See my take on the election and the prospects for capitalism in today’s Wall Street Journal:
If Barack Obama ran for president by calling for a heavier hand of government, he also won by running one of the most entrepreneurial campaigns in history.
Will he now grasp the lesson his campaign offers as he crafts policies aimed at reigniting the national economy? Amid a recession, two wars, and a global financial crisis, will he come to see that unleashing the entrepreneur is the best way to raise the revenue he needs for his lofty priorities?
Posted by Bret Swanson on Nov. 7, 2008 | Link |
Comments
|
Geese are flying overhead. Leaves are orange. The election is over. A historic moment. And I will be optimistic, and hope that although the economics of the moment seems to be a return to things past… to the 1930s, it will turn out to be otherwise, for a good bit is known now that was not known then, whatever one’s ideology. Continue reading this post »
Posted by Solveig Singleton on Nov. 5, 2008 | Link |
Comments
|
Should U.S. businesses involved in Internet commerce do business in nations governed by oppressive regimes? This is a question that many libertarians—including some of us on TLF—have grappled with for some time.
Now Yahoo, Google, and Microsoft have signed on to a set of principles for conducting business in countries that disregard human rights. Today’s Wall Street Journalreports:
Under the new principles, which were crafted over two years, the technology titans promise to protect the personal information of their users wherever they do business and to “narrowly interpret and implement government demands that compromise privacy,” according to the code.
It’s welcome news for defenders of liberty that U.S. Web giants plan to play hardball with foreign governments who would use information gleaned from Internet firms to violate their citizens’ human rights. Several troubling reports have surfaced in the past few years about American companies abetting egregious actions by oppressive governments. In January, Indian police beat a man whose arrest stemmed from Google’s cooperation with the Indian government. And in 2005, Yahoo gave information to the Chinese government that led to the arrest of a journalist accused of giving out state secrets (the case was later overturned).
The Progress & Freedom Foundation has just launched the new Center for Internet Freedom. CIF offers an alternative to the proliferation of advocacy groups calling for government intervention online by offering timely analyses and critiques of proposals that diminish the vital role of free markets, free speech and property rights. We aim to drive the Internet policy debate in new directions by emphasizing a layered approach of technological innovation, user education, user self-help, industry self-regulation, and the enforcement of existing laws consistent with the First Amendment. Such an approach is a less restrictive—and generally more effective—alternative to increased regulation.
Here are some of the issues I’ll be working on as CIF’s Director in conjunction with my esteemed colleagues Adam Thierer, Adam Marcus, and adjunct fellows:
Defending online advertising as the lifeblood of online content & services, especially in the “Long Tail”;
Emphasizing market solutions to problems of privacy protection, especially regarding the use of cookies and packet inspection data;
Protecting online speech and expression both in the U.S. and abroad;
Defending Section 230 immunity for Internet intermediaries;
Opposing online taxation and legal barriers to e-commerce and digital payments, especially at the state and local levels; and
Ensuring that Internet governance remains transparent and accountable without hampering the evolution of the Internet.
Posted by Berin Szoka on Oct. 24, 2008 | Link |
Comments
|
Peter Ferrara, offering us a taste of the dismal science for the American Spectator in reviewing a recent book’s economic predictions for an Obama Presidency (but what about civil liberties?). Hey, maybe they’ll send out more economic stimulus checks! We used ours this year to pay down a tax bill. It’s like the circle of life. (Other references to the Lion King will be swiftly and severely dealt with).
Posted by Solveig Singleton on Oct. 9, 2008 | Link |
Comments
|
Income inequality in the United States consists of two gaps. The first gap is an upper-lower gap, between those with a college education and those without. The second is an upper-upper gap, between those with high incomes and those with extraordinarily high incomes.
The upper-lower gap reflects changes in the structure of the economy. New technologies place a premium on cognitive ability. Harvard University economists Claudia Goldin and Lawrence Katz have dubbed this “skill-biased technological change.” In today’s economy, more value added comes from knowledge work, and relatively less comes from unskilled labor.
