Category: Uncategorized

Moss and Gold for ProMarket: Federal Legislation, Not the NCAA Antitrust Settlements, Should Drive a New Model of College Sports

Posted on by Max Sherrill

By Diana L. Moss and Jason Gold

The prospect of playing a sport in college has motivated countless young Americans. How could it not? The simultaneous benefits of getting a degree, athletic training and team camaraderie, representing a college, and the poten­­tial to carve out a future professional sports career are all in play. Since the first college varsity football challenge in 1869 between Princeton and Rutgers, colleges have been a major venue for young, amateur athletes to pursue these worthy goals.  Developments in the traditional college sports model of “amateurism” have, at times, put these considerations to the test. But it is the more recent changes in the legal and economic complexities around college sports that are now redefining the norm.

The fundamental shift in the National Collegiate Athletic Association’s (NCAA) long-standing model came in the 2021 Alston v. NCAA case. There, the Supreme Court found that the league violated antitrust law by restricting athlete compensation to preserve the spirit of amateurism.

The NCAA’s loss in court meant that college student athletes are now able to control and profit from Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) agreements and other endorsements. However, settlements in ongoing private antitrust class action cases will also affect how colleges share revenue from sports programs by directly paying student athletes.

Keep reading in ProMarket.

Kahlenberg for The Liberal Patriot: Teaching Students What It Means to Be an American

Posted on by Max Sherrill

By Richard D. Kahlenberg

The United States is celebrating its 248th birthday at a moment when people across the political spectrum agree that the country’s experiment in liberal democracy is in deep trouble.

A decade ago, it would have been unthinkable that the presumptive Republican candidate for president would be someone who had tried to thwart the peaceful transfer of power and speaks of suspending the Constitution. The threat to liberal democracy on the left is less stark, fueled by the power of culture, rather than the power of the state. But it too is chilling. More than half of very liberal college students say it’s acceptable to block fellow students from hearing speakers, (compared with only 13 percent of very conservative students.) College campuses have become deeply corrosive cultures, in which eight in ten students surveyed feel they can’t speak their minds. Illiberalism on the left rises as people become more educated. Antisemitism, a former Harvard dean notes, has taken stronger root in elite colleges than in other American institutions, from libraries to hospitals, because of the way students are being taught.

It is especially worrisome that the willingness to give up on democracy is much greater among young people than those who are older. Whereas only 5 percent of those over 65 said, “Democracy is no longer a viable system, and America should explore alternative forms of government,” a shocking 31 percent of youth ages 18-29 agreed.

Why now?

Keep reading in The Liberal Patriot.

Jacoby for The Bulwark: The Trumpists’ Dangerous ‘Peace’ Plan for Ukraine

Posted on by Max Sherrill

By Tamar Jacoby

NO ONE IN THE UNITED STATES OR UKRAINE imagines that a re-elected President Donald Trump would be much of a friend to Kyiv. But the so-called “peace” proposal leaked last week by two former national security staffers from the Trump administration, now at the Trump-aligned America First Policy Institute, is even more toxic than many expected.

Predictably enough, the plan stipulates an immediate ceasefire, obligatory negotiations with Russia and a temporary—in truth, likely to be permanent—abandonment of Ukrainian claims to the 20 percent of Ukrainian territory currently occupied by Moscow. The poison pill was less predictable: Under the plan, the United States would strong-arm Kyiv to defer membership in NATO “for an extended period”—again, in the real world, most likely forever.

Trump hasn’t yet endorsed the plan, but his comments on a podcast last month suggest he is open to a NATO ban. “If Ukraine goes into NATO, it’s a real problem for Russia,” the former president told a trio of sympathetic Silicon Valley investors. Echoing a claim that Moscow and its proxies have been peddling for years, Trump argued that it was President Joe Biden’s support for Ukrainian membership in the alliance that provoked Vladimir Putin to invade in February 2022.

Keep reading in The Bulwark.

Manno for Forbes: The 4th Of July—Past, Present, And Future

Posted on by Max Sherrill

By Bruno Manno

This 4th of July brings back memories of my extended immigrant family of over two dozen relatives gathering yearly to celebrate Independence Day at my grandparents’ Italian tavern, the Golden Gate Inn, on the east side of Cleveland, Ohio. We lived in an Italian American neighborhood called Collinwood, surrounded by other ethnic neighborhoods, where similar gatherings occurred. I have five vivid memories of our gatherings, spanning from the early 1950s when I was around five years old to the mid-1960s when I went off to college.

