Category Archives: Big Tech

The American Dream is made possible through free enterprise, representative government, and individual liberty. That balance was upended when a handful of tech companies seduced the populace into giving up their right to privacy. Their schemes produced so much capital, Big Tech just bought off any resistance and repackaged these stooges as the #Resistance.

While we were distracted by buzzing smartphones, global corporations intruded into every aspect of our lives. As a result, Sen. Josh Hawley writes in his new book The Tyranny of Big Tech: Our republic has never been more hierarchical, more riven by class, more managed by an elite than it is today. That is corporate liberalisms legacy. But it need not be our future.

The Tyranny of Big Tech unfolds in three parts. In the first, Hawley sketches a brief history of Gilded Age monopolies. In the second, he details the 21st centurys techno-capitalist takeover. I never thought Id read a Republican author whos grasped the work of tech-futurist Jaron Lanier, but Hawleys full of surprises. The final section lays out the senators ambitious plan for antitrust legislation.

Hawley opens with the robber barons who consolidated railroad, steel, and oil monopolies at the turn of the 20th century. His story tracks two divergent philosophies: constitutional republicanism and corporate liberalism. The former is credited with defending the rights and dignity of the common men and women whose voices, he argues, the latter is crushing.

Hawley holds up Teddy Roosevelt as a defender of original republican values. He celebrates Roosevelts heroic efforts to loosen the robber barons stranglehold on America, even if that struggle failed to halt the wheels of progress.

He presents Woodrow Wilson as the face of corporate liberalism. First as a university professor, then as president, Wilson espoused a grand evolutionary vision of American society. Just as nature moves from simplicity to complexity, human society naturally progresses toward higher levels of cooperation. In this view, the international corporation emerges as the inevitable heir to earthly power.

Countering this arrogant elitism, Hawley advocates the original republican philosophy. His stated goal is to protect the ability of the working class to speak their minds and govern themselves.

Corporate liberalism, on the other hand, sold the public a new way of life based on personal choice. Ironically, corporations would leverage the fulfillment of individual desire to erode the common mans right to self-government. Hawley points to Big Tech as the culmination of this process.

The second part of Hawleys book lays out our current problem. Through the miracle of digital technology, we have become app-dependent, easily manipulated, atomized, and mutually hostile. Our personal data is mined, and our souls sold back to us in digital form. As usual, our elected leaders have been too busy counting their campaign contributions to do much about it.

Without any meaningful consent, Google, Facebook, Amazon, Apple, and Twitter probe the inner lives of every person within reach, then sell that data to the highest bidder. You could argue that anyone who leaves his door unlocked deserves to get robbed, but only a shill would say the thieves should go unpunished.

Hawley does an excellent job of describing Big Techs mechanisms of surveillance and control. His chapter on the addictive nature of digital technologyperfected in the smartphoneshows how effortless it was to implement these systems. He compares app addiction to casino culture, with its clanging bells and unrealistic expectations. Each message alert, each like on social media, and each clickbait headline keeps the brains reward pathways locked in like a desiccated retiree glued to a slot machine.

For many, the results have been horrible. Hawley digs into the accumulating research on the parallel rise of digital culture and various psychological disorders. Citing social psychologists Jonathan Haidt and Jean Twenge, he highlights the correlation between unlimited screen time and the recent spikes in teen depression, anorexia, and suicide. While hes careful to avoid definite causal relationships, he presents strong evidence that the dark side of digital tech outweighs its promise.

Hawley pulls no punches when discussing Big Techs effect on the broader social landscape, particularly in the realm of politics. He describes the conformist social networks that coalesce on Facebook and Twitter, and the blind hostility that erupts between them. Looking at the cold artificial intelligence that guides this process, Hawley wryly notes that Empathy isnt easy to code.

He calls out the open censorship and intentional manipulation of search resultstodays dominant source of informationciting psychologist Robert Epsteins conclusion that, Google has likely been determining the outcomes of upwards of 25 percent of the national elections in the world since at least 2015. Thats over and above the pipeline of cash flowing from Silicon Valley to Washington DC.

What is Big Techs endgame? Hawley writes:

The twenty-first century corporate elite hail global integrationsocial, political, and economicas the great engine of progress. They prize transnational ties over any distinctly American identity. Far from empowering ordinary people, Big Tech assaulted their agency and undermined their independence. By design.

The strangest part is that everyone knows this is truethe compulsion, the manipulation, the discord, the data extractionbut no one seems to care enough to stop it. A sense of inevitability has been cultivated around technology, which Hawley traces back to the evolutionary schema touted by the early progressives. He readily acknowledges theres no going back, but against all odds, hes committed himself to trying to steer this ship in a different direction.

The books conclusion offers two parallel routes to a better society. The first is simple. In a high-tech marketplace, were forced to make healthy personal choices. Hawley urges his readers to cultivate rich communities in the real world, and holds parents responsible for shielding kids from the ubiquitous glowing eye.

The second solution is far more ambitious. At the forefront is Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. This statute protects tech platforms from liability for users content, while still allowing them editorial control. Its true that repealing the protection could have unintended negative consequences for smaller platforms, but so long as any tech company determines public discourse on such a large scale, there has to be accountability for silencing unwanted dissent.