It’s nearing Halloween, so it must mean the anniversary of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act is just around the corner. In fact, it was 10 years ago, on Sunday, that Congress passed the DMCA, on October 12, 1998. The law was signed by President Clinton on October 28, 1998.
The information and news service that I have launched, BroadbandCensus.com, is “celebrating” the passage of the law with the inaugural event of the Broadband Breakfast Club. The breakfast event will take place on Tuesday, October 14, from 8 a.m. to 10 a.m., at the Old Ebbitt Grill at 675 15th Street NW, Washington, DC.
This event will bring together several key stakeholders together to share perspectives on this topic:
Mitch Glazier, Senior Vice President, Government Relations, Recording Industry Association of America
Michael Petricone, Senior Vice President, Government Affairs, Consumer Electronics Association
Wendy Seltzer, Practitioner in Residence, Glushko-Samuelson Intellectual Property Law Clinic, American University Washington College of Law
Emery Simon, Counselor, Business Software Alliance
Breakfast for registrants will be available beginning at 8:00 a.m., and the forum itself will begin at around 8:30 a.m., and conclude promptly at 10 a.m. The event is open to the public. The charge for the breakfast is $45.00, plus an Eventbrite registration fee. Seated attendance is limited to the first 45 individuals to register for the event.
Future events in the Broadband Breakfast Club monthly series will feature other key topics involved in broadband technology and internet policy. In fact, you can mark your calendar for the next event on Tuesday, November 18, from 8 a.m. to 10 a.m., also at the Old Ebbitt Grill.
For more information about BroadbandCensus.com, or about the Broadband Breakfast Club at Old Ebbitt Grill - on the second Tuesday of each month - please visit http://broadbandcensus.com, or call me at 202-580-8196.
Posted by Drew Clark on Oct. 8, 2008 | Link |
Comments
|
I remark briefly on the commentary “how smart is Palin,” noting her mispronunciation of “verbiage” and “pundit.” I’d suggest that observers be wary of assessing qualifications based on this kind of thing. Example: one very well-educated person I know, whose IQ is high enough to qualify enough for Mensa, mispronounces several words because he was socially isolated for his formative years and formed the habit of saying them before he had the chance to hear others pronounce them correctly. I don’t mean he was shut in a closet, which wouldn’t be relevant as Palin clearly hasn’t been, but just that he lived in a rural area where most of his peers were relatively uneducated.
In any case, it is curious that the anxious analysis of Palin, stemming from the fact that she is relatively unknown, seems to turn on characteristics of social class rather than on information about her decision-making as an executive. What significant choices about things like taxes, education policy, resources, and so on was she faced with as governor? What did she do in those situations? Why? What were the alternatives? Many voters probably do elect candidates based on how someone talks or looks, but mightn’t it be nice for a change for the talking classes to assess a candidate on policy? Would she make a better political candidate if some professor had had a couple months to drill her on vocabulary and delivery, like the hapless flower seller Eliza whats-her-name? Continue reading this post »
Posted by Solveig Singleton on Oct. 6, 2008 | Link |
Comments
|
The New York Times, that dinosaur of old media, is currently live-blogging the most important Congressional debate since that epochal, thoughtful discussion back in October 2002 as to whether Iraq posed a clear and present danger to the United States justifying a declaration of war—I mean, total non-debate that preceded Congress’s decision to issue President a blank checkthat has proved nearly as expensive as the blank check currently before the Congress.
The highlight of the debate thus far:
11:39 a.m. | No socialism!: After Jeb Hensarling, a Republican representative from Texas, affirmed that he was voting against the bill because it smacks of socialism and might represent limits on liberty, Barney Frank, a Democratic representative from Massachusetts, said that he is “ever mindful” that George Bush might “lead us down the road to socialism,” and so Congress would monitor the bailout closely.
