Matthew Nicaud, Author at Mississippi Center for Public Policy

Big Tech has had a wave of complaints leveled against it in recent years, and perhaps rightly so. From assertions of censorship, to excessive digital control, the companies have come under increasing scrutiny. In light of these tensions, some have called for Big Tech companies to be broken up all together, using a policy lever known as antitrust. But is this the best approach?

Many of the grievances against Big Tech carry a lot of weight. Yet, at the same time, Big Tech companies have achieved their large market shares by offering services that have benefitted consumers. Using the power of emerging technologies, consumers have been able to grow their businesses, connect with friends, and engage with society.

This brings in the question of whether or not antitrust is the best way to address the Big Tech challenges. Is an antitrust breakup of Big Tech companies the answer? Isn't there an ever-slight possibility that Big Government solutions could turn out to be worse than the problems with Big Tech itself?

What is antitrust?

In order to understand this debate, it is crucial to define antitrust. At the foundation, antitrust is a collection of laws that seek to ensure competition in the open market. How these laws are interpreted and applied has been a hinge point of the debate.

When antitrust was first instituted in the early 1900s, it was meant to break up the industrial monopolization practices that affected market competition, especially in the oil, rail, and steel sectors. Many of the companies engaged in practices that deliberately sought to corner the market, and then they would charge consumers higher prices for lower quality.

Initially, a company's size and market dominance were often key factors in whether it could be broken up. However, as antitrust law developed, the "Consumer Welfare Standard" became the key litmus test. Under this standard, antitrust action to break up a company can only occur if a company engages in monopolization practices that actually harm consumer welfare.

The danger of government not using the consumer welfare test for antitrust

Contrasted with this consumer welfare test is when the government simply goes after "big" companies if they have a large market share. This carries the presumption that if a company outperforms most competitors, it must be engaging in anti-competitive behavior. Such actions go against the purpose of antitrust. After all, antitrust is meant to help consumers, not competitors.

Thus, if antitrust is indiscriminately used as a cudgel to hit large technology companies without having a consumer-grounded reason, this sets a dangerous precedent. In a capitalistic society, companies exist to serve customers and generate capital. Companies growing to be large and serving millions of consumers is a trophy of free-market success. This should be celebrated, not punished.

The Big Tech issue is complex

Yet we return to the question of how to address bad actors within the companies collectively known by many as Big Tech. The issues are complex, and like most complex issues, a broad and heavy-handed government bureaucracy is not the answer.

Rather, specific issues within the Big Tech context should be addressed within the confines of that specific issue. This is critical. While blanket approaches to solving problems may carry political weight, a broad expansion of government power is dangerous. In the words of Ronald Reagan: "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the Government, and I'm here to help."

In most cases, companies that provide poor services will decline because consumers will not support them with their spending money. The forces of consumer choice have the ability to damage bad actors and poor-performing companies far more than a policymaker ever could. Whether it likes or not, every company is ultimately accountable to the market.

However, this is not to say that policymakers should abdicate their responsibility to address the public policy questions surrounding Big Tech. Rather, they should consider these issues with calculated precision.

If the issue is far-reaching social media censorship, then policymakers should carefully consider that specific issue. If the issue is algorithmic election interference, then policymakers should specifically consider that issue as well. Contrasted with addressing these specific questions, a broad application of antitrust just to "cut down tech companies to size" is not the solution.

Free market growth should not be jeopardized

An antitrust policy that seeks to break up a company because of its size and market share is tantamount to punishing the success it achieved through consumer choice. Rather than using the paradigm that "big is bad," antitrust policy should stick to the consumer welfare standard that takes this consumer choice into account.

A key free-market principle is that economic freedom and consumer choice should be the basis for economic policies. Mississippi’s House Bill 833 is a bill that goes against these principles by creating a regulation that vehicle manufacturers must use a third-party franchise dealership to sell their cars. The bill recently passed the House and has been referred to the Senate finance committee.

In the wake of innovative technologies, innovative business models have emerged with them. The car industry is no exception. As electric cars are being developed, manufacturers have sought alternative ways to lower costs for consumers. One way that manufacturers accomplish this is by selling their vehicles directly to consumers instead of using the traditional dealership franchise model.