First, it was always hot and humid. There was no air conditioning. Eventually, Dad would plug in one of the big square electric box fans and put it on a small table in the kitchen so it would spew its version of cool air on anyone lucky enough to be close to it. Sooner or later we kids would assemble in the graveled backyard—there was no grass where we lived—and use the green-colored garden hose to spray cold water on each other so we could cool off for a few minutes.

Keep reading in Forbes.

PPI Lauds Department of Energy’s East Coast Geothermal Pilot Program

Posted on by Max Sherrill

WASHINGTON – Today, Elan Sykes, Director of Energy and Climate Policy, and Alec Evans, Energy Policy Fellow at the Progressive Policy Institute, released the following statement regarding the U.S. Department of Energy’s second-round funding opportunity for enhanced geothermal systems (EGS) demonstrations under President Biden’s Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.

“The Progressive Policy Institute applauds the Department of Energy (DOE) for providing funds from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law for East Coast enhanced geothermal energy pilot projects. The DOE’s announcement follows a recent publication by PPI’s Energy and Climate Solutions Initiative that advocates for East Coast geothermal pilot plant construction. Enhanced geothermal systems (EGS) have the potential to provide consistent and plentiful renewable energy throughout much of the United States, and expanding geothermal’s footprint will accelerate the technology’s adoption and rollout. An East Coast geothermal program would prove especially beneficial for securing investments, collecting data, and counteracting public skepticism towards renewables, three of the largest hurdles inhibiting EGS adoption.”

“Moving forward, it is critical for the DOE to consider the implications of its site selection carefully. Although several regions in the Eastern U.S. are viable for geothermal, Appalachia would prove most beneficial for the initial development phase. West Virginia and Pennsylvania are among the most geologically feasible locations for geothermal, and they rely heavily on producing and generating energy for their workforces, exports, and economies. Furthermore, the energy future of these states is at risk due to the declining use of fossil fuels. Prioritizing West Virginia and Pennsylvania for geothermal pilot projects would provide an opportunity for local energy workers to transfer their skills toward clean energy and allow these states to maintain their status as energy exporters. PPI recommends that prospective developers and the state governments of Pennsylvania and West Virginia collaborate to secure a project in Appalachia and to remove any undue regulatory or permitting obstacles to this crucial resource.”

The Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) is a catalyst for policy innovation and political reform based in Washington, D.C. Its mission is to create radically pragmatic ideas for moving America beyond ideological and partisan deadlock. Learn more about PPI by visiting progressivepolicy.org.

Follow the Progressive Policy Institute.

###

Media Contact: Ian O’Keefe – iokeefe@ppionline.org

Teaching Students What It Means to Be an American: Strengthening Our Liberal Democracy

Posted on by Max Sherrill

Washington, D.C. — Liberal democracy in the United States faces unprecedented challenges from both ends of the political spectrum. On the right, actions to undermine the peaceful transfer of power and suggestions to suspend the Constitution pose severe risks. Meanwhile, on the left, cultural forces on campuses are creating an environment where liberal students increasingly find it acceptable to block opposing views. But why is it happening now? And what can be done about it?

Today, the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) released a vital framework that offers a diagnosis and a solution.  The report titled “Teaching Students What It Means to Be an American” pins the decline of liberal democracy on the rise of identity politics that causes extremists on both ends of the political spectrum to erode liberal democratic values. Report author Richard Kahlenberg, Director of the American Identity Project, offers a comprehensive solution to strengthen liberal democratic values through education. The report outlines nine actionable strategies at the K-12 and college levels to teach students a common American identity, including:

1. Providing more resources and accountability for teaching civics and American history

2. Spending more time teaching students about life in nondemocratic societies

3. Offering an honest account of American history, acknowledging both its flaws and redemptive qualities

4. Overhauling diversity, equity, and inclusion and ethnic studies programs to uplift without demonizing

5. Emphasizing what makes America exceptional

6. Integrating schools by race and income through public school choice

7. Promoting community service and national service

8. Teaching the art of civil discourse

9. Securing federal support for these educational efforts

The report’s release aligns with the upcoming Independence Day, serving as a reminder of the enduring importance of American democratic principles. It also underscores the urgent need to address divisive educational practices, particularly given the rise in antisemitism on campuses.

