Over recent decades, the technology sector has gained relative to other sectors of the economy. This partly reflects public policy decisions in areas such as intellectual property rights and antitrust laws, but mostly reflects fundamental innovations that move economic activity from “brick and mortar” firms to internet companies.
The recent pandemic has accelerated this trend, as tech companies have done much better than more traditional sectors. So why hasn’t there been more of a backlash?
Nationalists face a dilemma. Many nationalists favor the brick and mortar sectors of the economy over tech, for a variety of reasons. Blue collar workers are an important part of the nationalist political movement. Tech companies tend to be located in blue states, and are often owned by relatively liberal entrepreneurs.
But nationalists are also strong defenders of what they see (not always correctly) as America’s national interest. This creates a dilemma, as American tech firms are not just increasingly dominant at the national level, they are also increasingly dominant at the global level. I don’t have the precise figures, but US tech companies comprise a rapidly growing share of global equity market capitalization.
I predict that nationalists will favor public policies that make it more difficult for US tech companies to extract wealth from average Americans, and oppose policies that make it more difficult to extract wealth from Chinese and European consumers. But this is a difficult needle to thread, which leads me to believe that the tech backlash won’t begin until there is a political change in Washington.
And even if the Democrats take power, they will face the dilemma that tech firms are a key contributor to the budgets of blue state governments, and also donate money to liberal candidates.
PS. Mark Zuckerberg should stand up to Facebook employees that are trying to pressure him to censor President Trump’s statements. As a private firm, Facebook is free to censor Trump. But it would be unwise.
READER COMMENTS
Thomas Hutcheson
Jun 8 2020 at 11:23am
Censor no, but fact checking of high-volume posts whoever the source makes sense. That was NYT mistake with Cotton; the did not apply the same standards to him as any other OpEd.
Scott Sumner
Jun 8 2020 at 2:27pm
I never use social media, but isn’t the NYT analogy wrong? The NYT has a policy of producing high quality commentary, even commentary with which it disagrees. Isn’t Facebook just a platform for people to talk about whatever they want, with Facebook itself not caring about quality at all?
Russ Abbott
Jun 8 2020 at 4:28pm
Scott, You missed the point of the original post. The NYT failed in the Cotton Op-ed because they didn’t subject it to standard editorial scrutiny. Had they done so, the post would have required significant editing. Facebook should do the same sort of editorial supervision of Trump’s ads.
Russ Abbott
Jun 8 2020 at 4:36pm
P.S. Apparently Facebook does a good job of screening commercial ads for fraudulent claims and other dishonesty. They should do the same for political ads.
Also, Facebook hires 15,000 people to screen posts, to prevent child pornography, etc. (See https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/06/08/1002894/facebook-needs-30000-of-its-own-content-moderators-says-a-new-report/.) They should apply similar standards to political ads.
Scott Sumner
Jun 8 2020 at 4:48pm
I don’t follow that at all. Who decides if an ad is dishonest? From my perspective, most political ads are dishonest, indeed almost all of them. Should networks refuse to run political ads?
And wasn’t the issue with the Trump statement that it was offensive, not dishonest? Didn’t he say something like “shoot the looters”? That’s a policy proposal. It’s offensive to most people, but is it dishonest?
TMC
Jun 8 2020 at 4:52pm
The Op-Ed went through the editorial process. It just wasn’t what some of the junior writers wanted to hear. Even the older writers at the NYT weren’t upset about it. Cotton wrote the same thing polls sat 70% of Americans agree with. Like the streets of NY, the NYT is being run by mob crybaby rule.
Mark Z
Jun 8 2020 at 6:48pm
Has the NYT actually publicly identified any actual factual errors in the Cotton oped? I haven’t read the oped and last I read about it was a couple days ago, but the conflict over the oped – not unlike with the particular comments from Trump on facebook – does not seem to be over fact-checking, but over perceived offensiveness.
