Suchergebnisse

Gabriella Beaumont-Smith


On July 4th, many Americans will take to the outdoors to celebrate the Declaration of Independence from my home nation, Great Britain. These days, most people know to lather on sunscreen when spending time outside in the summer (though dermatologists insist sun protection is necessary year‐​round). However, sun protection is not only about safety and avoiding painful sunburn but an anti‐​aging procedure. Now that you can safely tan from a bottle, SPF is ubiquitous—in skincare products, lip balms, and makeup. You can even protect yourself from harmful UV rays with special clothing and umbrellas.
While the sun care aisles in stores make it look like the variety in sunscreen and sun protection‐​related products is diverse, the truth is that the actual UV blockers in products available in the U.S. have barely evolved in the last 40 years. The reason is that the Food and Drug Administration has not approved a new active ingredient for sun care products in decades.
The FDA regulates sunscreen as an over‐​the‐​counter drug, and the agency must evaluate and approve the ingredients before the product can be marketed. To reduce the level that UVA and UVB rays can penetrate skin, active ingredients called "filters" are used. In the U.S., only some physical and chemical filters are permitted, but they tend to either leave that chalky residue or make your skin feel greasy. Many consumers have reported that sunscreens available in other countries, primarily the European Union (EU), Australia, and Japan, are much better. The EU allows 27 different active ingredients to block sunburn and skin damage, whereas the FDA has only approved 17. The number of approved ingredients matters because not all filters can seamlessly be formulated into sunscreens or other suitable products for skin application. Moreover, some of the ingredients approved in the EU and Japan but not the US are more effective and long‐​lasting. As a result, the products do not need to be applied as often, giving consumers more bang for their buck.
But, without FDA approval for new and improved active ingredients, foreign companies selling better sun protection products cannot gain access to the U.S. market, and therefore impede consumers from buying superior sun protection. These types of regulations are known as "non‐​tariff barriers (NTBs)," and are an unfortunate response to the considerable trade liberalization that has occurred in the last 75 years. It is estimated that over 75 percent of U.S. industrial imports (essentially everything but agricultural products) are affected by some type of NTB, compared to 50 percent of U.S. industrial imports that are subject to tariffs. Put differently, one‐​quarter of U.S. industrial imports are free from NTBs and one‐​half are free from tariffs. Thus, the coverage of barriers to U.S. imports remains high, costing consumers.
So, as you celebrate America's Independence Day, remember the importance of liberty because it affects everything, even the quality of your sunscreen.

"In the second chapter, Anke Dahrendorf deals with a risk that can easily be called a global one. She examines the proliferation of bilateral agreements in the sphere of trade regulations and asks to what extent this development - both source and consequence of the standstill in multilateral trade negotiations (Doha-Round) - has to be considered a threat for the main multilateral institution in the field, the WTO. Serious weakening or even a breakdown of the WTO could indeed be qualified as a global risk. Given the global economic Integration and interdependence, in short: globalisation, inability to find viable means of regulation and/or the breakdown of existing regulation can affect the whole world economy - a lesson that we have learned only recently in the different but related financial crisis. But Dahrendorf's chapter points to a second set of risks, namely those faced by developing countries who are usually partners to the bilateral trade agreements. For the area of intellectual property protection, Dahrendorf argues that the threat to the WTO is quite limited, whereas the problems of developing countries are significant, ranging from the undermining of their policy space and the exploitation of their dependence from international trade to adverse agreements largely benefitting industrialised countries. It is interesting to note, as Dahrendorf suggests, that public/ academic awareness seems to focus much more on the risk for the WTO (e.g. end of multilateralism, spill-over effects) than on the risks for developing countries which are difficult to assess at this point." (extract)

Adam Kovacevich, Founder and CEO of Chamber of Progress, shares his trade association’s goals for progressive advocacy in the tech sector. We discuss the politicization of ‘Big Tech’ and recent opinion polls about Midterm voters’ attitudes towards tech regulation. We also discuss how First Amendment rights apply to tech companies, misperceptions of the techlash, and...
The post #158: Progressive Big Tech Regulation and Advocacy, with Adam Kovacevich appeared first on Social Media and Politics.

