Economy Archives - Page 24 of 83 - Progressive Policy Institute

Mandel for Forbes, “Digital Manufacturing And The Internet Of Goods”

Posted on November 5, 2018 by The Progressive Policy Institute

Manufacturing is going digital—but it isn’t easy.

Domestic manufacturers employ 150,000 software developers and programmers, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Seems like a hefty number, right? But 120,000 of those tech experts, or 80%, are concentrated in only two industries: computer and electronics manufacturing; and transportation equipment. These are also the industries that have been buying the great majority of robots. Indeed, roughly two-thirds of the industrial robots sold in North America go to the automotive industry.

Across the rest of manufacturing, most executives are cautiously inching rather than sprinting towards digitization. The slow progress shows up in the productivity statistics. For example, labor productivity actually declined in 15 out of 21 3-digit manufacturing industries in 2017.

Continue reading at Forbes.

Litan for the Hill, “Talk of breaking up ‘Big Tech’ is misguided, premature”

Posted on October 25, 2018 by The Progressive Policy Institute

How fast the tables have turned. Only a few years ago, the major technology platform companies — Alphabet (Google), Amazon, Apple and Facebook — were widely admired.

Now, they are in the dock, accused of limiting competition; chilling startups and the innovation they bring; widening income and wealth inequality; threatening our privacy; enabling foreign actors to poison our elections; and engaging in political bias.

Some urge the government to break up the tech platforms. Others want to regulate them as public utilities. In my new e-book, “A Scalpel, Not an Axe,” recently published by the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI), I effectively say, “Hold on.”

The antitrust laws, as long interpreted by the courts, do not punish companies for successes achieved through innovation and luck, or from benefiting from economies of scale and networks that become more valuable with more users.

There is no credible evidence that any of the tech platforms has engaged in unlawful monopolization that warrants their breakup, such as AT&T’s refusal to interconnect long-distance rivals with its local phone companies (which led to its breakup in the 1980s) or Microsoft’s restrictive practices that entrenched the dominance of its Window’s operating system (which was not punished by breakup).

U.S. proponents of breaking up Google are closely watching the European Commission’s anti-Google actions and are urging U.S. regulators to take a similarly aggressive line. Despite its regulatory zeal, however, the EU is not calling for breaking up Google.

Instead, Google changed its algorithm to ensure it wasn’t favoring its price comparison engine over others. And even if American courts were to rule against Google’s tying of it apps to its Android mobile operating system, they could simply order the company to stop.

Do these big companies freeze out startups, creating what The Economist has called a “kill zone” around their markets?

Continue reading at The Hill.

How Will the Post-Brexit Data Wall Affect the European Union?

Posted on October 17, 2018 by The Progressive Policy Institute

As of March 2019, the United Kingdom will have the status of a “third country” from the perspective of the European Union and the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Will the EU accept that UK data protection standards are high enough to grant them the status of “adequacy,” which will allow data to flow more easily between the UK and the EU? Or will a “data wall” appear overnight between the UK and the EU? The answers to these questions obviously matter to the UK. These data-related issues arise at a crucial moment in the development of the EU economy, which will be badly hurt by a post-Brexit data wall. The UK finance and tech sectors are at special risk, since they require a firehose of cross-border data transfers.

Weinstein for RealClearPolicy, “Time to Get DC’s Finances Under Control”

Posted on October 17, 2018 by The Progressive Policy Institute

Once upon a time in Washington, D.C., a compulsive liar was in charge of the local government, the city’s legislature was beyond dysfunctional, and the District had debt as far as the eye could see. Today, a similar situation has returned to Washington, but this time it is the federal government, not the D.C. government, that has lost control over its ability to manage its finances.

In 1995, a Republican-led Congress worked with President Bill Clinton to get the District back on track. They created the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority — better known as the “Control Board.” The Board arguably saved D.C. from an economic collapse. Could a control board for the federal government do the same for America?

The D.C. Control Board was based on a model that had been successfully used elsewhere to help a number of jurisdictions facing fiscal and economic crisis. In 1978, after Cleveland became the first major city since the Great Depression to default on short-term notes, the Ohio legislature lent to the city to avert bankruptcy and created a state-run system for monitoring local government finances. In 1991, Pennsylvania helped Philadelphia overcome its budget crisis through the Pennsylvania Intergovernmental Cooperation Authority, which exists to this day and has the power to review and approve the city’s five-year financial plans.

Continue reading at RealClearPolicy.

Kim for USA Today, “Socialists won’t be on many ballots this fall. Moderate Democrats are surging.”

Posted on October 16, 2018 by The Progressive Policy Institute

Democratic primary voters didn’t buy the ultra-left’s ‘free-for-all’ agenda. What’s happening is not so much a liberal surge, but a moderate one.

Candidates affiliated with the Democratic Socialists and the progressive left have pushed hard this cycle for a campaign agenda heavy on government giveaways, such as free health care (“Medicare for All”), free college, guaranteed jobs and perhaps even free money (“universal basic income”).

Few of these candidates, however, will be on the ballot this fall. Rather, the insurgent left has been broadly rejected in one primary after another — and by Democrats theoretically predisposed to this pitch.

In Michigan, for instance, “establishment” candidate Gretchen Witmer beat Medicare-for-All advocate Abdul El-Sayed for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination by 22 points, while in Kansas, a former professional mixed martial artist defeated a congressional hopeful endorsed by Democratic Socialists Sen. Bernie Sanders and rising superstar Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Longtime Delaware Sen. Tom Carper easily beat back a progressive challenger, while in New York, Gov. Mario Cuomo defied his own dismal approval ratings to crush opponent Cynthia Nixon by 30 points.

These progressive losses have moreover occurred despite higher than typical turnout, which is another sign of the ultra-left agenda’s lack of appeal: What’s happening is not so much a liberal surge, but a moderate one.

Continue reading at USA Today.

New Report: Washington Is Crippling America’s Economic Future

Posted on October 15, 2018September 18, 2024 by The Progressive Policy Institute

Public investment spending could fall to lowest level in modern history by 2026

WASHINGTON — Young Americans are having their future mortgaged by Washington lawmakers who are slashing critical public investments in future generations while simultaneously burying these generations under a mountain of debt, according to a new report published today by the Center for Funding America’s Future (CFAF) at the Progressive Policy Institute.

The comprehensive report documents these trends and explores how the reckless policies of the current administration and its predecessors will drain America’s economic strength and seriously harm young Americans for decades to come if no action is taken to change course.

“America’s current fiscal trajectory is on a dangerous path,” said Ben Ritz, director of the CFAF and author of the report. “By 2029, the national debt as a percent of gross domestic product is projected to surpass the all-time high it reached at the end of World War II, if current policies remain in place. Meanwhile, annual interest payments would explode from $316 billion today to nearly $1 trillion in 2028. That’s $1 trillion every year we could be using to build bridges and railroads, find a cure for cancer, train a next-generation workforce, strengthen our armed forces, or cut taxes for middle-class workers. Instead, it will be spent servicing past debts.”

Instead of tackling these problems, President Trump and the Republican-controlled Congress are making them worse, Ritz argues. While virtually every other developed country is paying down their debts post-recession, they enacted $2 trillion in tax cuts and abandoned spending caps that Republicans demanded be imposed at a time when most economists believed it was far more perilous to cut spending than it is today.

As America racks up debt thanks to irresponsible fiscal policies, public investments are being starved. According to the report, federal spending on public investments in education, infrastructure, and scientific research was just over $300 billion in 2017 – less than 1.5 percent of GDP. Between 1965 and 1980, total federal spending on public investments regularly equaled about 2.5 percent of GDP (roughly $470 billion in 2017). If current policies continue, public investment spending is projected to fall to its lowest level in modern history as a share of the economy by 2026.

The unaffordable tax cuts enacted over the past year can and should be reversed, writes Ritz, but even if federal taxes were immediately raised to their highest level since WWII and remained there indefinitely, deficits and debt would still be growing significantly faster than the economy. It is critical that policymakers also control the costs of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, which are growing on autopilot faster than the economy due to America’s aging population.

By abandoning any pretense of fiscal responsibility, today’s policymakers are placing fiscal handcuffs on the elected officials of future taxpayers. By 2048, the report estimates Congress will have the authority to appropriate just 18 cents out of every dollar spent by the federal government, compared to 66 cents in 1968. This erosion of fiscal freedom robs future elected officials of their ability to respond to the changing policy priorities of their constituents and address unforeseen national emergencies, such as natural disasters and economic recessions.

Republicans’ fiscal mismanagement gives Democrats a unique opportunity to offer the electorate a compelling alternative: a new progressivism that invests in our country without leaving the bill to young Americans. But instead of holding Republicans accountable, some Democrats seem determined to outdo them. Many on the left now propose tens of trillions of dollars in new social spending on top of the unfunded promises the federal government already has made, without offering credible ways to pay for either.

Fixing our fiscal policy won’t be easy, but it is necessary. Ritz argues that the next Congress and President must modernize federal health and retirement programs to reflect an aging society and enact pro-growth tax reform that raises the necessary to renew public investments in the foundation of our economy. Only then can policymakers ensure America has a bright economic future.

###

Defunding America’s Future: The Squeeze on Public Investment in the United States

Posted on October 15, 2018 by The Progressive Policy Institute

Executive Summary

Policymakers who have chosen to slash critical public investments in future generations while simultaneously saddling these generations with a mountain of debt are jeopardizing the long-term economic health of the United States. Failure to correct course could have serious consequences for the economy and the American people, including lower incomes, fewer high-quality jobs, and a reduced ability for future policymakers to address new challenges.

America’s deteriorating fiscal condition should be a central issue in the 2018 midterm and the 2020 presidential elections. As Republicans in Congress and the White House abandon any pretense of fiscal responsibility, the time is right for Democrats to offer a new progressivism that invests in our country without leaving the bill to young Americans.

The goal of this report is to alert the public and policymakers to the problem and highlight the actions our elected leaders must take to avoid fiscal ruin, which include renewing public investments in the foundation of our economy, modernizing federal health and retirement programs to reflect an aging society, and enacting pro-growth tax reform that raises the revenue necessary to support both of these critical government functions.

DEBT AND DEFICITS THREATEN PUBLIC INVESTMENTS (PP. 5-11):

• By 2029, the national debt as a percentage of gross domestic product is projected to surpass the all-time high reached at the end of World War II if current policies remain in place. And on that trajectory, the national debt would grow to more than double the size of the U.S. economy within the next 30 years.

• All this borrowing comes at an enormous cost: if current policies remain in place, annual interest payments would rise from $316 billion today to nearly $1 trillion in 2028. At that point, annual interest costs would be twice the projected federal spending on public investments in education, infrastructure, and scientific research combined.

INSTEAD OF ADDRESSING THE PROBLEM, TODAY’S POLICYMAKERS ARE MAKING IT WORSE (PP. 12-17):

• While virtually every other developed country from Germany to Japan is paying down their debts, self-proclaimed “king of debt” Donald Trump and the Republican-controlled Congress have been making ours bigger. In the span of just two months, they enacted $2 trillion in tax cuts and abandoned spending caps that Republicans demanded be imposed at a time when most economists believed it was far more perilous to cut spending than it is today.

• The last time the national unemployment rate was as low as it was for most of 2018, the Clinton administration was in its fourth consecutive year of budget surpluses. But, thanks to the GOP’s borrow-and-spend policies, the next presidential election in 2020 – and potentially every election thereafter – will occur against the backdrop of an annual budget deficit of over $1 trillion.

PUBLIC INVESTMENTS ARE BEING STARVED BY BAD BUDGETING (PP. 17-21):

• Between 1965 and 1980, total federal spending on public investments in education, infrastructure, and scientific research regularly equaled about 2.5 percent of GDP (which would have been roughly $470 billion in 2017). But misguided cuts imposed by policymakers seeking to reduce deficits have taken their toll: Federal spending on public investment was just over $300 billion in 2017 – less than 1.5 percent of GDP.

If current policies are continued, public investment spending is projected to fall to its lowest level in modern history as a share of the economy by 2026. Public investment spending is likely to be cut even more in the future if policymakers are unwilling or unable to tackle the main drivers of growing deficits.

SECURING PUBLIC INVESTMENTS REQUIRES FIXING HEALTH CARE AND RETIREMENT PROGRAMS (PP. 21-29):

• While spending on public investments shrinks, spending on Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security is growing on autopilot due to an aging population. Spending on these programs relative to the size of the economy is projected to grow by half over the next 30 years (from about 10 percent of GDP today to nearly 16 percent of GDP in 2048).

• In 1965, there were 5.4 working-age Americans (those between the ages of 18 and 64) who could pay taxes to finance the health care and retirement benefits of each American aged 65 and older. But by 2050, the U.S. Census Bureau projects the ratio of working-age to retirement-age individuals could be as low as 2.6 to 1 – less than half what it was in 1965.