Additionally, Hawley argues that Congress has to bust up the de facto monopolies held by Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, and Google. Each of these companies has cornered its respective marketsthe public square, the marketplace, and information flowplus a bevy of other fields, in addition to huge stakes in mass communication and artificial intelligence development. The original robber barons never enjoyed this level of concentrated global power. If the European Union has the guts to stand up to Big Tech, so should we.

Across the political spectrum, antitrust sentiments are converging with tech skepticism. Hawleys book was published just a week after Sen. Amy Klobuchars Antitrust: Taking on Monopoly Power from the Gilded Age to the Digital Age. She focuses much of her attention on Big Pharma, which Hawley assailed as Missouris attorney general. The serendipity is astounding. But no significant legislation will be passed without bipartisan compromise and broad public support.

Purity spirals are for social media clubs. You wouldnt find me singing in Hawleys Presbyterian church, and hed probably peg me for a granola-munching henotheist. So what? Whats important are our common interests.

True to form, dim liberals confuse such irony with hypocrisy. Since the books publication, haters have been typing out vapid headlines like Josh Hawley used lots of tech to hawk his book blasting big tech. Whats funny is that theyre only highlighting the problem. For all practical purposes, theres no other way to reach the public en masse.

Its like a man who takes a self-driving car to DC, where he protests a law that mandates autonomous vehicles. Sir, how did you get here today? asks the snarky congresswoman.The citizen shrugs and replies, What choice did I have?

Self-determination is impossible under a centralized system of control, whether it be corporate monopolies or communist rule. For a fleeting moment, the American public is being presented the opportunity to take the wheel. Can we cooperate long enough to correct the course?

More here:

In New Book, Josh Hawley Takes On The Tyranny Of Big Tech - The Federalist

Big Tech is bouncing back.

Technology names partially recovered from a vicious sell-off in the latter part of Tuesday's trading session, though all three of the major averages remained in the red.

Many market analysts saw this coming, but some were split on how much investors should worry about tech's pullback.

Here's what five of them told CNBC amid Tuesday's action:

Duquesne Family Office CEO Stanley Druckenmiller said the market's "mania" could push his firm out of equities by the end of 2021:

"I have no doubt, none whatsoever, that we are in a raging mania in all assets. I also have no doubt that I don't have a clue when that's going to end. I knew we were in a raging mania in '99 and it kept going on and if you had shorted tech stocks, say, in mid-'99, you were out of business by the end of the year. But we are still long the stock market. We're not as long, nearly as long, as we were four or five months ago. We're still playing the game. We've shifted a lot of our relative bets into commodities, into interest rates, into the dollar. All those shifts occurred last, say, August to October when it became clear to us that the recovery was going. But I will be surprised if we're not out of the stock market by the end of the year."

Tom Lee, head of research at Fundstrat Global Advisors, flagged five headwinds facing Big Tech:

"There have been five headwinds for tech that feel like they're coming to a head. One of the overarching problems with tech starting this year is it's a crowded and stale long. People piled into these names last year because of the collapse of the economy and the pandemic, but now we have potential inflation building, interest rates going up. The White House could go after technology. The economy, not everyone believes it, but it looks like we're set for a full reopen by June. And then capital gains could go up. Five of five of these is bad for the technology and growth trade, especially capital gains. More than 70[%] or 80% of all capital gains are just in a handful of sectors. And on the other hand, the epicenter trade wins on five of five of these. So, if only one or two of these flips and in fact happens, epicenter stocks are to keep rallying and tech can weaken."

Lew Piantedosi, vice president and co-director of growth equity at Eaton Vance Management, also highlighted several obstacles for tech:

"I think that the sell-off is justified given the meteoric rise that a lot of these stocks exhibited, particularly post the initial stages of Covid. And given where we are right now, there's four real headwinds to most areas of tech, and namely the fear of higher rates, tougher comparisons going forward, particularly for those that have benefited from Covid, corporate tax reform, which is something that isn't being discussed right now, but it will have an impact on tech more so than other areas of the market, and then lastly, particularly for mega-cap tech, I think we're seeing more and more antitrust headwinds starting to pick up as well. So, all of those headwinds kind of come together at a time where there's other areas of the market that will benefit from a recovering economy that had been neglected by the market for the last few years and now are starting to see a real resurgence."

Ritholtz Wealth Management CEO Josh Brown, who is also a CNBC contributor, said the market was producing a kind of "wealth effect":

"All of the inflation that you're seeing right now is being driven by the wealth effect from the stock market. So, if there's enough fear about inflation or if the Fed is somehow forced to act quickly or forcefully which I don't think they're going to do, but let's just say that's the thing you're worried about and that's the thing that's producing volatility in the stock market well, that's great, because it's a self-correcting system. The Fed will move or the market will move or both. That will take the juice out of the stock market. No more inflation problem. Everybody that you know that's remodeling their house why do you think they're doing that? Because their 401(k) became a 601(k) and they had to cancel a whole bunch of activities during the pandemic, which saved them money. All of the wealth effect is coming from the stock market. So, if you think inflation is a threat, just understand something: If stocks cool off, that threat will be neutralized. People will come right back to this idea of, 'Well, what else do I do with my money?' and go right back into stocks."

