# data[].attributes.headline
Mandatory covid vaccination wouldn’t do us any good

# data[].attributes.subject
Mandatory covid vaccination wouldn’t do us any good

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.livemint.com/opinion/online-views/mandatory-covid-vaccination-wouldn-t-do-us-any-good-11628017765945.html
talks about how the new covid variants are not letting the vaccine to create a psoiyive externality

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Many countries had bet on achieving high covid vaccination coverage, hoping to return to normalcy. However, with the emergence of fresh cases due to the Delta variant, mask mandates are back and booster shots are being considered. In addition, countries are imposing measures such as restrictions on the entry of unvaccinated people to public places like restaurants, sports venues and cinema halls. Countries like France, Italy and Turkey have proposed mandatory vaccination for healthcare workers and other sub-groups, a failure to comply with which could mean non-payment of salary or being barred from work. Since then, a few in India have started advocating the mandatory covid vaccination of Indian health workers. Is it a logical suggestion? Let's examine it.

Enforcing reasonable curbs on access to public spaces to prevent the transmission of infectious diseases has been an age-old public health measure. Such restrictions serve a larger public purpose without depriving citizens of essentials. Importantly, individuals retain the choice of whether to get vaccinated or not. Therefore, these are akin to a 'nudge' for people to adopt healthier behaviour. In addition, over the last two centuries, laws on compulsory or mandatory vaccination have been enacted in countries like the US, UK and Australia. However, such legislative action did not mean people would be vaccinated against their will; there were fairly wide exemptions on religious, social and philosophical grounds. If unwilling to get a shot, people had to make a legal declaration stating the ground on which they sought exemption, which got them mandatory counselling on the benefits of getting vaccinated and the risk to them and others entailed in not doing so.

Does making covid vaccination mandatory in India make scientific sense? Does it follow the principles of equity and fairness? Currently licensed Covid vaccines offer far greater individual benefits, given their proven role in reducing exposure to hospitalization and death, than the group benefit of reducing transmission, which is a positive externality. The scientific evidence in reducing disease transmission is available for only a few covid vaccines, not all. The covid vaccines being used in India currently are based upon viral-vectored (Covishield and Sputnik V) and inactivated-virus (Covaxin) platforms, and there is very limited data on their role in preventing transmission. So, if the core argument of compulsory vaccination is to protect others and stop transmission, its premise is flawed. The countries which are contemplating it have mRNA-based vaccines, mainly, for which there is better evidence of a role in curbing transmission. India's situation is unlikely to change even if mRNA vaccines are available, as the others will remain our mainstay.

In India, the demand for vaccines exceeds supply, and people are struggling to get vaccinated. Making vaccine shots compulsory for any group-say, healthcare and frontline workers-would require a diversion of doses to them, resulting in reduced availability for other eligible groups and widened vaccine inequities. Another point is that vaccines are not free for everyone in India. Jabs administered in the private sector have to be paid for, and this goes for private-sector health staff as well. Thus, making vaccination mandatory for the private-sector health staff would be coercive and unethical. Making it mandatory only for health staff in a government set-up (where they're free) would be discriminatory.

Clearly, on the considerations of scientific rationale, equity and fairness, mandatory covid vaccination does not make any sense in India. This is so for any sub-group at any stage.While a few reasonable restrictions should be used as public-health tools, coercive measures such as mandatory vaccination should not be explored as an option.

Such an imposition might further reduce the limited trust that people have in our health services; trust suffered a major jolt with the struggle that many had to face during India's second wave of covid.

We need to learn from the past. India has had a forgettable experience of coercive measures for family planning nearly four decades ago. It took the country another two decades after that to get family welfare activities and its population-control programme back on track. If any population sub-group shows unwillingness to get vaccinated, then health agencies should reflect on its root causes and try to address those challenges. India has successfully implemented a large-scale polio elimination programme for more than two decades, and each polio round was intended to achieve 99% coverage or above. It was achieved without enforced vaccination and through a dialogue with communities, aided by the involvement of civil society, religious leaders and other influencers. This example is what we should take as inspiration, not what other countries do.

