Economy Archives - Page 52 of 83 - Progressive Policy Institute

Bloomberg West: Does Tech Help the San Francisco Economy?

Posted on April 5, 2014 by The Progressive Policy Institute

PPI’s Michael Mandel spoke on Bloomberg Television‘s “Bloomberg West” on April 4th to discuss the pros and cons of tech tax breaks. He identified the lessons to be taken from the San Francisco tech boom example and gave his arguments for why governmental support of tech has been imperative for economic growth in San Francisco:

The Tech Info boom has the potential to spread jobs and spread growth across a broader part of society than people think. [In SF] they were very encouraging and welcoming to tech firms, they offered some very targeted tax breaks. […] If a city administration is focused on attracting tech firms, that is actually a potent force for development.

Watch the entire video on Bloomberg Businessweek here.

Mandel Speaks at All Things Connected Washington Post event

Posted on March 28, 2014September 18, 2024 by The Progressive Policy Institute

Michael Mandel, chief economic strategist at the Progressive Policy Institute, described the Internet of Things as the “extension of the Internet to the physical world. He told the audience at Washington Post Live’s All Things Connected forum, “The Internet has transformed digital industries, while the Internet of Things will transform physical industries.”

Senate hearing on student loans did not HELP

Posted on March 28, 2014 by The Progressive Policy Institute

Yesterday’s hearing of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee on student loans seemed to clearly answer the question of who is to blame for our $1.2 trillion and climbing student debt debacle. The only problem is, it was inaccurate. That makes the conversation unproductive regarding making federal aid policy effective.

If you believed the hearing, private lenders, loan servicers (TIVAS), and greedy state guaranty agencies (GAs) are to blame. During the hearing Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) prided her role in passing recent cuts to GA-collected fees, as “providing relief to struggling borrowers.”

This is little more than politically charged rhetoric. There is no question young Americans are struggling more than any other age group, and this is exacerbated by student debt. But in reality, the finger-pointing for whom to blame is not so cut and dry, and any real improvement to the student aid system must reflect that.

Just as with the subprime mortgage crisis, everyone involved played a role in driving our student debt burden. States have decreased funding for public universities (for example, Colorado is expected to stop all funding by 2022), schools have increased tuition to fill the difference, borrowers have little incentive to make smart borrowing decisions, for-profit institutions have a less than stellar track record, and funding has been readily available regardless of credit backgrounds to enable equal access and opportunity. Of course, there is also the epidemic lack of financial literacy of student borrowers. Lenders, school counselors, parents, or the borrowers themselves could all be to blame.

Moreover, the underlying dominance of four-year college model is also partly to blame. The fact is not all four-year degrees are created equally, and not all jobs require a four-year degree. Yet the lack of other viable options for workforce success could explain why everyone is encouraged to pursue a four-year degree. It could partly explain the astonishing rise in graduate school over the last decade, as poor employment prospects force college graduates to find ways to stand out, and the rising student debt that comes along with it.

Certainly some private loan servicers are not completely innocent, and may not always put student interests above their own short-term goals. But the harsh tone taken by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) yesterday does not address the larger issues at play. Her comment, “Sallie Mae has repeatedly broken the rules and violated its contracts with the government, and yet Sallie Mae continues to make millions on its federal contracts,” even prompted the Department of Education to come to Sallie Mae’s defense.

Indeed, not all private-sector participants among the accused are approaching borrowers with mal-intent. Take for example state guaranty agencies (GA), the legacy administrators of the Federal Family Education Loan Program (FFELP) for a given state. Left out of the hearing discussion seemed to be the important fact that GAs are non-profit companies designated by the Department of Education. Their fees are used for an important cause – for extensive financial literacy training programs set up across state networks. The more their fees are cut, the fewer financial literacy services they will be able to provide.

The demonization of private loan servicers might lead one to think that federalizing student loan servicing would solve the problem. However, isolating TIVAS is counter-productive. Not only are student loan servicers not the greedy profiteers they are made out to be, but there is no reason to believe the government would be more cost-effective at loan administration. Further, there is no evidence that expanding the federal role in student loan administration would do much to relieve the existing student debt burden.

Instead, Congress should work with TIVAS and GAs as partners as they work to reform the federal student aid program. Just as the issues surrounding the student debt burden are systemic, so too must be the solution. Pointing fingers at a select few accomplishes little, even if it does sound good during election season.