Why has the government gotten involved in auto dealerships in the first place? To better understand the root of this debate, it is helpful to consider the historical background. Instead of selling their cars directly to consumers, manufacturers have historically sold their cars through third-party franchises.

By the middle of the 20^th century, the car market had consolidated to only a few manufacturers. Since there were only a few manufacturers, dealers were concerned that manufacturers would leverage their market dominance as a way to force dealers into one-sided franchise contracts. To push back against this, the dealers successfully lobbied for franchise laws that set minimum standards for the contracts between manufacturers and dealers.

Under current law, a car manufacturing subsidiary is not prohibited from obtaining a license to operate a dealership. Some have argued that this violates the franchise laws that govern agreements between manufacturers and franchisees.

However, the original purpose of the franchise laws was to regulate contracts between manufacturers and actual third-party dealers, not to require that all car manufacturers use the franchise model. Suppose a company does not use the franchise model. In that case, it should not be pushed out of the market by laws that are intended for franchise contract regulation.

Should the government decide that because cars have historically been purchased through franchises, that this must be the case indefinitely? Ultimately, the issue boils down to consumer choice. If a consumer decides that they do not want to have a dealership involved in their vehicle purchase, government policy should not force them to.

Some consumers may prefer the dealer franchise experience over purchasing a vehicle straight from the manufacturer. Yet, it is anti-free market policy for the government to force all citizens everywhere in the state to only purchase a vehicle exclusively from franchisees.

Comparable to the issue of mandating car dealership franchises is a consideration of other goods in the market. For instance, imagine if Mississippi required all restaurant chains to operate as a franchise. Chick-Fil-A, Subway, and other franchise restaurants chains would still be options on the table for consumers. Meanwhile, Mississippians could not enjoy a meal from Cracker Barrel, Chipotle, Panda Express, or other non-franchise restaurants.

Thankfully government overreach has not gone that far yet, but House Bill 833 would impose such a rule on car choices. Mississippians could take the car by the drive-through at as many non-franchise restaurants as they pleased. But buy that new electric car from a non-franchise dealer? No indeed not.

Personal preferences and choices are the lifeblood of a free economy, not a system where individuals are forced to comply with heavy-handed government regulations. House Bill 833 is bad for consumers, the free market, and the state of Mississippi. Free people should have the ability to make free choices without a nanny state forcing them to buy certain items in their state through a third party.

To confront Bidenomics inflation and devalued currency, many citizens have invested in precious metals to protect their investments and savings. Despite this, Mississippi imposes a sales tax on precious metals.

Thankfully, Representative Jill Ford has introduced House Bill 426 to remove this tax, and it passed the House of Representatives today. The bill now moves to the Senate for consideration.

To grasp the importance of House Bill 426, it is vital to grasp the current state of affairs regarding precious metal taxation. The citizens of other states can purchase gold as a protection from “the hidden tax of inflation” without getting a sales tax on top of it.

According to analysis produced by the Sound Money Defense League, Mississippi is one of only nine states in the nation that imposes sales tax on bullion. In addition, of the states that impose sales tax on bullion, Mississippi has among the highest state-level sales tax of the nine states that impose sales tax on bullion.

This means that even when compared to the few states that also impose sales tax on precious metals, Mississippi has the least competitive rates. Furthermore, of the four states that neighbor Mississippi, three of them do not charge sales tax on the purchase of bullion. This means that those seeking to purchase precious metals are far better off with Mississippi’s neighbors.

It is easy and accurate for Mississippi leaders to justly point fingers at Washington for the inflation that has eaten away at American savings and investments. Yet, the state of Mississippi is to blame if its citizens are hesitant to exchange the inflating dollar for gold when the gold is 7 percent more expensive just because of a state-level tax.

When Mississippi imposes a sales tax on gold, this can heavily impact the growth potential of gold as a protection against inflation. Consider the following scenario. A Mississippian might have bought $5,000 in gold in 2018 at the average price per ounce of $1,268. This would have given them a tax bill of $350. This would mean that the total investment cost would be $5,350.