There is no rationale in making covid vaccination mandatory for any population group whatsoever at any point of time as part of the country's pandemic response. The situation and challenges we face in India are strikingly different from those in Western countries. Most of them have achieved fairly high vaccine coverage of their general population and have sufficient supplies of doses that are given free to all citizens. In India, assured and sustained vaccine supply should be a matter of priority, as also ensuring timely vaccination for anyone willing to get vaccinated, achieving high coverage, tackling vaccine hesitancy and delivering at least one shot to around 70% of our population. That is what will help us fight this pandemic effectively.

is a physician-epidemiologist, a public policy and health systems expert and co-author of 'Till We Win: India's Fight Against The Covid-19 Pandemic'.

Subscribe to Mint Newsletters

Never miss a story! Stay connected and informed with Mint. Download our App Now!!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Mandatory covid vaccination wouldn't do us any good

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Many countries had bet on achieving high covid vaccination coverage, hoping to return to normalcy. However, with the emergence of fresh cases due to the Delta variant, mask mandates are back and booster shots are being considered. In addition, countries are imposing measures such as restrictions on the entry of unvaccinated people to public places like restaurants, sports venues and cinema halls.

# data[].attributes.headline
China's July factory price growth quickens, adds to business cost pressures

# data[].attributes.subject
China's July factory price growth quickens, adds to business cost pressures

# data[].attributes.body
Chinas primary materials are getting expensive causing to rise factory and production costs leading to business complications.Suel Bee

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
BEIJING - China's factory gate prices in July rose at a faster clip from the previous month and exceeded analyst expectations, adding to pressure on businesses struggling with high raw material costs, while consumer inflation eased slightly.

The producer price index (PPI) grew 9.0% from a year earlier, matching the high seen in May, the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) said in a statement on Monday. Analysts in a Reuters poll had expected the PPI to rise 8.8%, unchanged from June.

China's economy has largely recovered from disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, but the expansion is losing steam as businesses face intensifying strains from higher commodity prices and global supply chain bottlenecks.

The global spread of the more-infectious Delta variant of the virus and new outbreaks of cases at home, on top of recent heavy rainfall and floods in some Chinese provinces have also disrupted economic activity.

The PPI, a benchmark gauge of a country's industrial profitability, inched up 0.5% on a monthly basis, accelerating from a 0.3% uptick in June.

China, as the top steel consumer of both coal and iron ore, has stepped up efforts to tame rising commodity prices that have squeezed manufacturers' margins, including stepping up inspections on trading platforms and releasing state reserves.

Dalian iron ore was on track to end July with a monthly loss of around 10%, the steepest since February 2020.

A separate NBS statement showed that the consumer price index (CPI) in July rose 1.0% from a year earlier, compared with a 1.1% gain in June and below the government target of around 3% this year.

The index was expected to inch up by 0.8%, according to a median forecast in a Reuters poll.

On a month-on-month basis, the CPI rose 0.3%, compared with a 0.2% increase tipped by Reuters poll and June's 0.4% decline.

The core consumer price index, which strips out volatile food and energy prices, stood at 1.3% on year, versus a 0.9% rise in June. (Reporting by Liangping Gao and Gabriel Crossley Editing by Shri Navaratnam)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
China's July factory price growth quickens, adds to business cost pressures

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
BEIJING - China's factory gate prices in July rose at a faster clip from the previous month and exceeded analyst expectations, adding to pressure on businesses struggling with high raw material costs, while consumer inflation eased slightly.

# data[].attributes.headline
UK recovery slows as staff shortages plague firms

# data[].attributes.subject
UK recovery slows as staff shortages plague firms

# data[].attributes.body
decrease in the composite index of purchasing managers 55.3, falling from 59.2 in July, causing a slowdown in activity, causing a shortage in personnel and materials
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-58304084

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
"Despite Covid-19 containment measures easing to the lowest since the pandemic began, rising virus case numbers are deterring many forms of spending, notably by consumers, and have hit growth via worsening staff and supply shortages," said IHS Markit economist Chris Williamson.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
UK recovery slows as staff shortages plague firms

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"Despite Covid-19 containment measures easing to the lowest since the pandemic began, rising virus case numbers are deterring many forms of spending, notably by consumers, and have hit growth via worsening staff and supply shortages," said IHS Markit economist Chris Williamson.

# data[].attributes.headline
Venezuela crisis: Anger over shortages triggers protests

# data[].attributes.subject
Venezuela crisis: Anger over shortages triggers protests

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-54354225
The document explains how does Venezuelan try to fight their own scarcity and try to get stability.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Venezuela crisis: Anger over shortages triggers protests

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It has turned to another US foe, Iran, for help. But while five Iranian fuel tankers arrived at Venezuelan ports in May, the US seized more than a million barrels of Venezuelan-bound fuel in August.