If there is any take-away from yesterday’s hearing, it is that student loans have become the latest issue in need of greater awareness and education concerning all of the aspects. There are over 80 million young Americans under age 20 that are counting on policymakers to get the federal aid system right for when they invest in college. Luckily, since the re-authorization of federal student aid programs is almost certain to get postponed for yet another year, it is not too late.

This article was originally posted by The Hill, read it on their website here.

TechCocktailDC: 5 Factors That Determine Whether The Internet of Things Can Save the US Economy

Posted on March 28, 2014 by The Progressive Policy Institute

PPI’s Michael Mandel was quoted in an article by Ronald Barba for Tech Cocktail DC. He was cited in “5 Factors That Determine Whether The Internet of Things Can Save the US Economy” on the figures for Internet of Things (IoT), the environmental necessity of the IoT, the recognition of IoT as a job creator, and on the benefits this affords the workforce:

Mandel thinks that the Internet of things will eventually prevent the need for human trainers; rather, we can simply learn new skills through innovative solutions that connect the digital and physical spaces.

Read the entire article on Tech Cocktail website here.

The Need to Support Business Investment

Posted on March 28, 2014September 18, 2024 by The Progressive Policy Institute

Here’s the situation: Fundamentally, investment is what drives productivity and growth. Unfortunately, more than six years after the Great Recession started, business investment is still weak. The chart below shows nonresidential investment in structures and equipment as a share of GDP. It’s pretty easy to see that such capital expenditures have basically plateaued below 8.5% of GDP, compared to more than 9.7% at the time when the economy went into the tank.

From a policy perspective, given this weakness in investment, we should be doing everything we can to increase the incentives for capital spending. The best course is probably wholesale reform of the corporate tax system, but politically that’s out of the question right now.

A second-best alternative is to extend “bonus depreciation.” Bonus depreciation, which allows companies to immediately expense a certain portion of their capital spending, has the effect of lowering the hurdle rates for new investment.The provision officially expired as of the end of 2013. But Congress can renew bonus depreciation for 2014.

Extending bonus depreciation is not a panacea for the country’s economic ills. But at a time when Congress is deadlocked, bonus depreciation may be one of the easier ways of keeping business investment from weakening even more.

Forbes: Why CIOs Need To Think About The Internet Of Things

Posted on March 27, 2014 by The Progressive Policy Institute

Forbes’ Howard Baldwin wrote an article on March 26th about the Internet of Things and its importance for CIOs, referencing PPI’s Michael Mandel presentation for the Washington Post‘s “All Things Connected” event:

The webinar launched with one of the best explanations of the Internet of Things I’ve heard, from Michael Mandel, chief economic strategist, Progressive Policy Institute. He described the Internet of Things as the “extension of the Internet to the physical world. The Internet has transformed digital industries, while the Internet of Things will transform physical industries.” The former represent about 20% of the GDP, Mandel said, but physical industries – manufacturing, transportation, public service, health care – represents the other 80%. That in turn represents a huge impact to the economy.

Read the entire article on Forbes website here.

Where Government is Working

Posted on March 26, 2014September 18, 2024 by The Progressive Policy Institute

With the federal government in gridlock, cities step into the breach.

Welcome to New Orleans, city of the future.

Wait, New Orleans? The decadent old tourist trap that’s been trading on its fading cultural glories for decades? That’s right – the Crescent City has its mojo working again.

Since the ravages of Hurricane Katrina, the Big Easy has reinvented itself as a mecca for entrepreneurship and a magnet for young and highly educated workers. Forbes ranked New Orleans number one in IT job growth. Another ranking of America’s “cities of aspiration,” which blends economic performance, quality of life measures and demographics, lists New Orleans second behind Austin, Texas. New Orleans is also leading the transformation of urban education. An amazing 79 percent of its students attend charter schools, and — more amazing still — they are on track to become the first inner city students in the nation to outperform their counterparts in the rest of the state.

New Orleans also benefits from dynamic political leadership and a cooperative civic culture. Mayor Mitch Landrieu is a tough-minded progressive who has cut the city’s budget by a quarter, spun off inefficient public health clinics and forced the city’s regulators to dramatically speed up licensing and permitting. Voicing a pragmatism that’s all too rare in the ideological hothouse of Washington, Landrieu notes that “government can be too big and too small at the same time.” He has also launched the New Orleans Business Alliance, the city’s first public-private partnership for economic development, and has used the money freed by his “cut and invest” approach to upgrade municipal infrastructure and improve public safety (an astronomical murder rate is the city’s biggest problem).

What’s happening in New Orleans, however, is hardly unique. It’s emblematic of a larger story: A renaissance in local governance as Washington sinks deeper into paralysis.

While Congress becomes both more ideologically polarized and less productive than ever, local governments are innovating, collaborating and equipping their citizens and communities with tools for successful problem-solving.

This “metropolitan revolution”, as Bruce Katz and Jenifer Bradley of the Brookings Institution have dubbed it, illustrates the genius of American federalism. Its subtle dynamics seem to ensure that not every level of our government can be broken at the same time.

It’s also a dramatic role reversal from a couple decades ago, when the nation’s big cities were synonymous with failure and decline. From New York to Detroit, Cleveland to Los Angeles, U.S. urban centers were beset by deindustrialization and toxic waste, rising poverty, soaring crime rates, municipal corruption, racial friction and middle class flight to the suburbs.

Overwhelmed by these economic and social maladies, many urban leaders took refuge in victimhood and looked to Washington for salvation. As I’ve noted elsewhere, many cities seemed to develop a cargo cult mentality, waiting like Pacific islanders during World War II for pallets of federal aid to drop miraculously from the sky – which never came.

What came instead was a new wave of reform-minded mayors preaching self-reliance and homegrown solutions to local problems. These included pragmatic progressives like John Norquist in Milwaukee, Ed Rendell in Philadephia, Cory Booker in Newark and Martin O’Malley in Baltimore, as well as moderate Republicans Rudy Guiliani and Michael Bloomberg in New York. They used innovations like data-driven analysis and community policing to drive crime rates down. They experimented with ways to reduce welfare dependency and demolished public housing complexes that concentrated and isolated the poor. A few brave souls took over abysmal inner city school systems, cutting swollen bureaucracies, launching innovative charter schools, and holding principals and teachers accountable for student performance.

Metros on Top

Today, America’s cities and metro regions are the star performers of our federal system. They are America’s main hubs of economic innovation and dynamism and are reviving the U.S. economy from the ground up.

Houston, for example, as Derek Thompson of The Atlantic notes, has added more than two jobs for every one it lost in the Great Recession. Katz and Bradley report that cities like Portland and Tampa are concentrating on boosting exports into global markets. In Northeast Ohio, Cleveland and other cities are collaborating on joint strategies to become a hub of advanced manufacturing, targeting 3-D printing in particular. After the recession/financial crisis, Bloomberg launched an imaginative competition to attract engineering and applied science campuses to New York, to lessen the city’s economic dependence on Wall Street.

To Katz and Bradley, it all adds up to “an inversion of the hierarchy of power in the United States.”

The urbanologist Alan Ehrenhalt sees another kind of inversion at work in America’s metropolitan regions. As he explained in an interview with Smartplanet.com:

The demographic inversion simply means that, contrary to where we were a generation ago, with the inner city meaning “the place where poor people live” and the exurbs being where the affluent flee to; in the future, the center of the city is going to be where affluent people choose life. Not necessarily by tens of millions, but in significant numbers. Suburbs are going to be the place where immigrants and the poor congregate.

What’s behind this change? The disappearance of heavy manufacturing from many cities, says Ehrenhalt, has made them more attractive places to live. So has the steady decline in crime rates over the past several decades. And millennials in particular seem to find urban life more exciting than the placid suburbs most of them grew up in.

O Come Emanuel

If there’s a poster child for the metro revolution it’s probably Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel. A former adviser to President Clinton and Member of Congress, the acerbic Emanuel left his job as President Obama’s Chief of Staff to run for Mayor after longtime Mayor Richard Daley decided to call it quits. “Washington is dysfunctional politically, and it’s not just a momentary thing,” he explained to the New York Times’ Tom Friedman.

We’ve always said that there’d be a day when all that the federal government does is debt service, entitlement payments and defense. Well, folks, that day is here. So, federal support for after-school programs has shrunk. We added to ours, but I had to figure out where to get the money. The federal government is debating what to do with community colleges. We’ve already converted ours to focus on skills development and career-based education. I worked for two great presidents, but this is the best job I’ve had in public service.