Victoria Fernandez, chief market strategist at Crossmark Global Investments, said investors shouldn't worry just yet:

"I'm not sure I would say it's cause for concern. I do think you have to pay attention to what's going on in the markets right now, but we really feel like the markets have just kind of gotten a little heavy, to use a word of one of my colleagues. The months leading up to now, we've seen the trend higher. We've had a really strong earnings season. I mean, you look at the [earnings per share] growth and we're going to be double what expectations were a couple months ago. So, I think the market has gotten a little bit heavy, so, having a pullback, having a little consolidation, is OK. We actually think that [the] tech sector, led by some of those high-flying names to the downside, maybe that's getting to a bottom right now and if you don't own them it could be a buying opportunity. But we really like looking at more of some of those secular growth names. It can still be in the tech area. It could be a name like an Nvidia or a name like Adobe. But we don't think there's cause for extreme concern for the entire sector."

Disclaimer

View original post here:

Big Tech bounces back from sell-off. What five market analysts are watching now - CNBC

Facebook Oversight Board upholds Trump ban

Former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows calls out double standard after the Facebook Oversight Board upheld the social media platform's ban on former President Trump.

Facebooks decision to uphold its suspension of former President Donald Trumps account underscores that Big Tech corporations are attempting to control what the American people are allowed to say and hear.

Last week, I introduced the 21st Century FREE Speech Act, which would ensure that our modern public square is governed by the First Amendment principles of free speech and open exchange of ideas, not the whims of Big Tech censors. Facebooks disappointing announcement today highlights the urgent need for this legislation.

Dominant, ubiquitous Big Tech platforms are increasingly choosing which speakers and messages are approved for public discussion, using opaque, inconsistent, and politically motivated moderation practices that change by the day.

So, here we are, with an unelected and unaccountable "oversight board" of academics, journalists, lawyers, and activists determining whether a former United States president who recently received 74 million votes from the American public may participate in the modern-day public square.

JONATHAN TURLEY: FACEBOOK VS. TRUMP BIG TECH HAS ALLOWED FOR THE CREATION OF A STATE MEDIA WITHOUT THE STATE

As the former U.S. Ambassador to Japan, I dealt on a daily basis with China. This type of censorship regime is what I would have expected from the Chinese Communist Party, not Silicon Valley. It is un-American.

Censorship like this tramples on the foundational principles of free speech, freedom of thought and belief, free assembly, and the open exchange of ideas that have always animated American education and progress.

Telephone companies do not shut off your phone line based on what political views you express during calls.The same logic should apply today to Big Tech.

In 2020, then-President Trump ran not just against Joe Biden, but also against the establishment media and Big Tech. In my assessment, Big Tech which ran interference for the Biden campaign on numerous fronts, including by blocking the account of the New York Post for its reporting on Hunter Biden was the most formidable opponent of all.

In private, several of my Democratic colleagues have expressed similar concerns to me regarding the power these Big Tech corporations now wield over American life. They understand that the tide can turn quickly: today, Democrats political adversary is censored, but tomorrow they may become the victim of that same censorship.This is why censorship is fundamentally inconsistent with American values.

TRUMP BAN: REPUBLICANS THREATEN TO BREAK UP FACEBOOK AFTER OVERSIGHT BOARD DECISION

As Justice Clarence Thomas noted in a recent Supreme Court opinion, common carriers such as trains or telephone networks, which are essential to everyday goings-on in connecting people and information have historically been subject "to special regulations, including a general requirement to serve all comers" without discrimination.

Telephone companies do not shut off your phone line based on what political views you express during calls.The same logic should apply today to Big Tech.

This is especially true given Big Techs unique control over todays public square. A series of court decisions has limited the extent to which political figures can delete comments or bar users from interacting with their social media posts, noting that the First Amendment does not permit politicians to pick and choose who interacts with them in the public square.

Likewise, we should not allow Big Tech to decide which political figures are allowed to participate in the public square: it is absurd that President Trump is legally prohibited from limiting individual Twitter users comments to him, while Twitter is permitted to ban President Trump from the platform entirely.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE OPINION NEWSLETTER

My legislation is necessary to address this issue because our laws haven't kept pace with technology.The statutes governing free speech online haven't been updated in a quarter-century.

Since it was passed in 1996, Section 230 has been stretched well beyond its original intentwhich was to promote the free exchange of ideas online and specific types of family-friendly moderationinto a license for companies like Facebook and Twitter to censor.

In its effort to encourage family-friendly moderation, Congress specifically permitted moderation of obscene, lewd, or excessively violent content. It also permitted moderation of "otherwise objectionable" content, and Big Tech has exploited this vague term, using it as a license to censor whatever it pleases. This was not Congresss purpose, nor could Congress have then imagined the behemoth tech corporations that now dominate our ability to communicate.

The 21st Century FREE Speech Act would: (1) abolish Section 230s license to censor, (2) treat Big Tech platforms with more than 100 million active monthly users worldwide like a common carrier that must provide reasonable, nondiscriminatory access to all consumers to prevent political censorship, and (3) require Big Tech platforms to disclose their content management and moderation practices to users, so that consumers can better assess the information they receive.