• There are no easy substitutes for tackling the growth of federal health and retirement spending. The unaffordable tax cuts enacted over the past year can and should be reversed, but even if federal taxes were immediately raised to their highest level since WWII and remained there indefinitely, deficits and debt would still be growing significantly faster than the economy.

THE SHORTSIGHTED STATUS QUO IS SHORTCHANGING YOUNG AMERICANS (PP. 29-31):

• Current policies are unfair to young Americans, who are already starting from a worse financial position than their parents and grandparents did. The federal government is spending nearly six times as much per elderly American (those aged 65 and older) as it is per child, even though children have a poverty rate nearly twice that of the elderly.

• The shift in priorities – from annually appropriated discretionary spending to formula-driven mandatory spending – will leave future politicians with less say over how their constituents’ tax dollars are spent. Whereas the Congress of 1968 had the authority to appropriate 66 cents out of every dollar spent by the federal government, the Congress of 2048 will have the same authority over just 18 cents on our current trajectory. This erosion of “fiscal freedom” robs future democratically elected officials of their ability to respond to the changing policy priorities of their taxpaying constituents.

• Growing debt and interest costs also have the potential to make future generations poorer, reducing the size of our economy by up to $6,000 per person per year in 2048.

The longer we wait to address these problems, the harder they will be to solve. Neither progressives (who want more social spending) nor conservatives (who want lower taxes) will benefit from a federal budget that has no room for either because it is stuck paying for the policies of the past. As Republicans in Congress and the White House abandon any pretense of fiscal responsibility, the time is right for Democrats to offer a new progressivism that invests in our country without leaving the bill to young Americans. Voters must demand our leaders enact the policies necessary to lay the fiscal foundation for a better world tomorrow.

Read the full article here:

Gerwin for New York Daily News, “Trump’s NAFTA revision actually reaffirmed open regional trade”

Posted on October 9, 2018September 18, 2024 by The Progressive Policy Institute

Donald Trump huffed, and he puffed, but he couldn’t blow NAFTA down.

Like the Big Bad Wolf in the fairy tale, President Trump presumed that NAFTA — which he’s called the “worst trade deal ever” — would collapse before his bluster like a house of straw. Trump’s bombast may have knocked a few shingles off the agreement’s free trade edifice. And it’s caused serious collateral damage to America’s neighborhood and beyond. But, in the end, NAFTA’s structure — like the Three Pigs’ house of bricks — still stands.

Trump, of course, tells a different fable. At a recent rally, Trump declared “[w]e are replacing the job-killing disaster known as NAFTA, with the brand new U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade agreement.”

Continue reading at New York Daily News.

Why Progressives Need to Embrace Innovation: Amazon’s $15/hr minimum wage

Posted on October 2, 2018September 18, 2024 by The Progressive Policy Institute

Amazon just announced that it would raise the minimum hourly wage for all of its US workers to $15 per hour, including workers employed by temp agencies. This is good news for Amazon’s workers, obviously. But it’s also a sign that we’ve moved into a new era, where technology is driving rising real wages for everyone, not just the well-educated.

Ecommerce is proving to be a positive force for labor. For 30 years, retail workers struggled with a horrible status quo that suppressed any growth in retail wages and forced workers of color into the lowest paying retailing jobs. Between 1987 and 2017, real hourly earnings for production and nonsupervisory workers in retail went up a grand total of 2%.

Amazon and other ecommerce sellers have decisively disrupted that horrible status quo, and created hundreds of thousands of better paying jobs. Even before the Amazon wage hike, PPI research found that ecommerce fulfillment centers typically pay 30% more than brick-and-mortar retail in the same area. Labor share in warehousing rose from 75.8% in 2007 to 83.2% in 2017, coinciding with the rapid growth of ecommerce fulfillment centers. Amazon’s latest move will only push the labor share up further.

These higher wages don’t make Amazon a philanthropic organization, anymore than Henry Ford was being benevolent when he boosted wages for workers in his factories in 1914. Ford needed to pay more to attract a competent workforce because his introduction of the assembly line boosted productivity, lowered prices, made cars affordable to the masses, and created an auto boom and an insatiable demand for skilled workers.

In the same way, Amazon and other ecommerce firms are using technology to transform the previously expensive process of getting products from manufacturers into the hands of consumers—what we call the “Internet of Goods.” These technological improvements have created benefits for both consumers and workers. For example, BLS data shows that real margins in the electronic shopping industry (NAICS 4541)—defined as prices received by retailers less their acquisition price of goods—have fallen by 13% since 2007. That means consumers are gaining from lower prices.