None of this means Washington is at risk of becoming irrelevant – sorry, conservatives. But it does argue the merits of a serious push for a systematic decentralization of decisions and resources to state and local governments. It’s time to revisit former Congressional Budget Office chief Alice Rivlin’s ideas for devolving large responsibilities from Washington. And even during the present political stalemate, there are things Congress and the White House can do to enable local leaders to succeed. One is a generous waiver policy to allow for greater state and local experimentation. Combining lots of small programs – the federal government has 82 for teacher training alone – into broad, performance-based grants would also promote both local flexibility and efficiency.

Most important, progressives should get out of the habit of treating Washington as the line of first resort when some urgent problem demands a governmental response. Congress, the National Journal reports, is more ideologically polarized than ever. Not coincidentally, the previous Congress was the least productive in modern times. The current one – already effectively closed for serious business until November’s midterm elections — could turn out to be even more barren of legislative achievement.

And since no one seems to know how to throw the engines of polarization and hyper-partisanship into reverse, Washington is likely to remain mired in impotence and inertia for quite a while.

But don’t give up on democracy in America just yet. As conservatives try to undermine public confidence in government yet further, progressives should look outside Washington to local governments that are proving to be effective instruments for advancing the common good.

The piece is cross-posted from Republic 3.0.

National Journal: An Old Idea, Tolling Federal Highways

Posted on March 18, 2014 by The Progressive Policy Institute

Fawn Johnson, writing for National Journal, quoted former Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell on the need for further investment in national infrastructure. Johnson was the moderator for PPI’s Investing in Jobs and Infrastructure: Twin Keys for Metro Growth event last week and her quote comes from Rendells opening remarks at that event. In explaining the need for infrastructure invesement, Rendell said:

The argument against tolling on federal highways has been, ‘We paid for it once.’ OK, we paid for it once. …It’s like buying the $45,000 car of your dreams and for the next four or five years not putting a penny into it. It’s silly.

To read the rest of the article, visit National Journal’s website here.

A Brief History of Internet Regulation

Posted on March 13, 2014 by The Progressive Policy Institute

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Proposals to regulate the Internet are often presented as “new” solutions to deal with modern problems, but the most significant of these proposals, such as “network neutrality” and common carrier rules on unbundling and interconnection, are actually vestiges of long-outmoded ways of thinking about telecommunications policy. This paper explores the relevant regulatory history, offering critical context to today’s Internet policy debates.

From the early days of the AT&T monopoly well into the 1990s, regulators, the courts and the Congress engaged in a lengthy effort to protect consumers and ultimately bring competition into the markets for local and long-distance telephone service. This included strict “common carrier” utility regulations and mandatory interconnection requirements and ultimately the 1984 Modified Final Judgment, which forced the breakup of AT&T into regional Baby Bells. From the beginning of “community antenna TV” through the 1990s, a parallel but more limited effort was made to regulate the nascent cable industry. While these regulations had some success, technological change quickly outstripped them—both in the telephone business and the emerging field of high-speed data—and a bipartisan consensus formed in the early 1990s that additional steps were needed to promote competition in all these arenas.

The result was the Telecommunications Act of 1996, watershed legislation that marked the end of the telephone age and the beginning of the Internet age from a policy perspective. The Act embraced and codified the FCC’s distinction between traditional telephony/telecommunications services and the emerging world of information services, with strict common carrier rules limited to the former. On the telephone side, this meant a stifling regime of mandatory “unbundling” and rigid price controls, while giving the private sector more latitude to innovate and invest on the “information services” side. The 1996 Act may not have specifically contemplated the rise of the broadband Internet (the idea of an “information superhighway” was in the air, but the exact form it would take was still unclear as a matter of both technology and policy), but by protecting information services from the common carrier framework, the Act set the stage for the dynamic growth we have seen in American broadband.

The result was a boom in cable broadband investment that telecommunications providers attempted to counter by offering DSL services. But any new DSL capability they constructed had to be leased out to competitors at below market prices under the unbundling regime, which limited their efforts. When fiber and DSL were relieved of their unbundling obligation in the early 2000s, however, capital poured in and these services flourished as fixed-broadband competitors to cable. In fact, that competition drew a competitive response from cable, in turn leading to a virtuous cycle of improvement and enhancement resulting in the United States ascending to the upper reaches of the International broadband rankings.

