Neg Case V2.Pdf
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
We negate. Contention one is The Tech Economy. Calls for antitrust regulation are based on a misunderstanding of the tech industry. Evans ‘02 of the National Bureau of Economic Research writes that because the tech industry is reliant on creating platforms that require large communities of users to profit, tech is a winner-take-all market where firms innovate to create and dominate new markets, rather than competing for shares of the market like in traditional industries. Cass ‘13 of Boston University explains that this structure makes tech very volatile: any tech giant is replaceable in the face of a new innovation or platform. Put simply, tech giants can easily fall from grace once the “next big thing” comes along. There are countless examples: Netflix overtaking television, Apple outcompeting Blackberry, and Facebook overthrowing MySpace. Consequently, Evans continues that the threat of new companies popping up forces tech giants to constantly innovate to protect their dominance. For example, this would limit bad behavior such as price gouging and lackluster innovation. Thus, Evans finds that antitrust regulation is incompatible with tech because it only evaluates the current state of the market – which is a monopoly by necessity – without looking at the competition in innovation. Consequently, Cass warrants that antitrust enforcement would dissuade investment into research and development due to fears that the massive amounts of investment needed to innovate in tech could not be recuperated through market dominance. Gayle 01’ of Kansas State University verifies that a one percent increase in industry monopolization increases a firm's innovative output by .13 percent. Rosenberg ‘04 of the OECD impacts that innovation is crucial in driving productivity increases in the economy that generate higher wage and job growth, finding that eighty-five percent of economic growth is created by increases in innovation. Burns ‘08 of the World Bank explains that technological progress in developing nations has decreased the share of people living in poverty by 11 percent. Contention two is Bringing the World Online. Steitfield ‘19 of New York Times writes that because of the popularity of tech companies, antitrust laws have been relaxed in recent decades, allowing tech giants to form into large-scale monopolies. Indeed, Hubbard ‘19 of CNN explains that while traditional enforcement of antitrust laws would split the current tech giants, like Facebook and Google, into multiple firms, the current relaxed political climate protects these companies. The immense growth of these technology companies has given them the economies of scale to make long-term investments in developing countries. Indeed, Bozzi ‘18 of The Conversation writes that Facebook and Google are investing heavily in critical infrastructure like cables, satellites, and other innovative approaches to expand cheap internet access to underdeveloped nations. Consequently, Kemp ‘19 of Global Digital finds that internet penetration has accelerated to an average of 1 million new users connecting every day. Orell ‘19 of the American Economic Institute writes that with the expansion of the internet comes the expansion of better jobs for workers in developing nations. Thus, Deloitte ‘14 finds that achieving universal internet access would lift 160 million people out of poverty. Unfortunately, Pan ‘17 of Sydney University explains that enforcing antitrust laws and restraining the growth of these large firms would destroy the economies of scale they have acquired, disabling them from undertaking ambitious projects. In fact, affirming and breaking up the tech giants would force the current tech monopolies to halt the spread of internet infrastructure. Because building internet infrastructure in poorer nations is unprofitable, investors aren’t interested, so tech companies must raise money for the projects internally. However, Thiel ‘18 of the Wall Street Journal explains that only monopolies have the ability to finance heavy projects because of their large sources of revenue. Monopolies can take on more risk because losing even large sums of money is a small dent to their total capital pool. Moreover, Mehak ‘13 of the University of Illinois writes that only the tech giants, like Facebook and Google, have the tech capabilities and human capital it takes to engineer cost-cutting solutions to make internet installation abroad feasible in the first place. Indeed, Rinehart ‘18 of the American Action Forum concludes that splitting up the tech giants would eliminate the funding, human capital, and technology, dooming the expansion of the internet. Thus, we negate. https://gigaom.com/2013/12/14/lessons-from-facebook-on-efficiency-for-the-enterprise/ https://itif.org/publications/2018/07/02/dont-fear-titans-tech-and-telecom https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2856502 Case Cards Burns ‘08 - technological innovation spills over to developing nations and reduces poverty Andrew Burns. World Bank. 2008. http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTGEP2008/Resources/GEP08-Brochure.pdf To a significant