# data[].attributes.body
The U.S citizen are recovering from the oil and gas shortage  they had suffered during the pandemic. As gas and oil price increases, it becomes a symbol of price rising when many consumers and economist are nervous about inflation.

# data[].attributes.body
The document explains why sports and its relations are fund by fans and how it affects the sport world.

https://theconversation.com/why-do-governments-fund-sports-video-7992

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Liam Lenten explains why the government spends your money on sport.

Welcome to Some Sports Economics, a six-part video series explaining economic concepts through sport, by La Trobe University senior lecturer, Liam Lenten. In the sixth and final part of this series, Liam looks at some of the reasons why governments choose to invest money in sports.
You can watch Liam explain the video.
Or read through the transcript below.
In assessing the use of taxpayer's funds in, let's say, bidding for a major event (and financing it if successful), or building a new stadium, or even trying to secure a new license for a sports team, it helps to start with the basics. Public sector subsidies (in any sector, not just sport) involve both pros and cons. This is where the tool of cost-benefit analysis becomes handy. Remember, you may be a sports fan, but you're also a taxpayer!

As for the benefits of having a team, event or facilities (let's say the latter), without public facilities for professional sport, privately built facilities will develop if (and only if) team owners expect profits - that is, if net expenditure by fans on tickets and (if you recall clip 3) complementarities exceeds the cost of building and maintenance (and the pressure to maximise profit helps keep expenditures in check). However, this is not usually the case, and this apparent 'market failure' is often used by sports industry advocates as a justification for public sector involvement in building the stadium, and so if the local government decides to build it anyway (maybe they see it as a public good), team owners certainly won't argue with that - they'll simply agree to be a tenant.

Is a stadium a worthwhile investment for a city? The City's revenue is sourced mostly from the rent paid by tenants (that is, the teams) - that could be a percentage of gross or flat fee plus maybe a share of revenue from complementarities. Though, evidence from professional sports in North America is that teams invariably receive highly favourable lease agreements - in many cases, no rent or token rent (say, $1) is paid, but it's often linked to attendance, usually it's less than 10% of ticket sales. On the costs side: we have construction, depreciation and (if you borrow) interest. Also, think of opportunity cost - what else could have been done with those funds to improve other public facilities that (even if not as popular electorally) might have produced better social outcomes, such as roads, schools, hospitals?

If profit is not possible, that doesn't necessarily mean that government shouldn't use your taxes to build it, but why then do governments subsidise sports teams and events? The answer is found in our concept here: the city considers both direct and indirect costs and benefits, whereas the private sector ignores the latter.

Let's break this down. Direct benefits? Most are obvious, but question marks could be appended to most (or just about all) of them. So you can talk about new spending by fans, or in a regional context - for example, the Gold Coast AFL team: net exports (you increase exports of games to non-local fans; and reducing imports of games in Brisbane). But is expenditure really new or just a substitute for other local entertainment? Consider how Hollywood had a bumper last quarter of 1994, coinciding with the MLB players' strike. Or talk about the expenditure of the coach and players - after all, they live locally. Another wet blanket here is that fundamentally, sports teams and events are relatively small businesses.

Now, indirect - what the city also considers, costs and benefits on third parties (alternatively negative and positive externalities). Negative: things like congestion, noise and crime, but even then, it might be socially optimal to merely reduce the number of games, not eliminate them. Positive: this is the so-called 'social impact' of the event or team, giving a sense of identity as locals, also attracting people from all over the world (which can be used for future tourism marketing), but partially offset by locals leaving? Boosters also talk about 'multiplier' effects. Moreover, there's the argument that it attracts other business, but there's little (if any) evidence of this!

Politicians believe (or at least try to convince the public) that positive externalities easily outweigh the negative, invoking the wonderful (if over-used) quote from the motion picture Field of Dreams: "Build it, and they will come"! Nevertheless, on balance, the general consensus of Sports Economists is that governments tend to over-spend on sports, but to properly discuss the political considerations would require a whole other series of videos.

