Cryptocurrencies may achieve broader adoption, or they may fail, but we deserve an opportunity to try. The government should in all circumstances be tech-neutral: it shouldn’t try to pick the winners or losers of any nascent industry.

Wealthy progressive legislators may not need Bitcoin on a daily basis, but there are millions of others who would greatly benefit from the option of being able to use it. 

Using the failures and crimes of politically connected crypto-exchanges like FTX to effectively chill innovation in this sector and regulate it away would deprive many Americans of new economic technology that could change lives for the better. That’s the furthest thing from progressive, and would severely restrict our capacity for entrepreneurship, innovation, and human flourishing.

Originally published here

Fun Police

ConsEUmer Podcast

Consumer Choice Center Cast

Follow us

Facebook-f Twitter Instagram Linkedin Youtube Spotify

Contact Info

712 H St NE PMB 94982
Washington, DC 20002

info@consumerchoicecenter.org

© COPYRIGHT 2024, CONSUMER CHOICE CENTER

Scroll to top
en_USEN
it_ITIT pt_BRPT fr_FRFR es_ESES de_DEDE en_USEN