![]() ![]() “Business models must evolve rapidly to keep pace with the break-neck speed of change in the technology government attempts to regulate are likely to be outmoded by the time they are finally enacted, especially to the extent such regulations are technology-specific.” Innovation, expanded services, broader participation, and lower prices will arise in a market-driven arena, not in an environment that operates as a regulated industry.Īccordingly, governments should encourage industry self-regulation wherever appropriate and support the efforts of private sector organizations to develop mechanisms to facilitate the successful operation of the Internet.”Īnother prescient quote from the Clinton White House: “For electronic commerce to flourish, the private sector must continue to lead. President Clinton recognized this concept in the 1990s, and the U.S.’s economy, workers, and consumers benefited. Smart policy will lead to better outcomes than simply funneling billions of taxpayer dollars at grant winners that bureaucrats or politicians select. Failing to recognize the importance of smart regulation at the cusp of major technological advancements will reduce domestic and foreign investment and utilization of critical strategic industries. ByteDance, a controversial Chinese company, also did not have one its main business lines (advertising) designated. Earlier this year, the European Union made the first move to raise its regulatory walls against American companies with its new list of “ gatekeepers.” Of the six companies designated, only one is not an American company. While productivity growth has slowed, new technology like AI could lead to another renaissance in productivity and subsequent economic growth for countries willing to nurture this nascent industry.Įven the U.S.’s allies recognize the potential for being the global “winner” of ongoing technological dominance. The rise and promulgation of a World Wide Web unfettered by over-restrictive government mandates led to doubling of annual worker productivity gains during the late 1990s and leading into the early 2000s. A major portion of the U.S.’s economic prosperity during the 1990s came from an open-minded and innovation-focused government policy towards the then-new internet, including Section 230 and President Clinton’s Framework for Global Electronic Commerce. On a national scale, it will also undermine American leadership in new fields like AI and damage our competitiveness with China and other localities. This ideological crusade will hurt the companies themselves, reduce quality employment opportunities, and harm a constellation of suppliers and small businesses that benefit from them. The Biden administration is attempting to use the hammer of antitrust law to break up these companies or impose severe restrictions on their business practices. The U.S.’s largest sources of innovation and startup liquidity are facing multiple lawsuits from the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), and state attorneys general, baselessly accusing them of anticompetitive behavior under radical new legal theories. ![]() That’s in addition to aggressive actions against Microsoft in its acquisition of Activision, the Illumina/Grail deal, and the Horizon/Amgen acquisition. The Biden administration has launched an unprecedented antitrust offensive against some of the most innovative and successful American companies: Amazon, Apple, and Meta, to name a few. Google’s case is not the first, nor will it be the last, victim of an overly aggressive and anti-innovation ideology that is percolating from the White House to the enforcement agencies. Today, the Department of Justice (DOJ) begins prosecuting an antitrust case against one of the world’s most respected companies, a key innovator in the artificial intelligence (AI) revolution, and an employer of nearly two hundred thousand employees.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |