The Minister for Economy “has been given a mandate to introduce official price caps for certain products, and if this is not enough, we are even ready to limit profits.” I had to read it three times and even fact-checked it to make sure that this quote does not come from Stalin or Maduro, and even make sure this politician is not the leader of a banana republic or a communist country. Then it struck me that this self-proclaimed conservative politician comes from the European Union and continuously talks about lowering taxes and economic miracles in the country, which the EU unjustly punishes.

Let’s focus on the reality now. I have written many times about why price controls are bad for the consumer and are used purely for political reasons. Consumers will face shortages, black markets can flourish, and the livelihoods of many citizens will be put at stake for short-term political gains. The prime minister of this country portrays himself as if he had a magic wand to make inflation disappear, to pursue his fight against evil multinational companies and grocery stores that only care about higher prices. He also said in a recent interview: “We cannot let grocery stores rob the population.”

You might have guessed already that the country depicted here has the highest inflation rate in the European Union, at 17% in 2023. And the politician in play is the longest-serving PM in the EU. Viktor Orban’s Hungary is, however, facing quite a lot of economic challenges. In the land of low taxes, the population faces the highest VAT rate in the world, at 27%. However, this 27 is 31.5% as stores are levied an extra 4.5% “retail special tax.” This paradox of high consumption taxes in a supposedly low-tax economy significantly burdens consumers. As wages struggle to keep pace with soaring prices, the cost of living crisis deepens, eroding purchasing power and economic stability.

I have argued that Orban has nothing to do with conservative economic policies. Unfortunately, elections will be held in Hungary in a year’s time. We finally have a viable alternative in a new party and a charismatic leader, Péter Magyar, who actually comes from Orbán’s Fidesz party. Now that Orbán has run out of other people’s money, namely, the European Union’s (which froze most of the funds to Hungary in 2022), he has to find ways to appease the electorate.

Moreover, he has to find enemies again to blame for the lousy performance of the Hungarian economy. His main narrative is that Hungary is doing poorly due to the war in Ukraine, the evil politicians in Brussels who unjustly punish his country, and the EU sanctions on Russia. However, these are enemies the average voter cannot feel directly.  Creating enemies at home is his strategy for the campaign, as he knows very well that his electorate resonates with short-term goals, and price caps worked well in the last campaign, too.

Socialist nostalgia

Orbán also talked about limiting profits. You may wonder what that means, but it is easy to imagine it in a country where the majority of the population still has a nostalgia for the socialist regime before 1990. He knows perfectly well that the rhetoric of being anti-capitalist and punishing those who dare make profits is a message that can work.

Why? Don’t people feel the effects of the high taxes, high inflation, and shortages in their everyday lives? Aren’t campaigns not about the economy? Well, when the government has someone else to blame for your mistakes and spends billions of government propaganda to make people believe that the conspiracy of grocery stores, Brussels, and Zelensky are driving the price of their bread and milk, the way is cleared for a bumpy but seemingly successful campaign. By positioning multinational companies and grocery stores as villains, the government crafts a populist narrative that resonates with voters who feel economically marginalized. This strategic scapegoating deflects blame from policy failures and reinforces Orbán’s image as a defender of ‘ordinary people’ against foreign interests and economic elites.

Nevertheless, in the end, Hungarians will have to realize that the illusion of economic control may buy political time, but the price will inevitably be paid by the consumers. As price caps and profit limits distort market dynamics, the economy moves closer to a breaking point. And when that happens, even the best propaganda machinery won’t justify the government’s actions. 

Publicado originalmente aqui

The future of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the independent agency charged with for enhancing consumer protections and fighting financial harm, remains unclear, as the current administration works toward potentially dismantling the bureau.

A judge has already halted efforts to fire CFPB employees, return funds, and delete data or records pending a preliminary injunction hearing for March 3. Advocacy organizations have expressed concern over the long-term consequences of what this means for the future, especially as the agency’s enforcement activities have returned $19 billion to consumers.

“Consumers depend on the CFPB to be the cop on the beat to protect them from fraudsters,” said John Breyault, vice president of public policy, telecommunication, and fraud, at National Consumers League.

But as consumers wait on the outcome of the bureau’s future, where can they turn when they are victimized?

Advocates say a lot of the work will be up to the consumer and the states in which they reside.

“State attorneys general play a critical role in protecting consumers in their states,” Breyault said.

Each state has a consumer protection office tasked with investigating scams, fraud, and handling complaints against businesses. But, per a January report released by the CFPB, which has worked jointly with states to protect consumers, they recommend that states update their laws and regulations to keep pace with evolving risks.