“The key to preserving our liberal democracy lies in educating our youth about the values that unite us as Americans,” said Richard Kahlenberg. “As we approach Independence Day, it’s a critical moment to reflect on our democracy and take decisive steps to fortify it. The American Identity Project will provide policymakers with practical tools to promote social cohesion and democratic resilience.”

Note: This report is the first in a series. It provides an overview, and subsequent reports will delve deeper into each of the nine policy ideas briefly listed above.

Read and download the report here.

The Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) is a catalyst for policy innovation and political reform based in Washington, D.C. Its mission is to create radically pragmatic ideas for moving America beyond ideological and partisan deadlock. Learn more about PPI by visiting progressivepolicy.org. Find an expert at PPI and follow us on Twitter.

###

Media Contact: Ian O’Keefe – iokeefe@ppionline.org

Ainsley for The Liberal Patriot: It’s Election Time in the UK

Posted on by Max Sherrill

By Claire Ainsley

This Thursday, the United Kingdom is heading for a historic day. Voters across the UK will go to the polls in the first general election since December 2019, when the Labour Party lost its fourth successive election to Boris Johnson’s Conservatives, who won a thumping 80-seat parliamentary majority. Extraordinarily, it looks like the Labour Party will now win this election, and usher out fourteen years of continuous but chaotic Conservative governments.

In fact, pollsters are predicting not just a Labour victory but a Labour landslide and a Conservative wipe out, at the hands of a resurgent Labour Party, revived Liberal Democrats, and support for Nigel Farage’s new party Reform UK.

Most of us who have fought for the last five years working for a Labour turnaround are reluctant to talk about election certainties. Part of this is our heads—polls have been wrong before, especially about “shy Tories.” A lot of voters are still undecided, and voters are much more likely to switch parties than they used to be. But part of this reluctance is our hearts, too.

Observers could be forgiven for thinking Labour have been the passive beneficiaries of the Conservatives’ collapse, waiting for the contradictions in the party’s electoral coalition and inter-political rivalries to take them down. They could not be more wrong.

Keep reading in The Liberal Patriot.

Teaching Students What It Means to Be an American: It Provides the Key to Preserving Our Liberal Democracy

Posted on by Max Sherrill

Executive Summary

Almost 250 years after the nation’s founding, there is broad agreement that American liberal democracy is in deep trouble. The leading Republican candidate for president has tried to thwart the peaceful transfer of power and speaks of suspending the Constitution, while activists on the left shout down speakers with whom they disagree and create a climate where large majorities feel they can’t speak their minds. Illiberal tendencies are worse on the political right than the left because they invoke the power of the state, while the left invokes the power of culture, but both are profoundly troubling and feed off of one another.

It has long been observed that authoritarian tendencies are greatest among those with less education and income, but today illiberalism on the left actually rises with increased education, the opposite of what one would hope. Disturbingly, the willingness to give up on democracy is much greater among young people than those who are older.

Why now? After a long period in which the Civil Rights movement helped make the country more democratic, why is America now backsliding? Central to the problem is the loss of a common American identity. White identity politics on the right, and racial identity politics on the left, make fights seem existential, which justifies cutting corners on democratic norms. Voters on the right are more likely to excuse authoritarian actions when they feel as though they are losing control of the country. Meanwhile, the left promotes critical race theory and antiracism policies that say racial oppression is a permanent feature of American life that can only be countered by discrimination in favor of oppressed groups.

These theories about the centrality of racial identity lead to an eerie convergence on the left and the right that questions a series of fundamental liberal democratic principles. For different reasons, both sides have become skeptical about treating Americans as individuals rather than members of racial groups. They both question concepts like advancement based on merit and the possibility of discerning objective truth. The hard right and the hard left agree that school integration makes little sense; and they both, in their own ways, are skeptical about free speech, press freedom, and the freedom to read controversial books. For different reasons, they both question academic freedom, and are both willing to embrace antisemitic beliefs.