Anyway, the final whistle has been blown on this video series, so we'll leave our coverage there. I hope you have enjoyed this take on some of the sport industry's greatest mysteries, and that you've learnt a bit of Economics along the way, too! In the meanwhile, think economically -it may just help you win. I'm Liam Lenten, farewell for now.
Watch previous videos from Some Sports Economics: When scoring an own-goal is the only way to win (VIDEO) Full versus half-full stadiums in maximising profits (VIDEO) The economics behind inelastic ticket pricing (VIDEO) The economics of comparative advantage and Usain Bolt (VIDEO) Media broadcast rights and the Prisoner's Dilemma (VIDEO)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Welcome to Some Sports Economics, a six-part video series explaining economic concepts through sport, by La Trobe University senior lecturer, Liam Lenten. In the sixth and final part of this series, Liam looks at some of the reasons why governments choose to invest money in sports. You can watch Liam explain the video.

# data[].attributes.body
this is news that shocks the world because of how water is already valued in wall street

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Chicago-based CME Group launched contracts in September and trading began December 7

In a first, water has officially joined the likes of gold and oil in being traded on Wall Street as a Futures commodity.

This means farmers, investors and municipalities would hedge against or bet on the future price of water, a resource that is fast becoming scarce in the world.

The contracts were launched by Chicago-based CME Group and are tied to the $1.1 billion California spot water market, reported Bloomberg.

The contracts were announced in September as heat and wildfires ravaged the US west coast and as California was emerging from an eight-year drought and trading began December 7.

Water availability is becoming increasingly less as climate change and human activities lead to severe droughts across the world.

Now with this development, those who need to buy extra water in a dry year, when prices may be higher, can now bet on futures contracts to offset the higher prices they might have to pay in the water market down the line, reported CNN.

"California has long periods of dry conditions followed by short periods of very wet conditions. And that affects the price a lot," Patrick Wolf, lead product developer with Nasdaq Global Indexes, told CNN and added that a publicly traded contract will bring more transparency to the market which will be good for all the parties that have to buy water.

A recent flagship report by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) revealed that about 1.2 billion people globally experienced very high levels of water stress. It also noted that the annual amount of available freshwater resources per person had declined by more than 20 per cent in the past two decades.

As water was closely linked to several other United Nations-mandated Sustainable Development Goals, not least that of achieving 'zero hunger', managing scarce water resources well would be a critical determinant for fully achieving them, the report had highlighted.

The futures are tied to the Nasdaq Veles California Water Index, which was started two years ago and measures the volume-weighted average price of water. The January 2021 water contract that went live December 7 had two trades, the Bloomberg report said.

We are a voice to you; you have been a support to us. Together we build journalism that is independent, credible and fearless. You can further help us by making a donation. This will mean a lot for our ability to bring you news, perspectives and analysis from the ground so that we can make change together.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Water on Wall Street: Finally, humanity can bet on the future price of water

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Chicago-based CME Group launched contracts in September and trading began December 7 In a first, water has officially joined the likes of gold and oil in being traded on Wall Street as a Futures commodity. This means farmers, investors and municipalities would hedge against or bet on the future price of water, a resource that is fast becoming scarce in the world.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
the quantity not affordable by producers to the restaurants that need it

# data[].attributes.headline
 Restaurants are Facing Ingredient Shortages.

# data[].attributes.subject
 Restaurants are Facing Ingredient Shortages.

# data[].attributes.body
These Restaurants are Facing Ingredient Shortages. Here’s How They’re Coping (Micro News for August 14, 2021 – August 20, 2021) – Pearson Economic News (wordpress.com)

# data[].attributes.body
Microeconomic Behaviors in High Uncertainty Environments: Argentine Industry:

This work aims to identify in an exploratory way some effects of real volatility in Argentina on the structure of the industrial sector and the evolution of the microeconomics of industrial companies, emphasizing that what happened after the last period of market reforms of the The 1990s provide evidence to understand why macroeconomic sustainability and the soundness of micro fundamentals are two mutually dependent dimensions. The conceptual aspects used to advance the understanding of observed behaviors constitute more of an eclectic collection of fragments than a unified body of theory.
Bibliography.-
https://www.cepal.org/es/publicaciones/3899-comportamientos-microeconomicos-entornos-alta-incertidumbre-la-industria