In this chapter of Life after Reform: When Bipartisan Campaign Reform Meets Politics, the authors argue that Malbin et al's "hydraulic" theory of money in political systems is exclusive of changes brought about by events such as the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) impacts on the tactics & structural forms of interest groups & advocacy organizations. Working from pre BCRA data as a baseline, & emphasizing the distinction between "pulled" money & "pushed money," the authors develop a conceptual framework that contextualizes the determinants of an organization's electoral behavior. Findings from an analytical comparison of pre BCRA & post BCRA hard & soft money contributions & media centered electioneering show changes in individual contributor behavior, & a move toward direct voter contact. To conclude, the authors reassessment of the data by type of organization finds the largest impact of BCRA in corporations & trade associations. 1 Table, 1 Figure. J. Harwell

The prospects for labor rights in light of globalization of production & increasing privatization of regulation that represents a third of the world's productive assets is examined to question how labor can fight back against oppressive & exploitation conditions. The explosion in the globalization of industry over the last 20 years has resulted in a system of retail dominance that places contractors as powerless price-takers rather than partners, & results in a race to the bottom forcing prices & wages down & anti-unionization drives. The gains for labor that can be achieved through consumer pressure are related to the challenge to retail dominance by the rise of global contractors in the cases of Korea & Taiwan. Three approaches to advancing the interests of workers are examined in weakened if not dismantled state centric enforcement, non-existent internationally binding labor laws, & privatized mechanisms that are replacing & weakening enforcement. Although buyers clearly have an important role to play in the commodity chains at the global production system, consumer driven efforts can only be absent of workers organizing that is combined with legislative & regulatory remedies. It is between consumer action & unionization that the state must create bilateral trade agreements containing social causes mandating labor standards, practices & accountability, & global institutions are needed to implement universal standards. References. J. Harwell

The question of whether contact between the Kyoto Protocol's clean development mechanism (CDM) & the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) will promote sustainable development on a global level is contemplated. Overviews of the CDM & the MAI are presented. Although the MAI is viewed as supporting the Kyoto Protocol's call of redirecting capital flows to developing nations, it is stated that conflict between the two international agreements is possible. Several such areas of conflict are identified, the MAI maintains jurisdiction over a CDM & has regulations against performance requirements found in the Kyoto Protocol. Additional attention is dedicated to examining how MAI statutes would problematize investment from both CDM & non-CDM parties. Suggestions for resolving such potential disputes are offered. Regardless of whether the MAI is ever adopted, it is concluded that this multilateral agreement has raised several issues that the international climate-control regime must address. 2 Tables. J. W. Parker

The “merger guidelines” that have been published by the Federal Trade Commission and the US Department of Justice since 1969–with updates happening every 10-15 years–serve an unusual role. They are not federal regulations like, say, rules about what level of pollutants can be emitted from the Environmental Protection Administration. Instead, the merger guidelines seek to … Continue reading Antitrust and the Consumer Welfare Goal
The post Antitrust and the Consumer Welfare Goal first appeared on Conversable Economist.

The author goes beyond the transformation debate as far as it is related to the socio-political system turn in post-communist and post-apartheid countries and the accompanying thorough modernisation of subsystems like education. With reference to Alvin Toffler and Peter F. Drucker, he puts this (limited) transformation into the broader framework of major historical transformations since the Renaissance as well as of the contemporary comprehensive transformation process, labelled as a globalising, post-capitalist, post-materialistic or late-modern process. Basic features of the current neo-liberalist transformation are, as the author sees it, indirect (market-) control, liberalisation, deregulation and participation. In this contribution, he studies the general Agreement on Trade and services (GATS [1994], extending the general Agreement on Tariffs and Trade [GATT]) in the context of the existing nationally controlled education systems. GATS bans any discrimination against foreign suppliers of services including education. The article differentiates between the positive and negative effects of liberalisation, the breaking of monopolies, overprotection and over-regulation on the one hand and unrestricted marketising and economising by which political and economic power structures use their hegemonic position on the other hand. (DIPF/Orig.).

As companies become increasingly big through mergers and acquisitions -- especially in technology, health care, and several other industries -- how should rules and regulations change with the times?