What is the path out? Historically, public schools in America accomplished two pretty miraculous objectives. By placing a priority on teaching students the importance of liberal democratic principles, they helped keep a democratic republic going for over two centuries; and by instilling a common American identity, they provided the glue that held together people whose ancestors came from all corners of the world. In recent years, K-12 schools and colleges have moved away from this vision. They’ve placed more focus on economic competitiveness than democratic citizenship. And many focus on a vision of American and world history that divides the racial and ethnic groups neatly into categories of oppressed and oppressors, and undercut a shared American identity through poorly implemented ethnic studies programs. This new emphasis within public schools, in turn, promotes calls on the right for privatization of public education, which will only Balkanize the country further.

This report is the first in a series that will offer nine ways to once again teach students what it means to be an American.

The stakes of teaching American identity are enormous. Human beings have a natural yearning for identity and a larger purpose and if educators don’t provide young people with a love of country, authoritarians will offer false alternatives, often centered around race or ethnicity. The good news is that the public supports a better path. Instilling a renewed sense of American identity could inspire a “patriotism dividend” that could put the country on a better path for the next 250 years. Among the towering issues of our time, few are as important as this one.

Read the full report.

Regulators Deserve a Nudge, Not a Shove

Posted on by Max Sherrill

SCOTUS just did away with Chevron deference, effectively trimming the discretion enjoyed by hundreds of thousands of federal regulators across 70+ agencies.

As expected, anti-regulation voices are sounding off with unbridled glee as conservative lawmakers blow the dust off of old legislative proposals that have never garnered bipartisan traction.

If such reactions are misplaced, then how should one process this admittedly momentous decision by the high court?

Let’s start by acknowledging a truth that some on the left are loathe to admit: the work of federal regulators—thousands of new mandates every year, imposing tens of billions of dollars in costs–largely escapes oversight by elected officials. In my recent report for the Progressive Policy Institute, I note that just 8% of all new rules are reviewed by the White House, and just 17% of all new rules are required by Congress. Regulators are most certainly driving the bus.

And let’s acknowledge another truth ignored by some on the right: the public benefits enormously from regulation. Benefits exceed costs by a large margin—a conclusion drawn across numerous studies, including annual reports from the Office of Management and Budget. And polling shows that the public overwhelmingly supports regulatory protections—think clean air, safe transportation, unadulterated medicines, fiscally sound banks.

So what can and should be done, if anything, to ensure appropriate checks and balances on the so-called administrative state?

Deferring to the courts is not a viable long-term solution. Judges are ill-equipped to play the role of regulator—they lack expertise in the very technical matters that are often at the heart of any rulemaking action.

Greater reliance on the president is better, but not much. Executive orders govern the regulatory review process, but executive orders do not have the force of law, and some of the most active regulatory agencies are, by design, not subject to White House control.

No, the key take-away from the SCOTUS ruling is that Congress, which delegates its authority to regulators, needs to elevate its game when it comes to oversight. It should pass a law that shines a light on troublesome rules before they are issued. But it should do so without sacrificing the issuance of necessary rules, which are legion. Regulators deserve a nudge, not a shove.

Fortunately, such a solution—in the form of regulatory early notice—was recently introduced in the House of Representatives. The bill, H.R. 8204, co-sponsored by Rep. Don Davis (D-NC), Guy Reschenthaler (R-PA), and Tim Burchett (R-TN), would require agencies to disclose to Congress every newly initiated rulemaking, along with an explanation of its necessity and the rationale behind it. And the public would be invited to submit ideas on how best to achieve the regulatory objective at the lowest cost.

In many ways, the bill does not break new ground. It borrows language from a Clinton-era executive order that has been in place since 1993 and affirmed by every President since. And it embraces recommendations of the Administrative Conference of the United States, which was established to convene legal scholars and other experts to identify needed reforms.

What is new is this: the bill would allow Congress to see exactly how federal agencies use their delegated authority long before a new rule is issued. Just as sunlight is the best disinfectant, disclosure is the best way to ensure stronger, more defensible regulation from the get-go. The concept is, to coin a phrase, radically pragmatic. Congress should act on it.

For more on the need for regulation reform that promotes transparency and accountability in federal rulemaking, check out a recent PPI paper titled “Stronger Regulation from the Get-Go.”

About the Author

Keith B. Belton is Senior Director, Policy Analysis and Statistics, with the American Chemistry Council. His research and writings explore the intersection of public policy and private markets, with particular focus on economic development, regulation, and competitiveness.