Specifically, my bill would abolish Section 230 in favor of a liability protection framework that restores that sections original intent, updated based on the effects of the enormous technological change over the past 25 years.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Liability protection would remain for third-party speech and family-friendly moderation of specifically defined obscene or violent content, without providing limitless special protection for platforms own speech and viewpoint censorship. This legislation provides the liability protection necessary to drive continued innovation, without giving companies a license to censor speech on political, religious, or other grounds.

Ultimately, the 21st Century FREE Speech Act is about promoting free speech, thought and exchange of ideas. Its about trusting Americansrather than Big Tech companies and their "independent oversight boards"to determine what information to consume, share, and believe.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM SEN. BILL HAGERTY

View original post here:

Sen. Bill Hagerty: Facebook vs. Trump -- Big Tech's censorship regime out of control. Here's how we fix it - Fox News

Despite the national decline and fewer posted remote positions, tech roles remained in demand in hubs such as San Francisco, Seattle, Austin and Washington, D.C., according to a new report from Indeed.

Image: iStock/UlrichBeinert

Tech jobs, like tech workers themselves, are iconoclasts. A newly released study from Indeed showed that unlike industries with businesses that were forced to shutter and suffered job losses, the major tech hubs held onto technology roles throughout the pandemic.

During the COVID-19 crisis, a majority of businesses quickly transitioned from on-premises to sending their employees to work from home, yet the tech job postings in the big tech hubs were actually less likely to mention remote work than tech job listings in areas other than those major tech hubs.

For a year starting in March 2020, non-remote tech job postings became even more concentrated in big tech hubs than tech postings in general. Remote work benefited tech employers outside of the major tech hubs because, Indeed reported, there were fewer specialized tech workers in those local markets.

The eight major tech hubs--Austin, Baltimore, Boston, Raleigh, San Francisco, San Jose, Seattle and Washington, D.C.--experienced lags in overall job postings, as did most U.S. cities, with plunges in March and April of 2020, and were challenged by slow recoveries. Indeed reported that on April 23, 2021, Indeed job postings in the big tech hubs were only 5% above pre-pandemic baselines, compared to 24% above baseline in other metropolitan areas.

The eight major tech hubs are metro areas with a population of at least 1 million that had the highest number of local job postings in software development in the year before the pandemic. There are also 24 metro areas considered the smaller tech centers. These have populations between 250,000 and 1 million, and have the most local job postings in software development during the same period, the year before the pandemic.

SEE:2021 IT budget research report: COVID-19's impact on projects and priorities(TechRepublic Premium)

Actual tech jobs, in software development, information technology operations and information design held up better in the big eight tech hubs than elsewhere.

For job postings that cited a location, the share of tech job posts nationally in the eight big tech hubs increased minimally, from 37.46% in the year prior to the pandemic to 37.53% in the first full year of the pandemic. In Indeed reports from 2017 and 2019, the eight big tech hubs maintained or increased shares of U.S. tech jobs.

Tech jobs in tech hubs were less likely to mention remote work than tech jobs elsewhere: "In the eight big tech hubs, 16% of tech jobs mentioned remote work versus 18% of tech jobs in the two dozen smaller tech centers across the country, 19% in other big metros, and 22% in other smaller metros," the report found. This translates to non-remote tech job postings are now more concentrated in the eight big tech hubs than tech postings overall. And, the concentration of non-remote tech postings in those big hubs increased more during the pandemic than the concentration of tech postings overall did.

Indeed cites as a key finding that "tech jobs are at least as concentrated in tech hubs as before the pandemic, and more so when looking only at jobs where location matters enough that the posting doesn't mention remote work. The increase of remote work makes location less important for many tech jobs. But jobs for which location still matters are even more clustered in tech hubs."

The patterns, Indeed noted, indicate that tech firms that are not in a big tech hub benefit more from remote work than the big hub tech companies, but Indeed also reminded that the big tech hubs have access to a concentration of tech workers. Employers in big tech hubs might find remote work gives employees more flexibility, and ultimately "dramatically expands the recruiting pool for tech employers not located in the big hubs.

Non-tech job postings within the tech hubs--primarily local service jobs--suffered big declines. Retail job posts were down 16% year-over-year in tech hubs, but flat outside tech hubs. Positions in childcare and food-prep declined more in the tech hubs than elsewhere. Indeed's report noted: "These local service sectors got hit because tech hubs are full of people who can work remotely. Tech hubs have clusters of both tech jobs and related professional services jobs that can be done from home. With high shares of people working from home, local businesses like shops and restaurants have been getting less traffic. As a result, job postings and employment suffered."

Clearly, remote jobs increased dramatically during the pandemic and Indeed job postings in nearly all sectors were more likely to mention remote work. Tech postings mentioned remote work more than postings in other industries.

Within the eight big tech hubs, tech job postings fell the least in Baltimore and Austin and the most in Raleigh and Boston. Meanwhile, Seattle, San Jose and San Francisco, which all have high concentrations of big tech firms and desirable tech positions, were in the middle. Seattle and San Jose, where the biggest tech companies are headquartered mentioned the least amount of remote jobs.