This background sheds important light on current calls to impose “new” regulations on broadband either through “network neutrality” rules or by reclassifying it as a “telecommunications service” subject to common carrier obligations. While advocates suggest otherwise, these proposals are clearly not new, but would represent a return to the dated—and in the view of this paper failed—approach that the bipartisan 1996 Act was designed to sweep away. Most of these proposals for network micromanagement, forced sharing of investments, and government influence on pricing have been associated with low investment and innovation. These rules may have made sense when the problem was how to protect consumers in the days of the sanctioned Ma Bell monopoly, but the business and consumer landscape is dramatically different today in almost every regard.

Ultimately, three key lessons emerge from this policy review. First, information services and telecommunications services really are different, and broadband has flourished as an information service free from ill-fitting and stifling common carrier constraints. Second, investment and capital flow to where regulation (or the absence thereof) encourages them to flow. And third, technology, business models, and consumer behaviors change and, as they change, the meaning and effect of different regulatory proposals change as well.

Download the entire report.

The Hill: Been there, done that on broadband

Posted on March 13, 2014 by The Progressive Policy Institute

A DC federal court struck down the FCC’s “net neutrality” regulations earlier this year, but did nothing to resolve an ongoing debate over whether or how the government should regulate the Internet. At the heart of the controversy lies a central question – should we regulate the Internet as we did the old telephone network and other so-called “common carriers”?

In a paper to be released this week by the Progressive Policy Institute, I examine the past two decades’ experience to shed light on this question. And the answer that keeps coming up is that proposals for strict utility-style regulation of the Internet have two things in common. First, they are based on the presence of a “natural monopoly” for broadband that simply does not exist. And second, where they have been tried, utility-style rules have been the greatest single obstacle to investment in broadband infrastructure.

From the earliest days of the Bell monopoly, our telephone system was built around an explicit bargain. In exchange for a guaranteed and low-risk profit, the Bell system would provide quality, reliable phone service to the nation. This bargain was deemed necessary because it was assumed that phone service was a “natural monopoly” where the costs of infrastructure were so high that competition wasn’t possible. But by the 1990s, those assumptions had completely broken down. Microwaves and coaxial cable could carry phone calls, phone lines could deliver video, and an “information superhighway” loomed in the future.

The Clinton administration’s Telecommunications Act of 1996 sorted this mess out and launched the age of modern Internet policy – trusting market forces and technological innovation to the maximum extent. It was an act of incredible political maturity. Its authors knew something remarkable was about to happen and that government could best serve it by stepping back and letting private investment happen.

Continue reading at the Hill.

Marketplace Business: Ghetty Images and IP Rights

Posted on March 6, 2014 by The Progressive Policy Institute

Michael Mandel, PPI’s Chief Economist, was interviewed by Dan Weissmann of Marketplace Business to help unwrap Ghetty’s decision to offer 35 million of its protected images to the public for free. Mandel explained why the status quo wasn’t working:

If you have content that gets used by somebody else, and it gets used for free, then your only option is to sue them, and that’s a really terrible option.”

You can listen to the interview on Marketplace’s website here.

Putin Is a Threat to the Free World America Helped Build

Posted on March 4, 2014 by The Progressive Policy Institute

In occupying Crimea, Vladimir Putin has brought the Russian bear, snarling and clawing, out of its post-Cold War hibernation. An anxious world awaits America’s response.

President Obama’s challenge is three-fold. The first and most urgent task is to discourage Putin from authorizing deeper incursions into Ukrainian territory on the pretext of protecting their Russian-speaking compatriots from “fascists.” That could be the thread that unravels Ukraine‘s independence.

Sending Secretary of State John Kerry to Kiev this week is a welcome gesture of U.S. solidarity, but in truth there is little Washington can do to stop Putin from grabbing a larger chunk of the country. No one is prepared to go to war over Ukraine, and the Russian strongman knows it. Nonetheless, Obama should spell out an escalating chain of penalties Russia will incur for further aggression.

Second, Washington must orchestrate a global chorus of condemnation of Russia’s blatant violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty, reinforced by sustained diplomatic and economic pressure on Putin to withdraw his troops. The third task is to solicit economic aid to help stabilize Ukraine’s fragile new government and lessen its dependence on Russia.