Freshly minted and hot off the press: The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) recently released an updated set of draft "Merger Guidelines," which could reshape the landscape of corporate mergers and acquisitions both in the U.S. and globally. Esteemed Stanford professor and Chief Economist at the DOJ's Antitrust Division, Susan Athey, joins Bethany and Luigi to discuss these changes. Why did the DOJ and FTC make them? How will they impact the way companies approach mergers and acquisitions? And what do they mean for consumers, competition, labor, and the broader economy?

My government does not believe that its purpose is to be re-elected. It is instead to improve the life and liberties of the people of this realm. Accordingly, it has set forth an agenda to achieve that. I commend these proposals to Parliament.1. We intend to achieve energy independence by authorizing the use of hydraulic fracturing to release the treasure-trove of natural gas under our land. We will compensate those locally affected with cash sums and reduced fuel bills if ever tremors above the raised allowable limits occur. 2. We intend to improve the NHS by establishing a link between the medical procedures its personnel perform and the pay they receive. Doctors will be paid for each consultation with a patient, with greater remuneration for appointments in person than for telephone consultations. Hospital staff will be paid for each procedure they perform. Patients will be free to choose which doctors and which hospitals they wish to be treated by, and the state's funds will be directed accordingly. We will use the tax system to encourage widespread use of additional private insurance.3. My government will empower and encourage local councils to purchase non-verdant land on the green belt, including non-verdant agricultural land, and give such land planning permission for housing. Those affected by the new developments will be offered financial compensation in addition to the improvement of local infrastructure and services. Current restrictions on the size of houses and the square footage inside them will be removed.4. State schools in England and Wales will be given their independence and freedom to determine their own budgets and their curricula. They will be required to teach a basic national curriculum in reading and writing skills, mathematics and the sciences.5. We will ensure that no foreign court shall have authority over the highest court in the UK. The UK will no longer be subject to the European Court of Justice or the European Court of Human Rights in any area.6. Recognizing that domestic tariffs are paid by UK consumers, my government will establish the principle of free trade wherever possible, and will seek to negotiate reciprocal free-trade agreements that encourage our trading partners also to recognize the principle of free trade.7. My government will establish a Council on Competitiveness. Its purpose will be to report the likely effect on UK competitiveness of any regulations and requirements that may be proposed or requested.8. My government will similarly establish a Council on Freedom. Its purpose will be to report the effect on personal liberties of any regulation that is proposed. It will examine in particular the effect of any attempts to direct the lifestyle of UK citizens.9. We will take steps to ensure the free speech prevails on our university and college campuses, and will withdraw state funding from any such institutions that do not act to uphold free speech.10. We will appoint a body to investigate the spread of non-elected quangos and will dissolve those that claim legislative and regulatory powers that more properly belong to this Parliament.

Many people take drugs because they like the feeling they experience by doing so. This is a more extreme version of why some people smoke cigarettes or drink alcohol. Most do so because they like it and most don't become addicts.Because most drugs are illegal, they are traded on the black market, setting their users and suppliers at odds with the law. Because they are illicit and underground, there is little to no quality control, leading to deaths from adulterated or over-strength supplies.Their illegality makes them expensive as suppliers risk prosecution and punishment, as well as considerable price gouging. The profits to be had from their sale leads to violent turf wars, as gangs fight for control of the trade. It echoes what happened in the United States during the prohibition era. People in the UK, especially young people, are killed in the street by members of rival gangs fighting for control of a very lucrative business.Several US states and Canada have joined the growing list of countries that have legalized the recreational use of cannabis. If the UK were to do the same, it would lead to better quality control and enable age checks to be made as the illegal market would dry up if the legal market were allowed to prosper through light regulations and licensing. It would free up much of the logjam on courts and prisons, and end the conflict between recreational users and the police. The Treasury, rather than the criminals, would gain revenue.The legalization of cannabis would take one widely used recreational drug off the black market. The same could be done with cocaine (8.7% of the population) and MDMA (Ecstasy), (1.9% of the population) both in quite widespread use. Their legalization would free up large numbers of police to deal with more serious crimes in which other people are victims.Heroin was once available on prescription to registered addicts to consume at home, and it was seen as a problem that it could circulate to others. This could be resolved by setting up clinics manned by medical personnel, in which hard drugs such as heroin could be obtained for consumption on the premises, after medical inspection and advice. This would treat addiction as a medical, rather than a criminal, problem, and address it by medical personnel instead of with law enforcement officers. It would bring quality control and safety to the fore, and remove the current illicit drugs trade that underlies so much crime.It could be argued that legalization would lead to increased use, just as the ending of prohibition led to increased alcohol consumption. US voters went for repeal because the alternative was Al Capone and his ilk. The UK is in an Al Capone situation with illegal drugs, and could similarly end it by repealing the prohibition of them.