If the sales tax was not there, the entire $5,350 could be used to purchase gold. This would mean that in 2021 the $5,350 investment cost would have been worth an average of $7,089 with the sales tax. Without the sales tax, this $5,350 investment cost would be worth $7,569. That $350 sales tax would ultimately cost the taxpayer $480 in gold value. It’s time for Mississippi to repeal this burdensome tax that discourages investment and places a sales tax penalty on those who seek to protect their money from inflation. Hats off to the legislature for working to remove this tax that works against Mississippians seeking to protect their savings and investments with precious metals.

Senate Bill 2604, titled the "Mississippi Broadband Expansion Act," passed the state Senate in recent days and will now go to the House of Representatives for consideration. While the title of the bill gives the impression of meaningful broadband expansion, the bill actually increases the size of government by allowing select municipalities to establish broadband networks.

In 2019, the legislature passed a bill allowing electric power associations to offer broadband services. In turn, many of the municipal electric systems wanted to start offering broadband services as well. This year's bill allows for such systems to do that. At first glance, it may seem like a beneficial proposition to some. However, government-owned broadband networks have a long history of failure and waste taxpayer money.

The complexities of broadband service

In the first place, it is important to recognize that the complexities of broadband are highly specialized and more challenging than other services like electricity that municipalities already offer in many places.

For instance, it is far more difficult to predict the revenues of broadband networks than electricity and water utilities. The reason for this is relatively simple. While electricity and water service is an absolute necessity that practically no consumer will willingly go without, broadband has not yet gone to the level of a basic living standard.

In light of this, many people within the municipal broadband service area may not choose to get the service for any number of reasons. In some cases, a citizen just may not see a need to have broadband in their home. In other cases, consumers may choose to use alternative broadband sources such as cellular or satellite.

Search uncertainty leaves municipal broadband networks with the necessity to estimate their potential customer base. This requires hiring consultants to analyze the city demographics, infrastructure, and interest in broadband. While such assessments may be helpful in some cases, they are notoriously inaccurate, often leaving cities with thousands of dollars in consultancy costs, with taxpayers having to pay for false data.

In addition, if the expected broadband service revenues are lower than expected, many municipalities have been forced to prop up their networks with additional taxpayer funds. This ultimately places the burden of the increased costs on taxpayers, even for those who never even bought the service in the first place.

The potential for private sector deterrence

In addition to the complex inefficiencies and waste that many municipal broadband networks have brought on taxpayer budgets, municipal broadband networks also have the potential to push away private sector investment.

As broadband expansion costs become cheaper with new technologies, many cities and towns already have private sector investment and broadband expansion on the horizon. However, when the government places its hand into the free market, an imbalance is caused.

For example, consider a municipality with a broadband service territory of 8,000 residents. Sixty percent of those customers might be fairly satisfied with their service (4,800 people), and 40 percent might be dissatisfied (3,200 people). In a free market context, the broadband provider would be motivated to satisfy those customers so that revenues can keep flowing to sustain the operation.

However, in this case, a government municipality would have taxpayer dollars to fall back on no matter how bad the service actually is. What's more, private sector investment would have less motivation to invest in that market because 60 percent of the customers did not want a new broadband provider. In the meantime, the 40 percent would be stuck with poor service and a lack of consumer choice.

Broadband growth should not be a doorway to government growth

There is little debate that Mississippi needs broadband growth and expansion. But using the failed model of municipal broadband networks is not the way to get Mississippians the service they need. Municipal broadband may provide a temporary solution in some cases. Yet, the long-term effects of such networks on taxpayers and private sector investment often outweigh potential benefits.

Other states have been down this road, and they serve as a cautionary tale for the Magnolia State. Rather than growing government, municipal broadband should be rejected in favor of policy models and free-market solutions. This is a true pathway for Mississippi to move forward into the future.

Tax cuts and reforms can be implemented from several angles. In Mississippi, the most transformative place to start would be by repealing a current tax that taxes people’s livelihoods, commonly known as the income tax. The Mississippi House Representatives and the Senate have presented separate tax cut plans, but not all tax plans are created equal.