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Este trabajo se propone identificar en forma exploratoria algunos efectos de la volatilidad real en Argentina sobre la estructura del sector industrial y la evolución de la microeconomía de las empresas industriales, poniendo el énfasis en que lo sucedido tras el último período de reformas de mercado de los años noventa aporta evidencias para entender por qué la sustentabilidad macroeconómica y la solidez de los fundamentos micro son dos dimensiones mutuamente dependientes. En consecuencia, luego de un breve repaso de la historia del proceso de industrialización en Argentina desde fines del siglo XIX, se revisan algunos efectos económicos agregados de la volatilidad real. El reconocimiento de esta característica de la economía argentina de las últimas décadas permite, posteriormente, ingresar en las unidades dedicadas a la exploración de las microfundaciones de los procesos de decisión en contextos de alta inestabilidad y de reforma económica. Los aspectos conceptuales utilizados para avanzar en la comprensión de los comportamientos observados constituyen más una colección ecléctica de fragmentos que un cuerpo de teoría unificada. En particular, algunas de las cuestiones que serán consideradas en las secciones siguientes son: incertidumbre, inversión y estrategias productivas; aprendizajes, apertura e importaciones; efectos del funcionamiento de mercados financieros imperfectos; el sendero tecnológico y la apertura de la economía; la perspectiva evolutiva y la dinámica microeconómica; tendencias, fluctuaciones y errores de percepción de los agentes; heterogeneidad y brechas de productividad; respuesta diferenciada de actores económicos heterogéneos; conocimiento idiosincrásico y manejo de la crisis.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Comportamientos microeconómicos en entornos de alta incertidumbre: la industria argentina

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Este trabajo se propone identificar en forma exploratoria algunos efectos de la volatilidad real en Argentina sobre la estructura del sector industrial y la evolución de la microeconomía de las empresas industriales, poniendo el énfasis en que lo sucedido tras el último período de reformas de mercado de los años noventa aporta evidencias para entender por qué la sustentabilidad macroeconómica y la solidez de los fundamentos micro son dos dimensiones mutuamente dependientes.

# data[].attributes.headline
Coca-cola vs. Pepsi: The Economics behind Coke’s Dominance

# data[].attributes.subject
Coca-cola vs. Pepsi: The Economics behind Coke’s Dominance

# data[].attributes.body
The document explain how Coca Cola have dominance in the marketing of drink products in this case vs Pepsi cola.

http://economicstudents.com/2012/10/coca-cola-vs-pepsi-the-economics-behind-cokes-dominance/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Economics Student Society of Australia (ESSA)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In microeconomics, the first thought that springs to mind when we talk about perfect substitutes is Coca-cola and Pepsi. Since these two essentially taste the same and have similar pricing, we would expect that demand for both products are similar. However, until recently, the market share for Coca-cola and Pepsi has heavily favoured Coca-cola in Australia. It is estimated that Coca-Cola outsells Pepsi Cola by around three times in Australia and New Zealand supermarkets, and around five to six times in the whole cola market.

The two firms had an interesting past during the great depression, where Pepsi went into bankruptcy twice, until being bought out by Loft Inc, a candy manufacturer. On 3 separate occasions between 1922 and 1933, Coca-cola was offered the opportunity to purchase Pepsi however declined every time, a decision that could have potentially resulted in Coca-cola enjoying decades of pure monopoly profits and market power. From this point onwards the long history of fierce competition started, which included things like the billions of dollars they spend on advertising, the Pepsi blind taste test TV advertisement, the vast array of celebrity endorsements, and the 'Share a Coke' campaign. So why is Coca-cola dominating the market now? To make the article easier to follow, I provide a diagram below.

Firstly, if you haven't noticed it yourself, it seems like Coke is available everywhere compared to Pepsi. For example, at Union House, you can only find Pepsi at the mini supermarket Foodworks, while Coke can be bought at all other food outlets. Vending machines too are almost exclusively Coca-cola and the same applies to the city. Food outlets like McDonalds, Subway, Nando's, sushi outlets etc all sell Coke (compared to only KFC who sells Pepsi). It is possible to find Pepsi in places such as 7-eleven, supermarkets and petrol stations however these places also sell Coke as well. The list of places you could buy Pepsi from is small compared to the amount of places that sell Coke.