Marshall for The Hill: The GOP’s pessimistic platform for the future is the worst of our past

Posted on by Max Sherrill

By Will Marshall

Gathering in Charlotte four years ago to renominate President Donald Trump, Republicans didn’t bother to draft a party platform. Evidently, they figured, “more Trump” was all the public needed to know about their second-term plans.

It probably was, although not in the way Republicans had hoped, as the voters dumped Trump and hired Joe Biden.

Americans vote for people, not platforms. But these manifestoes, however platitudinous and boring, are like a quadrennial Rorschach test of a party’s state of mind. The GOP’s decision to recycle its 2016 platform seemed calculated to paper over internal ideological rifts as well as their nominee’s frequent lapses into incoherence.

This time, party leaders plan to write a new platform for next month’s Republican National Convention in Milwaukee. This time, having thoroughly routed traditional conservatives and the GOP’s dwindling band of dissenters from his “stolen election” fantasy, Trump can expect blind obedience from his party.

Keep reading in The Hill.

UK General Election Bulletin – 1 Week Remaining

Posted on by Max Sherrill

This is the fourth and final of PPI’s weekly bulletin charting the course of the UK General Election, from PPI’s Claire Ainsley.

Claire is based in the UK, directing PPI’s project on center-left renewal, and is former director of policy to Labour leader Keir Starmer. She is supporting the Labour campaign, as a media commentator, as well as on the ground ahead of polling day next week on Thursday 4th July.

The U.K. is entering the final days of its general election campaign, and whilst the overall polls aren’t budging much with a sustained lead for Labour, there are some undercurrents that means the result is not a foregone conclusion.

A large minority of voters are undecided, even at this late stage. In the main, these are people who voted Conservative in 2019, don’t really want to vote for them again, but are holding back from changing their vote to Labour.

A good proportion of them are switching to new entrants Reform U.K.,  partly driven by their dissatisfaction with the Conservatives’ failure to manage immigration, and who want change not the status quo. Reform U.K. are set to do much better than the national political conversation is accounting for, taking votes mainly at the Conservatives’ expense but also from Labour. It may not translate into many MPs, but it doesn’t need to play havoc with British politics. Just look at Brexit.

Then there are the undecided voters who would normally vote Conservative, might have voted Labour under Tony Blair, but are yet to come over to Labour. Their concerns are primarily on tax and spend, which Starmer and shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves have been reassuring voters they will not put personal taxes up nor unleash public spending without the proceeds of improved growth to pay for it. The Tory campaign is now focussed on these two groups, and makes the overall result open to a broader range of election possibilities than the media coverage would suggest. Sunak threw punch after punch Starmer’s way in our final leaders’ television debate, which are not as widely watched as in the US, but signalled that’s where the Conservative strategy is at.

All this underscores the need to center-left parties to meet the voters where they are, and win the argument against the political right about destination. British voters want a better economy and better public services. They are sceptical any political party can really deliver that. Despite that, Labour’s lead is holding ahead of election day. If they do succeed, they will need to waste no time in delivering the change the country has voted for.

Ainsley in Bloomberg: Keir Starmer Builds a Big UK Election Victory on a Volatile Base

Posted on by Alex Terr

Starmer has also boxed himself in by saying he doesn’t plan to increase any taxes beyond those already announced. That risks angering voters if Labour reneges on its tax-and-spend pledges to balance the books.

“There’s a real challenge to be the party of stronger growth again, when the policies they might want to effect — state and private — feel outwith the capacity they have when they get there,” said Claire Ainsley, Starmer’s former director of policy and now a director at the Progressive Policy Institute.

Read more in Bloomberg.

Ryan for Ohio Capital Journal: To make progress on climate, Democrats must partner renewables with natural gas

Posted on by Max Sherrill

By Tim Ryan

As a lifelong Democrat and a Co-Chair for Natural Allies for a Clean Energy Future, I am eager to quickly develop a secure and practical energy policy that drives down global carbon emissions. We owe it to our children and grandchildren. And we have a moral obligation to be stewards of God’s planet. To abate the worst impacts of climate change, the impartial data and real-world success stories show we must partner the carbon-free power generation of renewables with the affordability, reliability, and security of low-carbon natural gas.

Recent commentary and short sighted attacks about me in the Ohio Capital Journal reflect the simplicity of bumper sticker slogans, even though our national energy infrastructure is far more complex. Serious people need to understand that. Cutting back on natural gas exports abroad to allied economies that need it, and turning off natural gas here at home, would be bad politics, destructive economics, and atrocious climate policy.