Brian
Jun 8 2020 at 12:41pm
If people can’t afford to pay as much but the seller still wants to make the sale, there will be an attempt at price discrimination. It seems then if there is a nationalist tendency to make price discrimination favor American consumers, it would seem to be economically upside-down because American households have higher incomes than the European average or China. So not only will it be a difficult needle to thread, the companies might succeed in resisting or find someway to make Americans think they are paying less when in fact they aren’t.
Scott Sumner
Jun 8 2020 at 2:29pm
Good point.
P Burgos
Jun 8 2020 at 2:16pm
Facebook and Google make their money by selling advertisements. Netflix is essentially an alternative to a cable TV subscription, and most of their costs are in acquiring programming. Amazon is a bit more of a tech company, but the techiest thing about them is their sale of web hosting. Other than that, they are just Sears and Roebuck with a website. Apple, Oracle, and Microsoft are in my mind much more technology companies, as they actually sell technology (in the form of devices and software) to their customers.
The point being that price discrimination is only possible for people who pay for something. And that once you get to the selling of physical goods, people still have ample opportunities to find a better price, and will likely do much more comparison shopping if they figure out that a company is engaging in price discrimination. The only exception I see to this is in enterprise tech, where I believe that there is often a lot of market concentration and something of a network effect created by users (employees) gaining productivity through knowledge and skill at particular applications.
Scott Sumner
Jun 8 2020 at 2:28pm
Perhaps I should have said “digital companies”, not “tech companies”.
Brian Donohue
Jun 8 2020 at 2:29pm
You don’t have to be a nationalist to recognize that we have built a dizzyingly complex international system, one big basket for all our eggs.
Scott Sumner
Jun 8 2020 at 4:50pm
I’m heartened by the fact that international supply lines did not turn out to be a problem for the medical industry during this crisis. Early on, people complained that this would hurt us. It didn’t.
Mark Z
Jun 8 2020 at 6:53pm
I would’ve figured that IP law was one of the most important aspects of tech policy and how it relates to nationalism, and it seems like a more interesting dilemma: American tech companies want their IP protected abroad, and nationalists have the dilemma of whether to protect American tech companies from foreign IP theft because they’re American vs. not protect them because they’re political adversaries at home.
Michael Sandifer
Jun 9 2020 at 1:07am
I disagree with the idea that nationalist governments even try to pursue national interests much. All the nationalist governments I can think of seem primarily concerned with opportunities for corruption that they can exploit. They don’t care much, of at all for the national interest, except as it may affect them politically to appear to do so. Part of the reason these nationalist leaders are so ignorant, is because they really don’t care about policy much. It’s all about politics. It’s mostly, if not entirely a scam.
On tech stocks, my tech portfolio gains from positions taken last year never came close to paper losses, even during the market meltdown that started to end in March. Tesla, Microsoft, Amazon,…even Uber has bounced back. Lyft is my only loser there. This portfolio is up more than 60% since last May, when I was convinced the trade war truce would hold.
Value stocks, which used to my other approach, have been slaughtered. The value approach was less profitable every year on average anyway.
Yes, big tech represents a fundamental change in US equity markets, and represents some failures of regulation.
I think Facebook should probably be broken up. They have a monopoly as a general social media site that is extracting monopoly surplus from advertisers. They should be forced to sell acquisitions like Snapchat, and their primary social media network should probably be divided several ways too. Just duplicate accounts among several separate companies, and let them duke it out.
Should also consider breaking up Google.
I wouldn’t break up Amazon, as I think they have sufficient competition in the retail sector generally.
MJ
Jun 10 2020 at 11:27am
Agreed that today’s nationalists don’t even pursue their nation’s interest. Really they are cultural nationalists and the only clearly identifiable policy goals are opposing global institutions, free trade, and immigration.
I also think there is a pretty good case, on anti trust grounds, for breaking up Amazon the retailer from Amazon the online shopping platform, in addition to some of Google and Facebook’s shenanigans.
Michael Sandifer
Jun 9 2020 at 1:13am
Scott,
Almost forgot that you didn’t mention that Facebook put a message on Lincoln Project anti-Trump ad that said a claim made in the ad was untrue. The claim wasn’t untrue, but the point is that Facebook is not hands-off on political advertising and certainly not neutral.