The result of these findings demonstrates that tech geography patterns were not much affected by the pandemic. Tech jobs fell less in areas with concentrations of tech roles, and Indeed's data showed smaller declines in the eight major tech hubs than those outside of those cities.

If you can only read one tech story a day, this is it. Delivered Weekdays

Visit link:

Tech jobs in the 8 major big tech hubs showed resilience during the COVID-19 crisis - TechRepublic

Government apps are only available to people who are Google and Apple clients excluding those who wish to use or offer alternatives and therefore promoting unfair competition, experts have told the Financieele Dagblad.

Government online services, such as the tax office and social benefits agency UWV, can only be safely accessed by people who agree to the Google or Apple account terms and conditions.

Those who dont want to have to contend with a less safe environment or functionality or are left to deal with the services by mail, a number of government ministries confirmed to the paper.

The government is driving millions of citizens into the arms of the American tech giants, director of privacy watchdog Privacy First Vincent Bhre told the paper. Its absurd people are being forced to use Apple or Google. There must always be alternative means, he said.

There are, for instance, no alternatives for the impending corona passport app, leaving non-users with proof of vaccination on paper, a health ministry spokesman said.

Meanwhile Logius, the government company behind DigiD, the app with which to access a host of government services, is phasing out its less safe sms log-in system in favour of Apple and Google too, the FD found.

The fact that the government is opting for Google and Apple exclusively is surprising, seeing that the EU is trying to limit European dependence on American tech companies and is investing in European alternatives, the paper said. It has also fined the companies for abuse of power several times.

Standards

However, Logius told the FD the standards of safety of other providers are not good enough, while the ministries said that 99.2% of all smartphone users are either Google or Apple clients anyway.

But that attitude, critics said, is only perpetuating the problem. Other safe Google-free Android based alternatives are available, such as the international standard U2F which uses a USB stick for logging in.

Both Logius and the health ministry said they were looking into allowing safe alternatives to access their services. However, draft legislation to make this possible has stranded, because it did not comply with the senates demand for a completely public source code. It will take approximately a year before the proposal will become law.

But Bart Jacobs, professor of cyber safety at the Radboud University and involved with IRMA, an alternative to DidiD, said the delay is not a legal impediment for allowing more privacy friendly systems to operate.

The DutchNews.nl team would like to thank all the generous readers who have made a donation in recent weeks. Your financial support has helped us to expand our coverage of the coronavirus crisis into the evenings and weekends and make sure you are kept up to date with the latest developments.

DutchNews.nl has been free for 14 years, but without the financial backing of our readers, we would not be able to provide you with fair and accurate news and features about all things Dutch. Your contributions make this possible.

If you have not yet made a donation, but would like to, you can do so via Ideal, credit card or Paypal.

Continued here:

Government apps use Apple and Google, 'driving millions to US big tech': FD - DutchNews.nl - DutchNews.nl

Bloomberg

(Bloomberg) -- Chinese debt is back in favor with overseas investors.After the nations government bonds suffered their first outflow in two years in March, foreigners added 52 billion yuan ($8.1 billion) to their holdings in April, bringing the total to a record 2.1 trillion yuan, data compiled by ChinaBond show.In a game-changing shift -- compared by some to the birth of the euro -- yuan-denominated debt has emerged as a refuge during this years global bond rout. Investors looking for diversification have piled in, seeking its relatively high yields and low correlation to other markets. While that partially reversed in March, as rising U.S. yields dimmed Chinese bonds appeal, the quick turnaround has underscored the resilience of demand and Chinas growing clout since opening its fixed-income market.The underlying case for Chinese bonds is still very, very strong, said Pramol Dhawan, head of emerging markets portfolio management at Pacific Investment Management Company LLC. Because of its low correlation to global rates, its high nominal yields and high real yields form a very important part of portfolio construction.Foreign investment in Chinas interbank fixed-income market, as compiled by ChinaBond, rose 65 billion yuan in April to an all-time high of 3.2 trillion yuan, the data showed. Those holdings more than doubled over the past two years as Chinese bonds were included in global benchmarks compiled by Bloomberg Barclays and JPMorgan Chase & Co. Still, foreign investors only account for 4.3% of the total debt in Chinas interbank market.We are increasing our exposure to the Chinese bonds, said Kheng Siang Ng, Asia Pacific head of fixed income at State Street Global Advisors. Its hard for the markets to ignore.Read More: Chinas Bonds Only One to Gain Among Biggest Markets in RoutEven as foreign investors returned, the April numbers suggest the momentum of inflows has slowed from the breathtaking pace earlier this year. Last months inflow was less than half the amount seen in January.The yield premium of Chinas benchmark 10-year bond over Treasuries narrowed by around 1 percentage point to about 154 basis points from a record in November. On top of that, FTSE Russell said in March that it will take three years to add Chinese debt into its global index, instead of the 12 months initially envisioned. That disappointed some investors who expected a faster inclusion.Defensive BuyersNick Maroutsos, head of global bonds at Janus Henderson Investors, is among those who arent yet ready to buy Chinese bonds.We get asked this a lot, and my answer to whether we own or will own Chinese bonds is, Not right now, said Maroutsos, whose firm managed more than $414 billion as of March.Ultimately, we are defensive buyers, and I have a hard time looking at emerging markets as a safe haven for investors, he said. Chinese government bonds arent going to protect you and wont behave in a manner similar to Treasuries.Chinas bonds have been dancing to their own tune, in part because they are less owned by foreign investors, and Chinas independent economic and policy cycles set them apart from the rest of the world.Over the past 10 years, their correlation with the U.S. Treasuries was less than 0.2, according to a Bloomberg analysis. Yields on 10-year Chinese bonds were little changed this year, while equivalent Treasury yields surged 69 basis points.Read More: Carry Trades in China, Korea Are Best in Low-Yield Covid EraWhile the yield spread has narrowed, at 3.1%, Chinas 10-year yield is almost double that of Treasuries. Even if U.S. yields rise further, Chinese bonds remain appealing because of their low correlation to global markets, which helps investors lower volatility in their portfolio, said Lucy Qiu, a strategist at UBS Global Wealth Management.Investors still need to look for uncorrelated sources of returns, as negative bond-equity correlations may be challenged during a rapid rise in yield, Qiu said.(Updates with performance data in third-from-last paragraph.)For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.comSubscribe now to stay ahead with the most trusted business news source.2021 Bloomberg L.P.