Suppose you were in the city with no specific preference between the two and you wanted a cola soft drink. Also assuming there is a cost to travelling to purchase the drink, as you would be better off walking less, and that both have the same price. You could purchase Pepsi but it'll take effort and some traveling (say 500 meters) to try and find a 7-eleven or a KFC to purchase, or you could purchase Coke which is widely available within a smaller radius (e.g 50 meters). As a rational consumer you would choose Coke, saving time and money to minimize your travel costs. Hence Coke has a convenience advantage. The convenience advantage belonged to the company which established itself first in the market, and whether it offered exclusive deals to businesses such as bulk purchases.

Due to this advantage, a consumer would purchase Coke more often and thus leads to brand loyalty and continued consumption of Coke. This is because over time as we constantly purchase Coke, our minds tend to think of Coke rather than Pepsi whenever we want a cola soft drink. This is evident whenever we order at a restaurant, the waiter asks 'would you like anything to drink?' and your response would typically be 'yes, I would like a Coke thanks'.

The way soft drinks are sold also play a role here. Aside from 7-elevens, supermarkets and Petrol stations, food outlets typically only hold one of the two brands. For example when you walk into a McDonalds, or dine at a restaurant on Lygon Street, only Coke is available to the consumer rather than both brands competing against each other. This results in an in-store monopoly effect, which means that consumers don't exactly have a choice to make between Coke and Pepsi, and so there is small narrow monopoly Coke operates within each food retailer (except KFC) and restaurants.

As Coke is the only option in most food retailers and restaurants, we tend to drink it more and thus forms the brand loyalty effect. So even in places such as 7-eleven and supermarkets, where both brands are offered unbiasedly, we tend to have a bias to purchase Coke over Pepsi. The store owners/managers who are also consumers in the market, are also under the effects of brand loyalty, so they will also purchase Coke to sell to the consumer. As brand loyalty leads to higher demand for Coke, food outlets would rather purchase Coke for their inventories, rather than Pepsi. Therefore as more businesses stock Coke instead of Pepsi it amplifies the convenience advantage, and thus creates Coke's Dominance Chain, shown above.

There are of course many other factors that make Coke dominant over Pepsi such as its pricing strategies, marketing, product design etc. However the Coke Dominance Chain can be largely attributed to Coca-cola's dominance over Pepsi. This is because if we swap Coke and Pepsi around to form the 'Pepsi Dominance chain', it is likely that we would all be buying Pepsi instead of Coke. This is due to the fact that they are perfect substitutes and we have no individual preference between the two in the first place, and so as Pepsi is widely available it creates the convenience effect and then the dominance chain.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Coca-cola vs. Pepsi: The Economics behind Coke's Dominance - Economics Student Society of Australia (ESSA)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In microeconomics, the first thought that springs to mind when we talk about perfect substitutes is Coca-cola and Pepsi. Since these two essentially taste the same and have similar pricing, we would expect that demand for both products are similar. However, until recently, the market share for Coca-cola and Pepsi has heavily favoured Coca-cola in Australia.

# data[].attributes.body
This article shows how EU has canceled the plan to put a corporate tax on tech giants. This tax is rate over 15%.
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-57804448

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The EU has said it will suspend its plans to tax online tech giants in the light of global efforts to agree a minimum corporate tax rate of 15%.

The move comes after G20 finance ministers agreed at the weekend to support the global effort, which will now go before G20 leaders in October.

The EU said putting its own plan on ice would make it easier to achieve "the last mile" of the international deal.

But Ireland declared it would stick to its lower tax level of just 12.5%.

"We have decided to put on hold our work on our new digital levy," said European Commission spokesman Daniel Ferrie.

The announcement coincided with a visit to Brussels by US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, who urged all 27 EU countries to join the global deal.

"We need to put an end to corporations shifting capital income to low-tax jurisdictions, and to accounting gimmicks that allow them to avoid paying their fair share," she said.

Higher revenues

However, Ireland's Deputy Prime Minister Leo Varadkar, said his country's 12.5% corporate tax rate had "worked for Ireland" and said the reform plan was about "big countries trying to get a bigger share of the pie".

"We've taken about €10bn a year in corporation profit tax, double what the average European country does per head," he said.

"It's one of those examples of where low taxes result in higher revenues, in a world where wealth capital, labour, corporations are very mobile."

Governments have long grappled with the challenge of taxing global companies operating across many countries.

That challenge has grown with the boom in huge tech corporations such as Amazon and Facebook.

Efforts in the UK and EU to tax the online giants have caused friction with the US, which has felt its companies are being unfairly targeted.