Ricky
Jun 9 2020 at 2:36am
Angela Merkel was asked the secret to the success of the German Economy.
Her brilliant reply: “we still make things”.
Even leftists are moving in the direction of stronger tariffs, and you see that move across countries and continents. Italy is now considering a break with the EU, and rightfully so. I suspect Denmark will follow.
Trump will most likely win again, because multiculturalism and globalization is being rejected. Hundreds of studies have shown it does not work. And the idea that people will bond, and a utopia can emerge, is also nonsense. We know from studies that doesn’t work either. Even in forced bonding environments, like the military, people congregate around others who share the same values and traditions.
I don’t understand the hysteria around the word nationalism. People are now saying Hitler was a nationalist. That’s wrong. Hitler was a fascist. Huge difference. Why do we consistently change the meaning of words? Or perhaps a better question. Why do we allow society to convince us to change the meaning of words?
About tech, I couldn’t agree more. Cancel culture is a dangerous trend that threatens freedom of speech. In the 1920’s a thug from Gori, Georgia, emerged onto the seen of Russian politics. This conman told those who were poor that they did not have to be responsible for any of their problems. He told them that those with money were not just wealthy by definition, but that they were also callous, out of touch, oppressive, and ought to be exterminated. The barrier to entry to this new club was incredibly low. Rational arguments and public discourse were not just unnecessary, but discouraged. You did not need any education, and you did not need to read Marx or Engels. All you needed was to obey the ideologues, point the blame at the fictional oppressor, grab a gun, and be willing to march towards the capital. The man was Joseph Stalin.
We now have New York Times journalists using the hashtag #cancelwhitepeople, and tweeting “White people marking up the internet with their opinions like dogs pissing on fire hydrants”.
But we’ve seen this all before right. 1920’s Russia, 1930’s Nazi German, and 1940’s China. The only question is whether academics will allow themselves to be silenced again. Indeed, an academic in Washington was recently forced to resign when he protested a campus policy demanding that “all white skinned people” leave for a day.
Mark
Jun 9 2020 at 10:23am
Fascism is a type of nationalism. It says so in the dictionary. The Nazis followed the same economic policies advocated by nationalist conservatives today, beginning with tariffs, immigration restrictions, and military spending stimulus as part of a greater drive to national self-sufficiency. The logical and inevitable result of the Nazi drive to self-sufficiency was World War II, because the Nazis could only be self-sufficient by invading the USSR to get its land and oil, and didn’t want to be “dependent” on trading with the USSR for food and oil even though the USSR was happily trading with Germany.
Nationalism also played a huge role in Stalin and Mao consolidating power; many of the people who supported them were not communists but supported those strong authoritarian leaders for nationalist reasons (this was called National Bolshevism in Russia). Not to mention that communist governments came to power in Russia and China only because of decades of failed rule by preceding nationalist governments that dragged Russia into World War I and failed to economically develop China so that it was not an easy target in World War II.
And multiculturalism and globalization are not about bonding with everyone; they are about treating everyone with respect and as an individual with individual human rights, not as merely part of a group with rights determined by group membership.
D.O.
Jun 9 2020 at 1:57pm
I predict that nationalists will favor public policies that make it more difficult for US tech companies to extract wealth from average Americans, and oppose policies that make it more difficult to extract wealth from Chinese and European consumers.
Can you explain this? When a leftist says that capitalists in general or of some stripe “extract wealth” I understand that they are operating in a framework that things ideally should be done for free and everyone works to make their neighbor better off. Profits are the loot. But from a libertarianish economist I would expect a point of view that private companies create wealth and then share it in mutually beneficial exchange. What am I missing?
Niko Davor
Jun 12 2020 at 12:57pm
Does Sumner support Twitter’s decision to censor Trump’s video “Healing Not Hatred”: https://youtu.be/0P40rSPTRKI
??
Comments are closed.