Wow. When Barney Frank, just about the closest thing to an avowed socialist in Congress after Bernie Sanders, warns about the dangers of a Republican president and supposed ”free market” champion leading us down the “Road to (socialist) Serfdom,” we should all feel a terrible chill. To paraphrase the over-paraphrased Yeats:
Surely some revelation is at hand
Surely the Second Coming is at hand!
… what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards [Washington] to be born?
Posted by Berin Szoka on Oct. 3, 2008 | Link |
Comments
|
Speaking of snakes, I am just returned from a camping trip along the Appalachian trail in the Michaux Forest, quite out of wireless reception range. Several days’ heavy rain had washed the forest clean, left the moss glowing green and the mushrooms, salamanders, crayfish, and frogs quite content. There one combats the same problems confronted by earlier settlers–mice (and the snakes they attract), staying dry and tolerably warm, the production of decent meals, and keeping small children from wandering off into the woods. Why do some people enjoy briefly returning to this world? Despite being one of those people, I can’t say. Now I am back and my day is easy and comfortable (comparatively), with time to spare contemplating the meta-structures of finance, property, and capital. Let’s all hope these structures are not nearly as fragile as our confidence in them, which, judging from the tone of remarks at last week’s ITIF conference on innovation, has fallen quite low. Continue reading this post »
Posted by Solveig Singleton on Oct. 2, 2008 | Link |
Comments
|
I recorded a video interview about the financial services bailout with Mark “Rzzn” Hopkins and Sean P. Aune of Mashable recently, focused particularly on the tech sector. We focused on making sense of things, something that hasn’t happened in Congress yet.
I think it’s pretty informative, and somewhat calming, as it should be. I’m less and less convinced that there’s a “crisis” that taxpayers ought to take pay for taking care of.
Posted by Jim Harper on Oct. 1, 2008 | Link |
Comments
|
By Berin Szoka & Adam Thierer
Progress Snapshot 4.19 (PDF)
Over the last year, a debate has raged in Washington over “targeted online advertising,” an ominous-sounding shorthand for the customization of Internet ads to match the interests of users. Not only are these ads more relevant and therefore less annoying to Internet users, they are more cost-effective to advertisers and more profitable to websites that sell ad space. While such “smarter” online advertising scares some—prompting comparisons to a corporate “Big Brother” spying on Internet users—it is also expected to fuel the rapid growth of Internet advertising revenues from $21.7 billion last year to $50.3 billion in 2011—an annual growth rate of more than 24%. Since this growing revenue stream ultimately funds the free content and services that Internet users increasingly take for granted, policymakers should think very carefully about what’s really best for consumers before rushing to regulate an industry that has thrived for over a decade under a layered approach that combines technological “self-help” by privacy-wary consumers, consumer education, industry self-regulation, existing state privacy tort laws, and FTC enforcement of corporate privacy policies.
In an upcoming PFF Special Report, we will address the many technical, economic, and legal aspects of this complicated policy issue–especially the possibility that regulation may unintentionally thwart market responses to the growing phenomenon of users blocking online ads. We will also issue a three-part challenge to those who call for regulation of online advertising practices:
1. What is the harm or market failure that requires government intervention?
2. Prove that there is no less restrictive alternative to regulation.
3. Explain how the benefits of regulation outweigh its costs.
Poor Joe Biden. He gets fewer Google searches than that Jesus guy–whatever he’s running for.
Google Trends is a nifty proxy for measuring public interest in a very narrowly defined subject. The examples above show ”Search volume” (the total number of Google search queries for each keyword) and “News reference volume” (the same for news stories) for the last twelve months in the U.S. The lettered boxes indicate news stories tagged by keyword–which I have omitted from this screenshot for the sake of simplicity.
Posted by Berin Szoka on Sep. 17, 2008 | Link |
Comments
|
C|Net’s Charles Cooper reports today that Department of Justice trustbusters are considering a comprehensive antitrust attack on Google.