Now, however, there is widespread support for a plan to make multinational companies pay their "fair share" of tax around the world.

So far, 132 countries have signed up to the framework, but it needs ratification from those countries' parliaments - including the US Congress, where Republicans may try to block it.

Why change the rules?

At the moment, companies can set up local branches in countries that have relatively low corporate tax rates and declare profits there.

That means they only pay the local rate of tax, even if the profits mainly come from sales made elsewhere. This is legal and commonly done.

The deal aims to stop this from happening in two ways.

Firstly it aims to make companies pay more tax in the countries where they are selling their products or services, rather than wherever they end up declaring their profits.

Secondly, a global minimum tax rate would help avoid countries undercutting each other with low tax rates.

Not everyone is in favour, however. Apart from Ireland, Hungary and Estonia also oppose plans to harmonise rates.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The EU has said it will suspend its plans to tax online tech giants in the light of global efforts to agree a minimum corporate tax rate of 15%. The move comes after G20 finance ministers agreed at the weekend to support the global effort, which will now go before G20 leaders in October.

# data[].attributes.body
the document explains how the pandemic affects the economy and the industries. it also explains why people are losing their jobs.
https://www.latercera.com/pulso/noticia/la-microeconomia-de-la-pandemia/ZARHZITZTNGF5CATW7WUIMKETI/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
La pandemia de coronavirus es el desafío de política pública más complejo en un siglo: rememora la gripe española, en 1918; y ha provocado un desplome económico en China, Estados Unidos y el sur de Europa mayor que el ocurrido durante los primeros meses de la Gran Depresión, a fines de los años veinte. Y aunque hoy estamos mejor preparados para combatirla, gracias a los avances en medicina y economía y a la mayor coordinación global, también estamos más expuestos, con flujos de bienes y personas que anulan las fronteras.

Naturalmente, los gobiernos han privilegiado contener el contagio, imponiendo cuarentenas que limitan la libertad individual. Pero esta estrategia no es sostenible si, como resultado, los que pierden sus empleos no tienen ingresos para realizar sus compras básicas, viéndose forzados a incumplir las restricciones; o si se detienen la cadena de abastecimiento y el sistema de pagos; o si quiebran masivamente empresas que, en un escenario habitual, habrían accedido a crédito para refinanciar sus deudas.

Así, las políticas elegidas deben controlar ambas, la crisis sanitaria y la económica, porque el virus puede matar, pero la mayor pobreza que resultaría de una profunda recesión global también.

En Chile, partimos con políticas macro, a través de líneas de financiamiento más abundantes para los bancos y flexibilidad regulatoria, que buscan contener problemas de liquidez y reducir el efecto de un mayor riesgo en la oferta de fondos. Recientemente, estas medidas se han complementado con otras más específicas, como bonos para las personas más vulnerables, y el acceso al seguro de cesantía para trabajadores formales, condicionado en que el vínculo laboral no se interrumpa. Con todo, en esta etapa la preocupación principal debe ser el cómo, porque en las políticas micro el demonio está en los detalles. Pequeñas diferencias de diseño pueden explicar su éxito o fracaso.

Con respecto a las empresas grandes, una garantía estatal debería bastar para el acceso a financiamiento, más con el bajo costo del crédito internacional. Y si ello no es posible, estas pueden acceder a fondo públicos compartiendo con el Estado su propiedad. Pero las empresas pequeñas no tienen acceso a capital de trabajo. Para ellas, además de lo ya anunciado por el gobierno, y para aumentar los fondos disponibles, es posible proveer créditos con seguros grupales, como lo hace el Grameen Bank. El foco sería grupos de empresas asociadas a una actividad, como restaurantes en un mismo barrio, que podrían obtener un crédito estatal con facilidades de pago y el cual los miembros, en conjunto, se comprometen a pagar. Los objetivos son dos: debido a que las empresas tienen más información acerca de quiénes pueden salir adelante una vez terminada la crisis, se autoseleccionarán; y, al diversificar el riesgo de no pago entre ellas, no es necesario que todas se recuperen con la misma intensidad para sobrevivir.