Progressives need to embrace innovation. It’s the only road to the best future for everyone.

Misguided Crew Size Legislation Risks Slowing Needed Freight Rail Growth

Posted on September 27, 2018September 18, 2024 by The Progressive Policy Institute

The Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) has previously opposed arbitrary, redundant, and costly regulations, and proposed the Regulatory Improvement Commission to eliminate them. Regulation plays a vital role in refereeing market competition, protecting public health and safety, and keeping powerful economic actors honest. But regulations must be more nimble and adaptable to catalyze growth in a fast-changing world.

For people skeptical that regulation inhibits innovation and productivity growth, here’s an example of a wrong-headed proposed rule that would put Washington in the business of micromanaging employment in the freight rail sector.

When the Rail Safety Improvement Act was passed following the 2008 Chatsworth train collision, it mandated freight railroads implement Positive Train Control (PTC). PTC is a nationwide system of newly developed technologies that constantly processes thousands of variables to avert human error, including train collisions and derailments. Its implementation came at a hefty price to the railroads, estimated to cost more than $10 billion by completion.

One of the benefits of PTC was that it would enable railroads to move from two-person to one-person crews at some point down the road, boosting productivity with no loss of safety.

However, lawmakers now appear eager to flip course as fears of automation and job loss loom large in public policy conversations. Earlier this year, the Safe Freight Act was introduced in the Senate, a companion bill to a bipartisan House proposal unveiled in 2017. The legislation would mandate the crew size of freight trains to include both a locomotive engineer and a train conductor. While the legislation will not pass before midterms, it is likely to be reintroduced next Congress.

These proposals would deny freight rail the productivity gains of the digital age despite the widespread embrace of automation for passenger vehicles and commercial trucks on highways. Labor productivity for rail transportation has risen only a modest 16 percent over the last decade, about the same as the lagging pace of productivity growth across the entire U.S. economy. Meanwhile, as shown in Figure 1, the price of railroad transportation has risen 77 percent since 2000, far outpacing inflation. Allowing the freight rail industry to digitize would jumpstart productivity growth and cut distribution costs for the energy, manufacturing, and construction sectors they serve.

What’s more, there is no evidence to suggest that one-person crews are less safe than two-person crews. Single-person crews are commonly used in other countries and the FRA acknowledges the “evidence…indicates that safety record of these foreign operations are acceptable.” In the U.S., crew sizes have steadily been reduced from the five-person crews of the 1970s to the current two-person crews, with accident rates falling more than 80 percent during that time. And passenger trains have safely used single-person crews for decades.

Railroad investment and technological advances have played a critical role in realizing safety gains over the last decade. Since 2008, freight railroads have spent $245.3 billion on capital expenditures like infrastructure and equipment. Ultrasound, ground-penetrating radar, smart sensors, analytics software, and data sharing have enabled railroads to proactively identify and fix track and equipment issues. As a result, railroad accidents are at a historic low, according to data from the FRA. As shown in the figure below, the total train accident rate dropped 42 percent from 2007 to 2017. Track-caused accidents have dropped 51 percent. And accidents caused by human error are down 41 percent.

The implementation of PTC promises to further drop accident rates. According to forecasts from the Federal Highway Administration, total U.S. freight shipments will rise from 17.7 billion tons in 2016 to 24.2 billion tons in 2040, a 37 percent increase. Imposing crew size mandates on the freight rail industry would inefficiently divert resources from investing in safety, cutting costs for consumers, and improving and expanding America’s rail infrastructure. Rather, it would unnecessarily increase labor costs in the safest era ever of rail travel.

New PPI E-Book: Don’t Break Up Big Tech, Update Data Laws

Posted on September 13, 2018 by The Progressive Policy Institute

WASHINGTON—As the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) kicks off public hearings today on economic concentration and competition, the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) weighs in with a new e-book by economist and antitrust lawyer, Robert Litan, one of America’s leading authorities on antitrust law and competition policy.

In A Scalpel, Not an Axe: Updating Antitrust and Data Laws to Spur Competition and Innovation, Litan takes a deep dive into the growing debate here and abroad about the market power of big U.S. companies, especially in the tech sector. The emergence of “tech-lash,” he says, highlights some valid public concerns, but none rise to the level of justifying the drastic solutions peddled by “antitrust populists:” breaking up the big tech firms or regulating them as public utilities.