On this day in 1790, the great economist, moral philosopher and social psychologist AdamSmith died. The story is that he was entertaining friends at his home, Panmure House offEdinburgh's Canongate, when he felt unwell, rose and said: "Friends, we will have tocontinue this conversation in another place." He died soon after.It's a nice story, though greatly exaggerated for effect. Adam Smith's religious beliefs are amatter of debate, and it unlikely he believed in an afterlife anyway. Indeed, though he diedseventy years before Darwin's Origin of Species, he was grasping towards an evolutionaryexplanation of why human life, in economics, morality and other areas, seems to serve us ingenerally beneficial ways, without the need for any conscious direction from governmentsor anyone else. As if directed by an Invisible Hand, he wrote, though he knew there was noconscious entity moving that hand. Or Providence, he suggested. How it generated theharmony that F A Hayek would later call spontaneous order was a mystery to Smith, and tohis friend David Hume and other scholars of the age.Smith ordered that, on his death, all his papers should be burned, apart from one essay onThe History of Astronomy. It was not such an uncommon request at the time: people did notwant to be judged on the basis of their random notes and half-though-out jottings. But wewere lucky he spared The History of Astronomy, which is a remarkable essay in thephilosophy of science, advancing a trial-and-error thesis that would not be lost on thetwentieth-century author of The Logic of Scientific Discovery, Sir Karl Popper.The fact that Smith wrote on scientific method demonstrates how wide his interestsand his expertise were. As well as the economics for which he is most remembered today, he alsowrote and lectured on the use of language, on the arts, on justice, on politics and on moralphilosophy. In fact it was his first book on ethics, The Theory of Moral Sentiments, that in1759 made him internationally famous — and guaranteed him a generous income for lifethat would give him the freedom to think about economics and write his 1776 masterpieceAn Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, which he referred to as hisInquiry, but to us is known as simply The Wealth of Nations.In this, Smith offers an explanation of why, in economics, the spontaneous order ideaworks. For centuries, people imagined that the only gainers in any economic transactionwere those who ended up with the money. But Smith noted that their customers benefitedtoo, by getting goods or services that they valued more than the cash. Indeed, the tradewould not happen unless both sides thought they were getting value from it. To maximisethe creation and distribution of value, he concluded, we need to be facilitating freeexchange — not thwarting it with protectionist measures against foreign imports ordomestic regulations on what and how people are allowed to trade.This simple 'system of natural liberty', explained Smith, was what allowed the spontaneoussociety to flourish and raised nations from poverty to prosperity. It enabled individuals tostrive to 'better their condition', and that of their families. By contrast, regulations and lawswere too often laid down by politicians and their business cronies: to promote their owninterests, most generally in opposition to the interests of the working poor.Smith would have regarded a government that controls nearly half the economy, spendingnearly half the nation's GDP — a concept that he introduced to the world on the very firstpage of The Wealth of Nations — as the greatest tyranny. Taxes, he thought, were anotherway in which established interests skew things in their favour and block potentialcompetition. Taxes, he argued, should be as low as possible, should encourage rather thanrestrict free trade and innovation, and should be simple, understandable and convenient topay. One can imagine what he might have thought of a tax code like the UK's, which islonger than The Wealth of Nations itself, and a regulatory rule book that is even longer.When economic freedom, tempered by Smith's moral virtues of prudence, justice,beneficence and self-control, has been allowed to flourish, it has led to the greatestincrease, and spread, of human prosperity. The free trade era of the nineteenth centuryenriched much of the world and brought humanity cheap food and manufactures. Theglobalisation of the twentieth and twenty-first brought nearly all nations into the worldtrading system and thereby pulled a billion people out of dollar-a-day poverty.Adam Smith's intellectual and practical legacy is plain enough. The issue is whether theworld's governments will ever stop frittering it away.