degree, technological progress is what makes the difference between fast-growing developing economies and slow-growing ones. In the graph below, the main difference between regions where GDP per capita has been growing quickly since the early 1990s (East Asia, South Asia, and developing countries in Europe) and those where growth has been weaker (Latin America, the Middle East, and Africa) has been the rate at which technology has progressed. Rapid GDP per capita growth translates into rising incomes. In this way, technological progress has helped reduce the share of people living in absolute poverty in developing countries from 29 percent in 1990 to 18 percent in 2004. Streitfeld ‘19 - Washington lenient to tech giants has allowed monopoly formation [David Streitfeld, New York Times, "Why a Big Tech Breakup Looks Better to Washington - The New York Times," 09/17/19, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/17/technology/google-facebook-amazon- antitrust.html] The political landscape is shifting, however, at a speed that dumbfounds even antitrust experts. President Barack Obama thought of the tech companies in the way they think of themselves: as progressive, smart entrepreneurs who want what’s best for America. His administration declined to pursue Google on antitrust charges and hired from the tech industry for top posts. Top staff members later went to work for the tech industry in top posts, too. It was a cozy relationship. The financial firms were predatory last decade, exploiting weak spots in the mortgage markets in a way that undermined their viability. Google and Facebook, by contrast, offer their services for free, while Amazon built its reputation on selling as cheaply as possible. That makes it hard to regulate them by the antitrust consensus, which for a couple of decades has held that there is no injury unless consumers directly suffer by paying higher prices. Hubbard ‘19 - judges have narrowed law, allowing data monopolies to exist [Sally Hubbard for CNN Business Perspectives, , CNN, "How Big Tech is breaking antitrust laws - CNN," 01/02/19, https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/02/perspectives/big-tech-facebook-google-amazon- microsoft-antitrust/index.html Why, then, isn't anything being done about Big Tech violating the Sherman Act? In recent decades, corporate defendants have persuaded judges to narrow the law, by requiring, for instance, evidence of price increases to prove a case. But consumers pay for tech platforms' services with data, not dollars. The Sherman Act makes no mention of prices, and low prices should not be the only goal. Competition should be the goal. Competition maximizes consumer choice, innovation and quality, and combats the concentration of economic and political power. Bozzi ‘18 - tech giants invest internet infrastructure Bozzi, Claudio. “Tech Giants Are Battling It out to Supply the Global Internet - Here's Why That's a Problem.” The Conversation, 10 Dec. 2018, theconversation.com/tech-giants-are-battling-it- out-to-supply-the-global-internet-heres-why-thats-a-problem-94303. Accessed 14 June 2019. https://theconversation.com/tech-giants-are-battling-it-out-to-supply-the-global-internet- heres-why-thats-a-problem-94303 The tech giants have been investing heavily in critical infrastructure in recent years. Google owns the FASTER trans-Pacific undersea cable link, which has carried data (at 60 terabits per second) between the US, Japan and Taiwan since 2016. Meanwhile, the Microsoft and Facebook funded MAREA trans-Atlantic cable has connected the US to southern Europe (at 160 terabits per second) since in 2017. New investments centre on atmospheric, stratospheric and satellite delivery strategies. Along with SpaceX’s constellation of small satellites, Facebook’s internet.org uses atmospheric drones to deliver internet to rural and remote areas. Google’s Project Loon uses high altitude navigable balloons for the same purpose. Kemp ‘19 - 1 million new internet users every day “Digital 2019: Global Internet Use Accelerates.” We Are Social, 30 Jan. 2019, wearesocial.com/blog/2019/01/digital-2019-global-internet-use-accelerates. Accessed 14 June 2019. https://wearesocial.com/blog/2019/01/digital-2019-global-internet-use-accelerates Our latest internet data – collected and synthesised from a wide variety of reputable sources – shows that internet users are growing at a rate of more than 11 new users per second, which results in that impressive total of one million new users each day. It’s worth noting that some of this growth may be attributable to more up-to-date reporting of user numbers, but that doesn’t detract from the implications of this growth. Ornell ‘19 - expansion of jobs Ornell. AEI. 2019. http://www.aei.org/publication/its-a-big-world-somebodys-gotta-label-it/ Given the infinite variety and quantity of data that requires labeling and the ravenous appetite that all kinds of commercial entities have for that data, the big high-tech firms are turning to developing countries for educated but inexpensive labor. Across Asia and Africa, firms like Google, Microsoft, Salesforce, and Yahoo! are employing low-cost tech workers to do the work of labeling the world.