Pundits are calling the crisis the gravest test to date of Obama’s international leadership. Perhaps, but there’s a larger question: Can the divided U.S. government, which can scarcely pass a budget or fill key posts, muster a coherent and forceful reply to Putin’s attempts to bully Russia’s neighbors into submission?

This shouldn’t be a partisan issue, but some Republicans just can’t help themselves. Russia’s aggression, they charge, is the bitter fruit of Obama’s weakness. Never mind that Putin also invaded neighboring Georgia in 2008 on George W. Bush’s watch.

Evidently, the “blame America first” mentality that Republicans used to attribute to Democrats has migrated from the left to the right of the political spectrum.

Occupying Crimea is part of Putin’s grand strategy to restore a strong Russia that’s once again respected — i.e., feared — and halts the advance of Western-style democracy into what Moscow regards as its historic sphere of influence. This complicates Putin’s plan to organize a “Eurasian Union” of compliant autocracies as a counterweight to the European Union.

The Russian leader and former KGB operative has called the 1991 break-up of the Soviet Union a tragedy. But that doesn’t mean he has grandiose visions of recreating Stalin’s old empire. Instead, the wily Putin is trying to revise, not reverse, the Cold War settlement. That’s why he’s focusing on countries on Russia’s borders with large ethnic or Russian-speaking populations. Putin would like to reabsorb as many of them as possible, which is why he doesn’t want these countries to follow the Baltics and Eastern Europe in turning to the West. In championing supposedly endangered Russian minorities, and reestablishing the Russian Orthodox Church as the state religion, Putin is trying to revive the old Russian nationalism of the Tsars.

Unfortunately, he also seems bent on resurrecting the worst features of that tradition — creeping imperial expansion, stifling autocracy, paranoia about being “encircled” by enemies and resentful envy of the modern West, led nowadays by America.

This backsliding from the hopeful days of post-Soviet Russia, when Boris Yeltsin tried to put his country on a “normal” course toward market democracy, is a tragedy for Russians, not just their fearful neighbors. Fabricating conflicts with newly independent neighbors and whipping up anti-Americanism strikes a revanchist chord, especially among older Russians. Moreover, such antics distract the world’s eye from popular protests in Russia, as well as harsh crackdowns on dissent and civil society, and the ruthless stamping out of real political competition.

President Obama hasn’t paid nearly enough attention to the rising authoritarian tide in Russia. Instead, in classic “realpolitik” fashion, the White House keeps emphasizing the need to win Russia’s cooperation on what it regards as more important issues, like reaching a political resolution of Syria‘s civil war (though Moscow has no interest in Assad’s departure) and striking a nuclear deal with Iran.

More fundamentally, Obama appears to have internalized the critique — which now joins the anti-war left to the libertarian right — that America’s problems abroad stem mainly from our own moralizing and overreaching, not what bad actors elsewhere do. That’s why he has demoted freedom and democracy as U.S. foreign policy goals, and stood aloof from the Syrian bloodbath, even as the human and strategic costs of inaction keep mounting.

Let’s hope the Ukraine crisis jolts the president out of his solipsistic complacency. Russia’s resort to brute force to intimidate its neighbors is a threat to the international system shaped and sustained mainly by American power over the last half-century. Are we really too war-weary, overstretched or poor to rise to this new challenge? Not unless our leaders think we are.

This op-ed was originally posted in Real Clear World, you can read the original article on their website here.

A Merger of Necessity

Posted on March 4, 2014 by The Progressive Policy Institute

The proposed merger between Comcast and Time Warner highlights the vast gap between the imagined world the broadband industry’s critics and the real world in which these companies must compete.

For years, the critics have advocated forcing companies such as Verizon and Comcast to share their infrastructure with their competitors or mandating that the broadband market only offer one level of service. Their argument is that America’s broadband is gripped by a “cable/telco duopoly” that uses its market power to slow innovation and gouge the consumer. And the Comcast-Time Warner combination is their new monster under the bed.

In fact, the substance of these criticisms is simply wrong. The latest rankings from Akamai show the U.S. eighth and rising in global Internet connection speeds, and a new report from the International Telecommunications Union depicts U.S. wireline broadband as being the most affordable among our trading partners as well.