Here is the original post:

Big Tech Join Intel To Seek Congressional Funding For Chip Production - Yahoo Finance

The market leadership of the S&P 500s five largest stocks Facebook FB, +0.18%, Amazon AMZN, +1.05%, Apple AAPL, -0.74%, Microsoft MSFT, -0.38% and Google owner Alphabet GOOGL, -0.95% (FAAMG) is under threat from a number of risks on the horizon, according to Goldman Sachs analysts.

The group represents 21% of the index, they said, higher than the 14% average share typically held by the top five stocks.

While the prospect of decelerating U.S. economic activity supports Big Techs outperformance and the groups remarkable growth looks set to persist, analysts, led by David Kostin, noted several headwinds around the corner.

They said President Joe Bidens plans to raise corporate and capital-gains tax rates pose potential risks to the quintet.

The proposed 28% corporate tax rate would hit FAAMG earnings by 9% relative to the consensus, they said, while the latter, a potential near-doubling of the capital-gains tax rate for wealthy Americans, could spark a selloff later this year.

If the capital-gains tax rate becomes set to rise in 2022, investors subject to the higher rate may choose to realize some of their substantial capital gains in 2021 at the lower current tax rate, the analysts said.

They noted that FAAMG stocks have appreciated by $5 trillion in the past five years, or 29% of the S&P 500s market cap increase over that time.

The groups valuation multiples also presents a risk, as does the possibility of rising interest rates in the coming months. Goldmans rates strategists predict 10-year U.S. Treasury yields TMUBMUSD10Y, 1.628% will rise to 1.9% by the year-end. As yields rose sharply from November through March, FAAMG underperformed the S&P 500 by 7 percentage points (+21% vs +14%%). A similar period of rising rates in the second half of 2021 would likely hamper FAAMG returns, Kostin said.

However, the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield remains extremely low in historical terms, supporting the valuation of high growth stocks.

But those all pale in comparison to what Goldman analysts described as the groups greatest threat antitrust intervention.

With the exception of Microsoft, the other four face a laundry list of legal battles and investigations over their market power and competitive practices ranging from commercial litigation to DOJ [Department of Justice] and FTC [Federal Trade Commission] antitrust lawsuits to Congressional probes, they said. But they added that their relative valuations remain stable, implying no major impact from antitrust actions.

Read the original here:

This is the greatest threat to Big Techs S&P 500 dominance, Goldman says - MarketWatch

The following essay is an excerpt adapted from Sen. Josh Hawley's new book, The Tyranny of Big Tech, out now from Regnery.

When Facebook went public in May of 2012 in what was billed as the initial public offering of the decadethe century!the company dutifully filed a dutifully boring piece of paperwork known as the Form S-1 registration statement, a compendium of facts and figures, summaries and disclosures, a "risk factors" analysis, "selected consolidated financial data," "description of capital stock" and so on and so forth. Except this Form S-1 wasn't boring in the least. This Form S-1 was positively fascinating. This Form S-1 included a thesis statement direct from Big Tech on the new world the technologists hoped to create. It included a letter from Mark Zuckerberg.

Zuckerberg had put pen to paper (so to speak) and in the span of four brief pages, attempted to explain to the vast public just what was before them in this dawning Age of Tech. For the world stood again on the precipice of transformation, Zuckerberg wrote, a transformation as profound as the one occasioned by the arrival of the printing press centuries before. That earlier technology "led to a complete transformation of many important parts of society," Zuckerberg said. And now "our society has reached another tipping point." That's where Facebook came in. "Facebook was not originally created to be a company" at all. Rather: "It was built to accomplish a social mission..."