Determining the extent of the income tax repeal has been influenced by many factors. However, among the most significant of these factors is determining a balance. The state needs a balance that gives Mississippians impactful tax reform while maintaining a fiscally responsible budget. Without keeping this balance, the tax reform proposal will either focus on the state budget so much that it does not give meaningful tax cuts. Or the tax cuts will go so far that government budgets are jeopardized. This is the paradigm that the House and Senate tax plans should be reviewed through.

Comparing the benefits of each plan for individual Mississippians

In the first place, it is essential to consider how large a tax cut would need to be in order for it even to make a difference in the lives of Mississippians. To quantify the impact that each tax reform package could have, it can be helpful to compare tax cuts against what the private sector defines as a meaningful pay raise.

According to the Conference Board, a world-respected analytics organization that tracks pay raise trends, median salary increases sit at approximately 3.5 percent. In other words, income increases substantially below this amount are below what the private sector might consider to be a meaningful increase in income.

Under the House plan, a Mississippian making a gross income of $40,000 a year would get an approximate $1,500 reduction in taxes through eliminating the income tax, according to a summary published by the House of Representatives. This translates to an approximate net income increase of 3.8 percent. Thus, such an increase would be something Mississippians could genuinely benefit from, just as they might benefit from a similar pay raise at work.

This is contrasted with the Senate plan. Under the Senate plan, a Mississippian making a gross income of $40,000 a year would get an approximate $260 reduction in taxes. This would be a mere 0.65 percent net income increase, which is hardly something that would bring substantial tax relief. In addition, although the Senate plan removes the 4 percent bracket from the income tax, there is no path in the plan that aims towards the total elimination of the state income tax.

A broad tax cut cannot be called transformative for Mississippi incomes if it is not even the equivalent of a basic pay raise. Thus, when comparing the two plans, the Senate plan is less effective than the House plan when the two plans are measured in light of their positive impact on everyday Mississippians. Tax cuts would be good for Mississippians, even in small amounts. However, a tax reform proposal that does not accomplish its stated goal to give a meaningful reduction in taxes should be revised at a very minimum.

The impact of the tax plans on the state budget and economy

Granted, increases in taxpayers’ take-home income may greatly benefit Mississippi on an individual level, but some would look back to the consideration of the two plans from the state budget angle. In determining how much taxes to cut, a key consideration has been whether such tax cuts would have a negative effect on the state’s budget and fiscal responsibility.

Mississippi’s state budget is in some of the best shape it has ever been in. Some of the funds are due to an influx of federal funds, but the state also has among the highest state tax revenue collections it has ever had. Thus, while some may argue that it is not a good time for a widespread tax cut and removal of the income tax, it is unlikely that a better time will come about in the foreseeable future.

Instead of the state government simply spending the money itself, money is in the best position when it is in the hands of the private sector. According to the Mercatus Center, several studies have suggested that while private sector investment grows the economy, government spending can actually harm the economy in some cases, by pushing out the private sector in favor of government programs.

Additionally, in light of the excess revenues, it is fiscally responsible to put the money back into the hands of the people. In the wake of the economic struggles of the pandemic, along with the challenges of inflation and Bidenomics, the time has come for Mississippians to at least get meaningful tax relief from their own state.

After all, if an elected government has a balanced budget and an excess surplus, what better course of action than to return the money to the taxpayers it came from? The House plan does the best job at accomplishing this.

It's time for real tax relief in Mississippi

Mississippi needs real tax relief. While both the Senate and House plans give commendable tax cut proposals for the state's people, the House plan carries the most promise as a catalyst for true tax relief and long-term growth. Rather than merely giving Mississippians tax breaks that are well-intentioned but non-transformative, the time has come for state leaders to give the people meaningful tax relief.

The United States has seen a notable increase in home-based businesses in recent years. However, despite their potential to grow incomes and expand opportunities, many local regulations have hamstrung these businesses. The Mississippi Senate and House both have bills introduced to address these issues, thanks to the initiative of Senator Daniel Sparks and Representative Jansen Owen.