Keep reading in the Ohio Capital Journal.

Trade Fact of the Week: The U.S. digital economy, on its own, would be the world’s eighth-largest economy.

Posted on by Max Sherrill

FACT: The U.S. digital economy, on its own, would be the world’s eighth-largest economy.


THE NUMBERS: “GDP,” 2022* – 
World: $100.66 trillion
1. U.S. $25.74 trillion
… [China 2, Japan 3, Germany 4, India 5]
6.  U.K. $3.10 trillion
7.  France $2.78 trillion
U.S. digital economy $2.57 trillion
8.  Russia $2.27 trillion
9.  Canada $2.16 trillion

* IMF for world and countries; Bureau of Economic Analysis estimate for U.S. digital economy.

 

WHAT THEY MEAN:

Last December the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Economic Analysis statisticians ventured an estimate of the size of the American “digital economy.” After sifting the “digital” bytes and pixels out of the big manufacturing, services, mining, information, and other “sectors,” they then summed up the software, hardware, e-commerce, computer systems design, gaming, and other online (or online capable) industries. The arithmetic yielded a figure of $2.57 trillion for American digital “GDP” in 2022 — exactly a tenth of that year’s $25.7 trillion U.S. economy, and 2.5% of the $100.7 trillion world economy. Were the U.S. digital economy an independent country, it would have ranked eighth in the world, $200 billion below France and $300 billion above pre-war Russia.

Whether compared to the overall U.S. economy, the world, or other countries, the American digital economy has some distinctive features. First, it is fast-growing.  In 2022, it grew by 6.5%, nearly double the world economy’s 3.5% growth rate.  From 2017 to 2022 the gap was even larger, with the digital economy averaging 7.1% annual growth and world GDP 2.7%. Second, its population is modest: BEA estimates a total of 8.9 million U.S. digital-economy workers, slightly less than a third of the 28 million French workers for nearly the same “GDP” value.  (Alternatively, the Netherlands — a high-income country with 9.6 million workers, close to the U.S. digital-worker total — had a GDP of $1.01 trillion.) Third, it is affluent – U.S. digital-economy workers earn $2,195 per week on average, about 33% more than the $1,650 average for U.S. workers in general.  And finally, it is trade-reliant, earning 28% of its money from exports. This is about twice the U.S.’ overall 13% export reliance, and about equal to the world average.

For more on this last point, over to a smaller and equally cerebral agency — the White House’s Council of Economic Advisers, on the top floor of the Eisenhower Executive Office Building — whose data-heavy blogs serenely survey the U.S. and world economic landscapes each week. The latest, out last Tuesday, examines the interface between this U.S. digital economy and the outside world. Some of its findings:

Scale: As of 2022, digitally delivered services exports came to $719 billion, a quarter of the U.S. $3.02 trillion in total exports. This included $93 billion in exports of “ICT” services (telecommunications, computer services, and software licensing payments) plus $626 billion in “digitally deliverable” services, such as financial wires, telemedicine diagnoses, music downloads, Chatbot fails, memes, distance education, and so forth. The U.S. is easily the world’s largest supplier of these things — as an index, the WTO’s somewhat different overall “commercial services” total for the U.S. was $900 billion in 2022, about an eighth of the world’s $7.04 trillion total, and just about equal to the $492 billion of second-place U.K. and $422 billion of third-place China put together.

Exporters: The largest U.S. digital exporters are financial services providers, with 29% of the 2022 total. They aren’t far above labs and factories, though: manufacturers ranked second with 24%, much of it through revenue from “rights to use their patents, industrial processes, or software licenses abroad.” A 24% share of $719 billion is about $172 billion, so given 2022’s $1.6 trillion in exports of physical manufactured goods, U.S. manufacturers earn a tenth of their export money through digital services.  (And to complicate things a little, the physical goods themselves often incorporate digital trade — agricultural machinery communicates with its makers to analyze soil and water conditions, medical devices send data for analysis and return it to physicians, automobiles exchange data with headquarters to report signs of wear and signal drivers of the danger of collision.)  Information industries — Hollywood studios, software designers, gamers and influencers, social media and internet platforms, news and media — receive 23% of digital exports; a lengthy spectrum of service providers — architects, R&D scientists, hospitals, universities, advertisers, etc. — combine for the other 27%.