But even more dissonant are the data on profitability. In a new study set to be released next week by the Progressive Policy Institute, I examine the rates of profit of two subgroups of the Fortune 500 — companies that provide the Internet (from ATT and Verizon down to Level 3 and Frontier) versus companies who reside on it (from Apple and Microsoft to Facebook and Yahoo). The (average weighted) rate of profit on sales for the “providers” is 3.7 percent, versus 24.4 percent for the “residers.” Calculated on assets, the rates are 2.1 percent versus 17.7 percent, respectively.

So the companies that use the broadband Internet are making six to eight times the margins of the allegedly monopolistic companies who provide it — the exact opposite of what you’d see if the price gouging accusation was real.

The problem is that advocates for regulation simply don’t get the competitive dynamics of the broadband industry. And if we don’t have that understanding, we can’t understand the Comcast/Time Warner merger.

In the rotary phone world, “connectivity” — dial tone — created all the system’s value, once you had a phone. But the Internet is different. Rather than a “dumb” signal, Internet connectivity is part of a multi-part parlay with devices, services, applications and other components that deliver value to the consumer. All of these components compete for a larger slice of the integrated customer value pie.

Consider the iPhone. Its vaunted voice recognition technology, for example, has been around for a long time. It’s only been offered in phones now because mobile broadband is powerful enough to let the cloud deliver the service to the user in real time.

So the innovation that makes the iPhone and its applications more valuable to consumers was really the faster speeds offered by mobile service providers. And this is the competitive reality today. The device, website, app and content companies are capturing most of the benefits created by the connectivity “providers,” hence their lusher margins. Yet the providers must continually innovate and improve their service so their customers will bring those devices and applications to the providers’ platforms. In essence, the “providers” are caught in a loop in which they innovate, the downstream device and service providers capture the value created by those innovations, and the providers must then innovate all over again. No wonder the residers make money far outstripping providers.

And it’s not just the mobile market. Watch bandwidth-munching UltraHD TV — so-called “K4” — as it enters the consumer market, now that there’s enough bandwidth to support it. Will the set-makers make the margin, or the broadband providers who made the new sets possible?

So, unlike their caricature as duopolists, provider market power is extremely limited. They are essentially high fixed-cost systems that must continually attract new customers to spread their fixed costs over a larger base, even as other companies garner most of the benefits of their innovation.

And they have little power over content as well. If Comcast were to block, say, YouTube, would you keep their service, or switch to Verizon, ATT, Sprint, Dish, DirectTV or any of several other provides to get what you want to see? And which is the danger — that Comcast will charge you to reach YouTube, or that YouTube will one day charge Comcast to be on its system? In the real world, content, not connectivity, has the muscle.

And this is the backdrop against which we should see the Comcast/Time Warner merger. Comcast’s offerings will immediately improve the service Time Warner’s customers receive. And that will make the combined company a better competitor and innovator in the competitive cage match in which the providers of connectivity, devices, apps, services, content fight for a share of the value the broadband world creates. Rather than a denial of competition, the proposed merger demonstrates that active, aggressive competition is underway in broadband, and Comcast is girding itself for that content. The right policy is to let them do so.

This article was originally posted in The Baltimore Sun, read it on their website here.

China’s Data Fog

Posted on February 28, 2014September 18, 2024 by The Progressive Policy Institute

China recently released its January trade data, showing export growth of 10.6% and performing way above predictions – if you believe the numbers. Many don’t. After last year’s round of inflated figures, stories began to appear about just how businesses were cooking the books. For example, some corporations were sending their goods on a “round trip” to Hong Kong and back, whereby a good produced in China goes “abroad,” to count as an export for tax purposes, and then is brought back to the mainland and sold at a premium because the same good is now also an “import.” Businesses being less than honest is neither a new nor a China-specific phenomenon — but as with every accomplishment the Chinese seem to be doing it bigger and more prolifically than most.

Exports aren’t the only quarter where domestically counted economic indicators have come under criticism. Former Prime Minister Li Keqiang was quoted in a 2007 communique recently released by Wikileaks describing the data used to report China’s GDP as “man-made.” In 2013, a Chinese university released a Gini coefficient estimate, a measure of a country’s rich-poor gap, at .61. A short month later the Chinese government released their first official estimate in a decade coming in at 0.47 – where 0 is perfect equality and 1 is extreme disparities in wealth. (The U.S. for comparison is a middle-of-the-pack nation with a World Bank Gini coefficient of .45). Foreign economists familiar with China labeled the official number, politely, as ‘optimistic.’

