As of this week, there are 16 declared candidates in the 2016 presidential sweepstakes, with at least five more waiting in the wings. This makes for a rich cacophony of themes, messages, and policy proposals. But at the end of the day, this campaign really should be about one thing above all else—how to make the U.S. economy truly flourish again. Most people would agree we need an economy that is marked by expanding opportunities, rapidly rising wages, lower unemployment, and a broad-based sense of optimism about America’s fortunes. The question is: How can we create those conditions?
The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation has offered a series of concrete recommendations in an open strategy memo and suggested campaign speech that we invite all candidates to borrow from freely. They detail a comprehensive policy program to grow the U.S. economy by invigorating enterprises through greater innovation, productivity, and competitiveness.
This enterprise-centric approach would constitute a wholesale reimagining of both conservative supply-side and liberal demand-side economic doctrines, yet partisans in both camps will find proposals they can embrace unreservedly. Among other things, the right will welcome initiatives to streamline regulations
ITIF is counting down the days until the launch of a new report “How Tech Populism is Undermining Innovation” that discusses how recent policy debates on technology issues, including the fights over net neutrality and SOPA, have been dominated by heated and overblown populist rhetoric, rather than fact-based policy analysis to advance the public interest. ITIF argues that an “us vs. them” populism has taken over technological debates in recent years and has had a deleterious effect on policymaking.
To help those who might know someone suffering from tech populism (or themselves might be a victim), for the next two weeks ITIF will release a helpful hint each day on how to identify the symptoms of this terrible affliction.
Monday, March 16, 2015
Tuesday, March 17, 2015
Wednesday, March 18, 2015
Thursday, March 19, 2015
Friday, March 20, 2015
Monday, March 23, 2015
Tuesday, March 24, 2015
Wednesday, March 25, 2015
Thursday, March 26, 2015
Friday, March 27, 2015
Anti-GMO advocates assert that they are winning in their campaign to free the world of GMOs by pointing to the passage of labeling laws in a scant handful of states. To listen to them, it is only a matter of time before labeling is required everywhere, and from there it is a short step to the “market” demanding non-GMO food. Now that the dust has settled from all the activity of 2014, it is time to take stock and see where things stand.
Proponents did manage to get a law passed in Vermont in 2014. But if that was a “victory” it was Pyrrhic. As predicted, it was immediately challenged in court (by food companies, not, as opponents claim, by Monsanto), where it is likely doomed on multiple grounds. Earlier passage of similar bills in Connecticut and Maine require a trigger before they would come into effect, and that trigger—in essence, requiring New York to pass a mandatory labeling requirement—is unlikely to be met. Campaigns mounted in more than 30 states have been conspicuous by their (costly) failures, including expensive battles over the past decade in states like California,
“Abdominal pain comes first. After three days, the kidneys fail. After five days, neurological dysfunction leads to paralysis and breathing difficulties. Patients who survive will be dialysis-dependent for the rest of their lives. But in the end, most will die.” That’s from ITIF Trade Policy Analyst Michelle Wein’s gripping monograph, The Devil Wears Counterfeit Prada—And Sells Fake Glycerin: The True Cost of Global Trade in Illicit Goods, which leads by describing the mass poisoning of 100 Panamanian children in 2006 caused by Chinese exports of counterfeit glycerin that was really poisonous diethylene glycol. Unfortunately, that’s just one example: each year, approximately 1 million people around the world die from counterfeit drugs, which account for 30 percent of global drug sales. And that’s just the damage from one category of counterfeited products. It doesn’t even count the damage caused by counterfeit foods, pet medications, electronic products, or the over 1,800 cases of suspected counterfeit electronic parts recently found across a wide range of U.S. weapons systems, according to a 2012 Senate Armed Services Committee report. In fact, the total value of the global counterfeit goods trade now tallies $1.8 trillion
Senator and likely presidential hopeful Marco Rubio (R-FL) appeared on last Tuesday’s The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, promoting his new book and weathering an endless stream of jokes about his home state of Florida. While the discussion covered a range of policy ground, we wanted to highlight one comment by Senator Rubio that showed an all too common misunderstanding of innovation and automation.
Rubio said, “The concern I have about the minimum wage increase is that we have been told by the CBO and independent analysts that it will cost certain jobs. And that happens when some businesses will decide that well, you’ve now made our employees more expensive than machines so we’re going to automate. So in 5-10 years it’s going to happen anyway but this will accelerate this process, when you go to a fast food restaurant it will not be a person taking your order, there will be a touchscreen there that you will order from and when you get your order it will be right. [uneasy laughter] But the point is, if you make that person now more expensive than that new technology, they’re going
History is riddled with examples where attempts to achieve one outcome actually led to the opposite result. In May, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled that Europeans have the “right to be forgotten,” the ability to request search engines to remove links from queries associated with their names if those results are irrelevant, inappropriate, or outdated. Just as Prohibition famously increased alcohol consumption, it would seem the “right to be forgotten,” while intended to increase online privacy, may actually have the opposite effect, both by cataloging shameful information and incentivizing individuals to publicize the very materials people want forgotten.