Sources who have provided testimony to the government say a departmental debate revolves around whether antitrust regulators should challenge Google’s proposed revenue-sharing deal with Yahoo, or go for the whole enchilada–and haul Google into court on broader charges related to its dominance in search advertising.
C|Net’s Declan McCullagh speculated earlier this week about how Google would fare under an Obama administration:
[Obama's] technology campaign platform pledges to “reinvigorate antitrust enforcement” and “step up review of merger activity.” He complained to the American Antitrust Institute that “the current administration has what may be the weakest record of antitrust enforcement of any administration in the last half century.” If the Bush administration’s current antitrust probe of Google, coupled with this week’s apparent threat of a federal lawsuit, amounts to a “weak” record, imagine what antitrust true believers in an Obama administration might do. (A three-way split of Google into search, applications, and display ads, anyone?)
I’m not sure whether structural separation is on Google’s near-term horizon, but Washington, D.C.’s parasite economy will make its move.
Posted by Jim Harper on Sep. 11, 2008 | Link |
Comments
|
I’ve had the opportunity to be involved in the planning and organization of several conferences this fall, including one exciting event, entitled “Consensus FCC Reforms and the Communications Agenda,” which I have organized in my capacity as Assistant Director of the Information Economy Project at George Mason University.
You can read more details about the event at the Information Economy Project web site, but the basic gist is that, in spite of controversies swirling over issues such as Network Neutrality, media ownership and universal service, some policy observers believe that a range of reforms may attract bi-partisan consensus. These opportunities may be more likely to be realized if identified prior to the November 2008 election.
We’ve been fortunate enough to have a stellar cast of participants, including two former chairmen of the Federal Communications Commission – William Kennard, who served under President Clinton, and Michael Powell, who served under President George W. Bush. Theyll be speaking about substantive issues for consensus, and their discussion will be moderated by Amy Schatz, a reporter for The Wall Street Journal.
But we’ll also be talking about procedural issues — questions of agency structure, rules, and the day-by-day practices and operations to do much to impact the telecom polity. That panel, which features chief staffers for almost all of the recent FCC chairmen, will be moderated by me.
Here’s the full program:.
8:30 a.m. Welcome by Thomas W. Hazlett, Professor of Law and Economics, GMU
Panel I: Improving Procedures at the Federal Communications Commission
8:40 a.m. Peter Pitsch, chief of staff to Dennis Patrick, FCC Chairman, 1987-1989 Robert Pepper*, former chief, Office of Plans and Policy, FCC, 1989-2005 Ken Robinson, senior legal advisor to Al Sikes, FCC Chairman, 1989-1993 Blair Levin, chief of staff to Reed Hundt, FCC Chairman, 1993-1997 Kathy Brown, chief of staff to William Kennard, FCC Chairman, 1998-2001
Moderator: Drew Clark, Assistant Director, Information Economy Project
Panel II: A Cross-Partisan Agenda for Telecommunications Policy Reforms
9:45 a.m. William Kennard, Chairman, FCC, 1997-2001 Michael Powell, Chairman, FCC, 2001-2005
Moderator: Amy Schatz, Reporter, The Wall Street Journal
When: Tuesday, September 16, 2008, 8:30 a.m. - 11 a.m. Where: National Press Club, 529 14th St. NW, 13th Floor, Washington, DC
Admission is free, but seating is limited. See IEP Web page: http://iep.gmu.edu.
To reserve your spot, please email Drew Clark: iep.gmu@gmail.com.
About the Information Economy Project:
The Information Economy Project at George Mason University sits at the intersection of academic research and public policy, producing peer-reviewed scholarly research, as well as hosting conferences and lectures with prominent thinkers in the Information Economy. The project brings the discipline of law and economics to telecommunications policy. More information about the project is available at http://iep.gmu.edu.
Posted by Drew Clark on Sep. 10, 2008 | Link |
Comments
|
The Technology Liberation Front is the tech policy blog dedicated to keeping politicians' hands off the 'net and everything else related to technology. More »
Loading ...