Trade Balance: As CEA notes, the U.S. is more of a seller than a buyer of digital things.  ICT services imports in 2022 were $63 billion and ICT-enabled imports were $370 billion, yielding a digital trade surplus of about $285 billion.

Future: Based purely on physical investment, digital trade seems likely to keep growing fast. Digital services move through space as radio waves via satellite beam, and along the sea-bottoms as pulses of light through fiber-optic cable. The more satellites and cables there are, and the more sophisticated they are, the more services can move, and deployment of both is fast. Last year alone saw 2,664 satellite launches. Cable-watcher TeleGeography reported 550 active and planned submarine cables in June 2023, and expects another 78 to go live by the end of 2025.  That all suggests a continuing boom.  On the other hand, as CEA concludes, growth opportunities also require openness and policy:

“The United States is poised to lead the growth in intangible flows given that the digitally-enabled services sector is one of the highest-paying and innovative segments of the economy.  The rapid growth of digital services will require careful consideration in both domestic and international regulatory regimes. While the United States ranks fifth among fifty countries in terms of having the least restrictive barriers to digital trade, African countries have the highest levels of restrictions, followed by the Asia-Pacific region. Continued consideration and consultation will be necessary to support a thriving digitally-enabled services sector in the United States.”

FURTHER READING

BEA on the U.S. digital economy.

And CEA on American digital trade.

Data:

The OECD tries to compare size and growth rates of digital sectors in Europe, Latin America, Canada, and the U.S.

Perspectives:

Geneva-based trade scholar Richard Baldwin looks at the growth of services trade and decides “peak globalization” is a myth.

Labor:

PPI’s poll of less-than-college Americans last fall finds respondents viewing ‘tech-sector’ jobs as the next generation’s best career options.

And last, on metal birds and glass wires:

Up above: Our World in Data counts last year’s 2,664 satellite launches.

Down below: Telegeography maps the world’s 600 submarine cables, and predicts 75 more lighting up over the next year.

ABOUT ED

Ed Gresser is Vice President and Director for Trade and Global Markets at PPI.

Ed returns to PPI after working for the think tank from 2001-2011. He most recently served as the Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Trade Policy and Economics at the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR). In this position, he led USTR’s economic research unit from 2015-2021, and chaired the 21-agency Trade Policy Staff Committee.

Ed began his career on Capitol Hill before serving USTR as Policy Advisor to USTR Charlene Barshefsky from 1998 to 2001. He then led PPI’s Trade and Global Markets Project from 2001 to 2011. After PPI, he co-founded and directed the independent think tank ProgressiveEconomy until rejoining USTR in 2015. In 2013, the Washington International Trade Association presented him with its Lighthouse Award, awarded annually to an individual or group for significant contributions to trade policy.

Ed is the author of Freedom from Want: American Liberalism and the Global Economy (2007). He has published in a variety of journals and newspapers, and his research has been cited by leading academics and international organizations including the WTO, World Bank, and International Monetary Fund. He is a graduate of Stanford University and holds a Master’s Degree in International Affairs from Columbia Universities and a certificate from the Averell Harriman Institute for Advanced Study of the Soviet Union.

Read the full email and sign up for the Trade Fact of the Week.

Manno for Forbes: Britain’s Labour Party Promotes Opportunity Pluralism

Posted on by Max Sherrill

By Bruno Manno

The United Kingdom holds a general election on July 4th, the day we former colonists celebrate Amexit—America’s 248th birthday of our self-proclaimed exit from that country. A 2024 Pew Research poll of British adults taken before the call for an election concluded that “Britons see the state of the UK in relatively bleak terms.”

Current U.K. polls show the opposition Labour Party crushing the governing Conservative Party, in power since 2010. Truth be told, the only poll that counts is what voters say on July 4th. But assuming polls are generally accurate, there is value in assessing how Labour’s proposed working family’s agenda for education and workforce training resembles U.S. conversations on what I call opportunity pluralism.

One must begin by acknowledging that U.S. education governance is more decentralized than in Great Britain. Hence, much of the information exchange between representatives from a new Labour government and the U.S. would involve initiatives implemented at the state and local levels in the U.S.

Keep reading in Forbes.