Despite what’s happening with the CFPB, Breyault encourages consumers to continue filing complaints with the CFPB.

“They are accepting complaints,” he said. But he is unsure who is triaging those complaints and whether there will be any action, and advises against sharing sensitive information such as bank account numbers when filing a complaint.

Yaël Ossowski, deputy director of the Consumer Choice Center, said that in addition to state attorneys general, consumers can pursue legal remedies via state banking commissions, private rights of action, and the Comissão Federal de Comércio.

“Even with a restrained CFPB, consumers can continue to protect themselves from frauds and scams by staying vigilant and using technological tools and verification to avoid sending money or payments to unauthorized recipients,” Ossowski said. “Hackers and fraudsters are very sophisticated, and unfortunately many are criminal actors abroad, but consumer education is the key to stopping the fraud.

Leia o texto completo aqui

Canadians want more competition when it comes to internet access and pricing. But Ottawa might be trying to stand in the way.

Here’s the deal: in most areas of the country, consumers have just two major internet providers to choose from.

The CRTC, Canada’s telecommunications regulator, has long argued that it is in the best interest of consumers to allow for cross-regional competition. That would encourage more of Canada’s major regional internet providers to participate in markets in other areas of the country.

It’s something the Competition Bureau has also advocated for.

To that end, the CRTC recently upheld a decision to require big internet companies to share their fibre networks with others, with competitor access sold at prices the telecommunications regulator determines.

Network sharing would facilitate competition and ultimately help drive down prices for consumers.

That initial decision by the CRTC was made a few years ago. But Bell, through some corporate maneuvering, filed a cabinet petition and managed to get the federal government in November 2024 to order the CRTC to reconsider this pro-competition directive.

Bell claimed its rationale for doing so was to protect smaller companies and improve telecom access for Canadians. But the reality is that, had the CRTC ruled in Bell’s favour, the duopolies that exist in most Canadian markets would have been cemented in place.

From a consumer perspective, it’s great that the CRTC didn’t cave to Bell’s lobbying, because doing so would have been a wrongheaded interpretation of competition policy.

The CRTC’s move to uphold its initial decision is technically temporary: a final decision still has to be made, so the debate is not over. In fact, Telus just filed a motion in court, alleging that Ottawa is intentionally withholding lobbying documents.

According to the motion, Ottawa is purposely withholding lobbying documents and activities from public scrutiny, which demonstrates a lack of transparency on how its directive to get the CRTC to reconsider its initial pro-competition decision was made.

The motion cites a few grounds for review, with two focusing on procedural fairness, or lack thereof. First, Telus argues that there were dozens of closed-door meetings between Innovation Minister François-Philippe Champagne’s office and Telus’ competitors, which potentially violates the Telecommunications Act’s provisions for a fair review and response. It also argues that the Minister failed to properly consult with provincial counterparts, which is required under Section 13 of the Telecommunications Act.

Essentially, Telus wants Champagne to produce materials in his possession, and Ottawa is objecting. If you care about government transparency, this is quite concerning. Failing to produce the documents insulates the decision from proper judicial review, and raises suspicion about procedural unfairness and, ultimately, Ottawa’s motives.

This legal spat is problematic because this government doesn’t have a good track record of being transparent with its decision-making process. The list is long, but includes being accused of political interference in the SNC-Lavalin Affair, sole-sourced contracts in the We Charity Scandal, delaying the release of key financial reports in 2024 like the Annual Financial report, the decision making over the use of the Emergencies Act, improper accounting and transparency with pandemic aid, and the general erosion of Canada’s access to information system.

To say that Ottawa, under this government, has a transparency problem, is an understatement.

Beyond transparency, the push from Ottawa for the CRTC to reconsider couldn’t come at a worse time. U.S. President Donald Trump’s tariff threats could soon upend the economy. With a renewed focus on tearing down interprovincial trade barriers, why would Ottawa at the same time push to build virtual walls around Canada’s telecom space and cement in place duopolies and the lack of consumer choice that comes with it?

It’s also not what consumers want, with polling showing that the vast majority of Canadians support the CRTC’s decision to enable cross-regional competition, and that nearly two-thirds of Canadians would question Ottawa’s commitment to affordability if they restricted internet choice.

Right now, we have a strange directive from Ottawa, going against the spirit of competition, masked in a veil of secrecy, and that should worry just about everyone.

Publicado originalmente aqui