En cuanto a los trabajadores, es probable que su asignación actual sea razonablemente eficiente, dados los despidos desde las manifestaciones de octubre. En tal caso, la política debe propender a que, una vez terminada la crisis, las personas se desempeñen en tareas similares a las previas. Un subsidio al empleo condicionado al número de despidos serviría. Un problema son los trabajos informales y los por cuenta propia. Los primeros en Chile rondan el 30% de la fuerza laboral. Para ellos, el pago se puede condicionar a su formalización en el SII y a evidencia de sus ingresos, por ejemplo, con el saldo anual promedio en su CuentaRUT. Para los segundos, el pago puede basarse en la Operación Renta 2020. Además, en ambos casos se podría crear un crédito que se pague en función de la diferencia entre los ingresos recibidos el año pasado y este. Si son mayores este año, la empresa debería pagar de acuerdo con esa diferencia en la Operación Renta 2021. En caso contrario, no pagaría nada. Esto puede hacerse durante 3 años, permitiendo recuperar fondos para futuras contingencias y ayudando a canalizarlos en los que se formalicen.

Nadie sabe cómo terminará todo esto. Pero sí sabemos que políticas bien diseñadas e implementadas reducirán la probabilidad de una catástrofe económica. Y más importante aún, que esta catástrofe acabe siendo humana.
-Los autores son de la Universidad Diego Portales

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
La microeconomía de la pandemia - La Tercera

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
La pandemia de coronavirus es el desafío de política pública más complejo en un siglo: rememora la gripe española, en 1918; y ha provocado un desplome económico en China, Estados Unidos y el sur de Europa mayor que el ocurrido durante los primeros meses de la Gran Depresión, a fines de los años veinte.

# data[].attributes.headline
Extinction: Freshwater fish in 'catastrophic' decline

# data[].attributes.subject
Extinction: Freshwater fish in 'catastrophic' decline

# data[].attributes.body
The number of freshwater fish has decreased significantly. This occurs because of unsustainable fishing and pollution of rivers. This article can be used to study market failure and common pool resources.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-56160756.amp

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A report has warned of a "catastrophic" decline in freshwater fish, with nearly a third threatened by extinction.

Conservation groups said 80 species were known to have gone extinct, 16 in the last year alone.

Millions of people rely on freshwater fish for food and as a source of income through angling and the pet trade.

But numbers have plummeted due to pressures including pollution, unsustainable fishing, and the damming and draining of rivers and wetlands.

The report said populations of migratory fish have fallen by three-quarters in the last 50 years.

Over the same time period, populations of larger species, known as "megafish", have crashed by 94%.

The report, The World's Forgotten Fishes, is by 16 conservation groups, including WWF, the London Zoological Society (ZSL), Global Wildlife Conservation and The Nature Conservancy.

In UK waters, the sturgeon and the burbot have vanished, salmon are disappearing and the European eel remains critically endangered.

According to the WWF, much of the decline is driven by the poor state of rivers, mostly as a result of pollution, dams and sewage.

It has called on the government to restore freshwater habitats to good health through proper enforcement of existing laws, strengthening protections in the Environment Bill and championing a strong set of global targets for the recovery of nature.

Dave Tickner, from WWF, said freshwater habitats are some of the most vibrant on earth, but - as this report shows - they are in catastrophic decline around the world.

"Nature is in freefall and the UK is no exception: wildlife struggles to survive, let alone thrive, in our polluted waters," said the organisation's chief adviser on freshwater.

"If we are to take this government's environmental promises seriously, it must get its act together, clean up our rivers and restore our freshwater habitats to good health. "

Carmen Revenga of The Nature Conservancy said freshwater fish are a diverse and unique group of species that are not only essential for the healthy functioning of our rivers, lakes and wetlands, but millions of people, particularly the poor, also depend on them for their food and income.

"It's now more urgent than ever that we find the collective political will and effective collaboration with private sector, governments, NGOs and communities, to implement nature-based solutions that protect freshwater species, while also ensuring human needs are met," she said.

Commenting, Dr Jeremy Biggs, of the Freshwater Habitats Trust, said to protect freshwater biodiversity, we need to consider both large and small waters, and to protect all our freshwaters: ponds, lakes, streams and rivers.

Follow Helen on Twitter.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Extinction: Freshwater fish in 'catastrophic' decline

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A report has warned of a "catastrophic" decline in freshwater fish, with nearly a third threatened by extinction. Conservation groups said 80 species were known to have gone extinct, 16 in the last year alone. Millions of people rely on freshwater fish for food and as a source of income through angling and the pet trade.