These examples highlight two related, but separate issues: Chinese economic data is manipulated at both the macro and at the micro level. Government offices are incentivised to report good numbers and individual firms/households are incentivised to hide their wealth and keep it out of China. Exacerbating the government’s stranglehold on numbers with any meaning is the aggressive harassment of investigative reporters. Last December’s reporterpocalypse, whereby in retaliation for “biased” articles Beijing held up the visas for dozens of foreign reporters, was resolved only by United States Vice President Joe Biden’s direct intervention. Even so, China has continued the trend of kicking out individual journalists with the banning of another New York Times reporter two weeks ago. Of course, no one has it as rough as the Chinese national reporters, who are subject to intimidation, jail time, and annual mandatory classes on how to be a loyal “marxist” reporter.

Formerly, China’s data fog wouldn’t have much global impact. But in an age of unprecedented investment, trade, and interdependence China’s behavior is a problem for actors worldwide. U.S. current Foreign Direct Investment in China is a cool $51 billion, most of which is tied up in manufacturing and outside of finance. American investors need to know the true quality of the environment in which they spend U.S. dollars. Furthermore, globalization has led to the unprecedented integration of economies whereby governments need accurate data from abroad to determine domestic competitiveness. Finally, as the 2007 financial crises demonstrated – failure in the number one (and presumably two) global economy has consequences far beyond a single state’s borders.

Can the US or other outside forces encourage transparency? The fact is that the United States government has little to no political capital in Beijing. When Chinese officials are approached directly by US counterparts, their “advice” is interpreted as at best, condescending and at worst, part of a massive beltway plot to keep China down. This situation illustrates one aspect of a global sea change where the most effective ambassadors aren’t coming from the government, they are the corporations.

For corporations however, the need for accurate information is tempered by other considerations. Companies operating in China have an obvious vested interest in staying on the good side of local/national authorities. It’s hard enough to get things done even when you are courting, bribing and hiring the relatives of the right people. But that doesn’t mean we should underestimate how much China wants to attract foreign business, and the leverage that this desire gives investors. With the roll out of Shanghai’s new Free Trade Zone, Beijing has shown its hand. The government desperately wants to shift the focus of China’s economy away from heavy industry and towards financial and service sectors – ideally with foreign role models around to “unleash diversity and competition.”

Encouraging transparency in China, the United States’ biggest trade partner and the number two global economy, is good economic policy and a smart business strategy. Both official and commercial actors need to participate in lobbying for transparency. In the end, the prospects of foreign businesses in China contribute to the development of the US and the global economies. Governments and the participating corporations are responsible for pressuring China to do the right thing, and as their relative power shifts, pressure is best applied through multiple governmental and business channels.

Obama Goes Big on Infrastructure

Posted on February 27, 2014September 18, 2024 by The Progressive Policy Institute

President Obama’s new budget proposes a bold, $300-billion push to modernize the nation’s aging and inadequate transportation systems over the next four years. Here at last is a call for action on the scale we need to get the U.S. economy out of its slow growth rut and back on a high-growth path. Two generations of federal underinvestment in public infrastructure has left much of it in disrepair, deterred private investment and limited the economy’s growth potential.

There’s only one problem: Obama’s plans to get America moving again by improving roads, ports and transit systems have been repeatedly stalled by ultra-conservatives within the GOP. It’s bad enough that there are those in Congress who automatically oppose whatever Obama proposes. But many far-right politicians also seem to have forgotten what they learned in Economics 101 – investment in public goods like transport, water and energy infrastructure are essential foundations for robust economic growth.

PPI’s forthcoming paper highlights new research conducted post-crisis confirming that the economic returns from infrastructure spending are enormous. In fact, our analysis shows an emerging consensus that for every $1 spent on transportation infrastructure, the increase in economic growth is between $1.5 and $2.

The United States faces an enormous deficit in transportation investment – almost $900 billion by 2020 by some accounts. Yet there’s no doubt that modern transport systems are essential to our nation’s competitiveness – to facilitate U.S. international trade, regional commerce, and local access to essential services. Not having access to fast and reliable public transit services could disproportionately affect the low-income and inner city populations relying most on fast and affordable public transit to get to work.

So we applaud President Obama’s proposal, and hope that Congress will finally start investing in America too.