Instead, Litan offers a measured policy response to economic concentration. “While there is a temptation to turn to radical solutions to fix our problems – with growing income inequality and our newfound worries about a loss of privacy – major departures from existing policies, especially toward some of the most successful private sector firms and the major economic and social benefits they have generated, also risk unintended costly consequences with uncertain benefits,” he writes.

“Bob Litan’s timely new ebook establishes a new benchmark for rigorous and systematic thinking about the impact of America’s dominant tech platforms on competition and inequality,” said PPI President Will Marshall. ” It illuminates the real problems progressives should tackle and offers pragmatic remedies that won’t jeopardize America’s crucial lead in high-tech innovation.”

Among his key findings, Litan concludes that while tech platforms on balance have not harmed economy-wide innovation, there is evidence that the strength of competition throughout the economy has lessened somewhat. There is also evidence that the rise of the tech platforms and concentrated employer markets across multiple sectors at the local level are contributing to wage inequality.

Anti-trust policy, however, isn’t the right lever for dealing with these concerns, Litan maintains. Other targeted policies, outside antitrust, would improve the state of competition in America, including lifting unnecessary occupational licensing requirements, an end to “no poaching” agreements, and a return to freer trade, which disciplines pricing by U.S. companies.

“There is yet no sound legal or policy basis for to break technology platform firms up for antitrust or other reasons. The law justifiably requires severe and/or sustained anticompetitive conduct as a precondition for court-ordered breakups,” he writes.

Noting the trend toward mergers between firms with dominant positions in different markets, the book proposes tightening the statutory test for mergers and establishing a rebuttable presumption against mergers where the acquiring firm has a dominant position in its market and has the ability to effectively enter any market in which the acquired firm competes.

Nonetheless, the growth of these firms has generated significant non-antitrust concerns about data security and privacy. Litan recommends updating data laws to protect privacy and security by requiring all firms, not just those in tech, to provide plain English explanations of what data the firms collect about consumers and how it is used, the ability to opt out of having their information shared with third parties, and the full disclosure of funding for political ads. He argues that federal law should also require all large data warehouses – a term that would require further definition in an authorized rulemaking – to adopt reasonable measures to ensure data security.

A Scalpel, Not an Axe also warns that the strongest regulations tech’s critics demand may also pose a threat to competition. “In all that they do to regulate the tech industry more intensely, policymakers must be aware that additional data-related regulation is likely to favor large incumbent tech firms relative to smaller competitors and new entrants. Regulatory compliance is a fixed cost, and larger firms can take advantage of their economies of scale to comply,” Litan writes.

# # #

A Scalpel, Not an Axe: Updating Antitrust and Data Laws to Spur Competition and Innovation

Posted on September 13, 2018 by The Progressive Policy Institute

Americans justifiably have long taken great pride in the unmatched ability of the U.S. economy to enable entrepreneurs to launch and grow highly innovative companies that drive growth and advance living standards. Bold entrepreneurs and the companies they founded brought us modern communications, airplanes, automobiles, computer software and hardware, and electricity and other forms of energy to power them all.

These innovations and others have constantly reshaped and remade our economy – displacing less efficient technologies and ways of doing business in a process of “creative destruction” that economist Joseph Schumpeter, many decades ago, singled out as the most important feature of capitalist economies.

The most innovative and valuable companies of our time are the leading “technology platform” companies: Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Google – a group New York University Professor Scott Galloway simply labels “The Four.” Except for Apple, none of these companies existed before 1990. That they have eclipsed in the public mind – in such a relatively short amount of time – such other tech giants as Microsoft, Oracle, Cisco and Intel is a testament to the remarkable acumen of the founders and leaders of The Four, their highly skilled workforces, and to the economy and society that have enabled them to flourish.

Marshall for The Daily Beast, “Hey, Democratic Socialists: More Big Government Won’t Fix What Ails Us”

Posted on September 2, 2018 by The Progressive Policy Institute

More bureaucracies in Washington won’t do much to improve lives. The public-sector success stories of today are the nimble and innovative metro regions.

“Go West, young man,” New York Tribune editor Horace Greeley famously urged soldiers coming home from the Civil War and wondering what to do with the rest of their lives. In that spirit, here’s my politically corrected advice to millennials who want to change the world: “Go local, young gender-unspecified person.”

Don’t look to Washington to remake American society from the top down. And don’t assume that real political change can only come through massive expansions of federal power.

Continue reading at The Daily Beast.