The ambition fairly leapt off the page. Like the corporate barons of the Gilded Age, Zuckerberg and his fellow technologists aimed at nothing less than the remodeling of American life. Past technologies and their inventors had "changed the way society was organized," Zuckerberg wrote. Now Facebook would do the same. And this renovation would be achieved by the advent of a new kind of economy, an information economy, built on (supposedly) the free flow of data. Tech would lead the way. It would make the countryindeed, the world"more open and connected." It would leverage the wide availability of the internet and mobile platforms to create an economy of "authentic businesses" built on "personalized" designs and products. It would deliver a "more open culture," "better understanding" between citizens and "expos[ure] to a greater number of diverse perspectives." And all this would be done with datamassive amounts of data gathered from ordinary citizens and analyzed by the supercomputers at Facebook: data so prodigious one would need miles of computer servers to contain it, yielding analysis so precise that it could predict what consumers would want before even they knew it. This was the future, an economy and society based around data and those who controlled itnamely, Facebook and the other avatars of Big Tech.

Zuckerberg spoke of change, a fresh departure from the past, but in fact his pitch was the climax of the revolution his robber baron predecessors had initiated a century before. It was the climax of corporate liberalism. The grand future Zuckerberg envisaged was a future controlled by the few companies sufficiently large and powerful to collect massive amounts of information from consumers and put it to use. It was a future organized around the priorities of the cosmopolitan professional class: "openness" and "connection." In a later letter to Facebook users and employees, Zuckerberg spoke of building a "global community." The 21st-century corporate elite hail global integrationsocial, political and economicas the great engine of progress. They prize transnational ties over any distinctly American identity, and the new society they want to build reflects their globalist preferences.

Given the business scale required to succeed at the massive data extraction and control that the Big Tech agenda required, the companies that managed it would almost by definition become monopolies. In the words of technologist Jaron Lanier, "large, highly automated businesses" built around prodigious data collection "can't help but present some of the problems of monopolies." The Age of Big Tech, like the age of the robber barons, would be the age of monopoly.

And it would be the age of addiction. Zuckerberg promised that Facebook would hasten the arrival of a better America by putting more information into the hands of more people than ever before. In fact, the truly transformative thing about Big Tech was its business model. Big Tech treated its users as sources of information to be mined and as objects to be manipulated. And the key to both was attention. Big Tech needed as many Americans online as possible for as long as possible, all in order to extract their personal data and manipulate them into buying the wares of Big Tech's advertisers. Far from empowering ordinary people, Big Tech assaulted their agency and undermined their independence. By design. This model doubled down on the legacy of last century's corporatists: elevating an ever-narrower group of professionals at the expense of ordinary citizens, consolidating powerand now informationin the hands of a few.

But there was no need to look too closely at what precisely Big Tech was about because, according to Zuckerberg, the reign of Big Tech would bring the people more of what every American wanted: liberty!where liberty meant private, personal choice. This rhetoric, too, sounded in the cadences of corporate liberalism. "Think about what people are doing on Facebook today," Zuckerberg had enthused before the company went public. "They're keeping up with their friends and family, but they're also building an image and identity for themselves, which in a sense is their brand." It was Woodrow Wilson's language of self-development transposed into a 21st-century key. Facebook would empower individuals to createtheir own image, their own identity, their own personhood. More choice! More liberty! Yet in this version of corporate liberalism, as in the earlier one, the corporate elite and the professional class would be the ones with the power.

Big Tech was the robber barons' dreams realized; it was corporate liberalism's triumph. And while Zuckerberg was perhaps Big Tech's most avid evangelist, the other tech platforms shared Facebook's transformative aspirations and trafficked in the same soaring, Wilsonian rhetoric. Explaining why people used its famous search platform, Google opined that many searched "to fulfill the need for ongoing personal growth," still others to "develop and reinforce a sense of identity." This, Google attested solemnly, "is a powerful, emotional payoff of search." Search queries on the internet could be a portal to self-fulfillment.

But if the key to the earlier corporatists' ambitions was their elevation of the giant, hierarchical monopoly, the key to Big Tech's plans was the business model of data extraction. In the words again of technologist Jaron Lanier, "The primary business of digital networking has come to be the creation of ultra-secret mega-dossiers about what others are doing, and using this information to concentrate money and power." This was the new economy Big Tech would give America, and it depended centrally on capturing and controlling Americans' attention.

Josh Hawley is a U.S. senator for Missouri, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee and the author of the new bestselling book, The Tyranny of Big Tech.

The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.

Read more here:

The Age of Big Tech Is the New Age of Monopoly | Opinion - Newsweek

In The Big Tech Oligarchy Calls Out for Trustbusters (op-ed, May 1), Sen. Josh Hawley sounds more progressive than conservative as he bemoans the exceptionalism of American businesses and adopts an eat the rich mentality to decry wealth and those who have accumulated it.

Citing political statements made by Major League Baseball, Delta and Coca-Cola, and moderation decisions made by Big Tech, Sen. Hawley argues politicians should weaponize antitrust and undermine the rule of law to go after businesses they disagree with based on purely political whims. Sen. Hawley would abandon Americas carefully constructed separation of powers and provide the Biden administration an extraordinary tool to attack industries it doesnt like. Ironically, the more power the Biden administration has to decimate businesses, the more likely woke capitalism becomes as businesses attempt to curry favor with the American left and the White House.