Since the decision, Google has scrambled to meet Europe’s demands by creating an online form to process removal requests and hiring new personnel to handle compliance. When individuals want information removed about themselves, they must submit verification of their identity, provide the URLs to be removed, and justify why they should be taken down. Google then verifies that the submitted information is accurate and meets the criteria for removal. Then, if the company decides to take the link down, it notifies the website where the content was posted of
Earlier this year, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) in the U.S. Department of Commerce announced its intention to relinquish oversight of key technical functions of the Internet. Towards this end, NTIA asked the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) to convene global stakeholders to develop a proposal to take over the current role played by NTIA in the coordination of the Internet’s domain name system (DNS). This process is currently underway.
As the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) told Congress in testimony earlier this year, the transition away from U.S. oversight creates unique risks and challenges for Internet governance, many of which we may not be able to anticipate today. Without the current oversight provided by the United States, ICANN will not be accountable to anyone and will only be motivated by the interests of those individuals who control the organization. This makes it incumbent on the NTIA, the ICANN leadership, and global Internet stakeholders to insist that a comprehensive set of principles for the responsible management of Internet resources be firmly embedded within ICANN before the transition is allowed to be completed.
The past two weeks have seen two important announcements come out of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). First, Commissioner Edith Ramirez was designated to replace outgoing Commissioner Jon Leibowitz as Chairman. Second, identity theft has been reported as the top consumer complaint to the FTC for the 13th year in a row.
Why are these two announcements related? It’s simple. As Chairwoman Ramirez considers how she will lead the FTC throughout her term, it’s worth looking at where the FTC can help Americans the most, particularly in an era of limited budgets. And the most recent data from the FTC overwhelmingly shows that the top priority for the Commission should be on identity theft.
The latest data on identity theft comes from the FTC’s recently released Consumer Sentinel Network Data Book for 2012. The Consumer Sentinel Network (CSN) is a database of consumer complaints received by a variety of sources including the FTC, state law enforcement agencies, state attorneys general, the FBI, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, and the Better Business Bureau. While there are limits to how the data should be used
President Obama Calls for Creation of a National Network for Manufacturing Innovation in State of the Union Address
In his State of the Union address this evening, President Obama called on Congress to support creation of a network of at least fifteen manufacturing innovation institutes that would bring together industry, universities, community colleges, federal agencies, and states to accelerate innovation by investing in industrially relevant manufacturing technologies with broad applications. The first institute in this network, the National Additive Manufacturing Innovation Institute, launched in Youngstown, Ohio in August 2012 to pioneer additive manufacturing and 3D printing technologies and tonight the President announced the launch of three more of these manufacturing hubs “where businesses will partner with the Departments of Defense and Energy to turn regions left behind by globalization into global centers of high-tech jobs.
As ITIF explains in Why America Needs a National Network for Manufacturing Innovation, these institutes are poised to play a pivotal role in spurring U.S. industrial competitiveness and revitalizing American manufacturing by helping bridge the gap between basic research and product development, providing shared assets to help companies (including small- to medium-sized enterprises, or SMEs) access cutting-edge capabilities and equipment, and creating a compelling environment in which to educate and train
It appears that Congress may actually take up the issue of immigration reform and with it the issue of high-skill immigration. And toward that end Senators Hatch (R-UT), Klobuchar (D-MN), Rubio (R-FL) and Coons (D-DE) have taken the lead on the Immigration Innovation Act of 2013 (known as I-squared) which would make it easier for foreign science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) students and workers to come and stay in America, while at the same time raising increased funds from the U.S. high-tech industry to support programs to help train Americans in STEM skills.
And not surprisingly this common sense and needed legislative proposal has provoked the usual opposition from the some on the left. Take Ross Eisenbrey’s recent New York Times op-ed, “America’s Genius Glut.” Eisenbrey, of the liberal Economic Policy Institute, argues that I-squared is not needed, because, he claims: 1) America’s technology leadership is not endangered; 2) We aren’t turning away foreign students, or forcing them to leave once they’ve graduated.; and most importantly 3) there is no labor shortage in high-tech occupations. Let me address these fallacies of each of these arguments.
America’s technology leadership