If adopted, Sen. Hawleys proposals would give up Americas place as a world economic leader by turning our back on our historic celebration of entrepreneurial exceptionalism.

Steve DelBianco

President and CEO, NetChoice

Visit link:

Sen. Josh Hawley Sounds Like the Left on Big Tech - The Wall Street Journal

Angela Huyue Zhang is director of the Center for Chinese Law at the University of Hong Kong. She is author of "Chinese Antitrust Exceptionalism: How the Rise of China Challenges Global Regulation."

Looming regulatory challenges are clouding the future of Big Tech the world over.

In China, Alibaba received a record fine of $2.8 billion for abusing its dominant position in e-retailing business last month. The e-commerce giant was reportedly asked to divest media assets from its vast business empire, even though this was not included in the penalty decision and there is actually no legal basis under Chinese antitrust law to request the firm to do so.

And in January this year, the People's Bank of China was proposing rules that threaten to break up online digital payment platforms owned by Ant Group and Tencent. Chinese financial regulators also requested Ant and a dozen other Chinese fintech firms to decouple "inappropriate link" between their payment apps and other financial services.

China is not alone in seeking to break up its tech giants. The United States Federal Trade Commission and 48 states are suing Facebook, which could see social media giant forced to divest assets such as Instagram and WhatsApp. Meanwhile, the European Commission is proposing a Digital Services Act that could result in tech companies being broken up if they are found to be in repeated violation of competition law.

Deemed the nuclear option, the extreme structural remedy of forced divestment is not necessarily fatal for large tech companies.

Gone are the days when corporate behemoths such as AT&T, Standard Oil or the 19th century railroad monopolies were divested to resolve monopoly issues. Big Tech belongs to a completely different species that thrive on an asset-light business model. By harnessing sophisticated algorithms fed by masses of data, Big Tech has become incredibly good at adapting to government regulation.

In many ways, Big Tech resembles a starfish, those seemingly simple but incredibly resilient marine creatures. Just as starfish have five or more arms enabling it to hold on to surfaces against strong sea currents, the extraordinary variety of services provided by Big Tech permeates many aspects of our daily lives, making them similarly resistant to regulatory shifts.

Furthermore, just as starfish are often viewed as harmless grazers despite their ruthless carnivorous instincts, Big Tech preys aggressively on nascent rivals. Above all, just as starfish can regrow their body parts, Big Tech also has the ability to quickly rejuvenate by expanding into new product lines with relative ease.

In 2018, China's media regulator ordered ByteDance to permanently shut down Neihan Duanzi, a popular joke-sharing app with 17 million users, on the basis of its vulgar content. Jinri Toutiao, ByteDance's flagship news app was also temporarily removed from app stores for a similar reason.

Interestingly, the Chinese authority's ruthless intervention came at the same time that Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg testified to Congress regarding his company's alleged failure to protect privacy in the wake of the Cambridge Analytica scandal.

In contrast to Zuckerberg's efforts to defend his company, however, ByteDance founder Yiming Zhang made no excuses and quickly apologized on behalf of his company for content that had "gone against socialist core values."

Despite this regulatory setback, ByteDance continued to flourish, with the company's valuation more than tripling in 2018 as its other apps, including Toutiao, Douyin and TikTok, saw an explosion of users.

Indeed, the permanent shutdown of Neihan Duanzi hardly affected Bytedance's most potent weapon: a smart recommendation system that pushes content to consumers and its vast database of user profiles and personal preferences. Nor did the government intervention disrupt its core human capital, especially its army of talented algorithm engineers.

Ant Group is another example. Yu'E Bao, an investment fund introduced by Alibaba in 2013, was once the world's largest money market fund. Faced with a slew of regulatory clampdowns by Chinese financial regulators since 2017, however, the fund's assets have fallen sharply.

This did not stop Ant from becoming the world's biggest fintech company. By leveraging data obtained through Alipay, Ant continued to expand rapidly into the credit and insurance businesses. By the time Ant filed its initial public offering last fall, its microloan businesses had become Ant's primary source of revenue.

As Jack Ma often claims, Alibaba is not an e-commerce company but a data company. As long as tech companies are able to hold onto their core competencies by capturing user attention and developing sophisticated algorithms to capitalize on the data they hold, they can come back from any setback caused by government intervention with relative ease.

This explains the Chinese government's growing interest in breaking data monopolies, with recent news reports indicating that Beijing is considering setting up an arm's-length joint venture company with domestic tech giants that would oversee the immense amount of data they collect from users.

This is intended to create a more level-playing field for smaller fintech companies competing with Ant Group and Tencent that have accumulated troves of customer data. However, requesting these tech giants to directly turn over data could run the risk of infringing consumer privacy since consumers have not given consent for their data to be passed on to a third party.

On the other hand, stricter data protection laws, which supposedly make it harder for Big Tech to collect and use data from consumers, may put smaller businesses at a disadvantage. The European Union, which stands at the forefront of privacy and data regulation, has seen some smaller businesses suffer more as they struggle to adapt to stringent regulatory demands under the General Data Protection Regulation.

As the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche once wrote: "what does not kill me makes me stronger." The same applies to Big Tech.

See the rest here:

Big Tech is the regenerative starfish of our times - Nikkei Asia