According to 2016 pre-pandemic data from the Small Business Administration, approximately 50 percent of all small businesses are home-based. In the wake of greater familiarity with working from home brought on by the pandemic, in conjunction with many starting their own businesses, the evidence suggests that these numbers have only increased.

As people harness the power of new technologies and leverage opportunities for growth, small business owners have been able to build home businesses that can provide supplemental or even primary income. In many cases, home businesses eventually expand and grow to full-scale operations with offices, warehouses, and dozens of employees.

In addition to the immediate benefits for small businesses, many of these small businesses eventually become mid-sized companies or even multi-billion dollar corporations. Amazon, Hobby Lobby, Microsoft, Google, Dell, Disney, and a host of other companies started out small in garages, houses, apartments, and dorm rooms.

Despite all of the potential behind home-based businesses, the need for a friendly regulatory environment is stronger than ever before. A study conducted by the Center for Growth and Opportunity at the Utah State University found that many cities and local governments have zoning laws, permit fees, and a tangle of other regulations that make launching a home-based startup all the more difficult.

Such regulations have included local ordinances against home-based businesses having employees, bans on customers coming to the home, and commercial building requirements. According to another report on the issue from the Cato Institute, 18 states have passed laws reducing such burdens on home-based businesses. Such laws have helped home-based business models ranging from music lessons to cottage food sales.

The bills in the legislature would accomplish such protections in Mississippi. Senator Daniel Sparks' Home Business Relief Act and Representative Jansen Owen's Home-based Opportunity Freedom Act would both explicitly establish that arbitrary fees and regulations cannot single out home-based businesses.

It's time for Mississippi to step up to the plate and enact policies to protect home-based businesses from excessive local regulations. It should not be a crime or a privilege to practice entrepreneurship in your home. This legislation would ensure that Mississippians are protected from government intrusion as they pursue opportunities through home-based businesses.

The Mississippi Center for Public Policy approves of this legislation and will continue to update you as the 2022 Mississippi Legislative Session continues, and you can keep up with measures by watching our Legislative Tracker.

It would be an understatement to say that the number of regulations in Mississippi is immensely high. But Senator Kevin Blackwell has introduced legislation to proactively lower that number. Senate Bill 2162 would require several state agencies to repeal two regulations for every new regulation.

While many regulatory reforms have addressed regulatory burdens in certain areas, policies have seen success in other states due to the numerical nature of the reform. While certain reforms that single out specific regulations are laudable, this legislation is unique in that it addresses the bigger picture behind regulatory burdens as a whole.

A study by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University found that there are “117,558 restrictions and 9.3 million words. It would take an individual about 518 hours—or almost 13 weeks—to read.” Such regulations have been brought about over several decades, with some dating back to the 1950s.

While such a gargantuan number of regulations can seem daunting, regulatory excesses have been tackled before using policies similar to SB2162. In 2017, the Trump Administration incorporated a similar “one-in-two-out” policy and other reforms with the aim to reduce federal regulations. According to a report from the Heritage Foundation, these reforms led to reduced regulatory burdens and saved the American economy billions of dollars in regulatory costs.

The same is true on a state level. While individual repeals of such regulations can be extremely helpful in many cases, Mississippi needs an overhaul of its entire regulatory system that is based upon empirical data and facts. As the state of Mississippi turns the page into the 2020s, it is time for any new regulations to start clearing away old regulations. In addition, Blackwell’s legislation does not just replace old regulations with new ones. There is a 1:2 ratio for the number of new regulations versus the reduction in existing regulations. The time has come for Mississippi to do some regulatory clean-up and clear away the tangle of regulations that have built up over the years and threaten to clog economic growth. Senator Blackwell is to be commended for introducing this legislation that could serve as a real catalyst for regulatory reduction and economic prosperity.

Agricultural regulations can be among the most burdensome regulations in the entire economy. This is especially true for innovative agricultural technologies and business models. Thankfully, Mississippi legislators are leading the charge for a reduction in red tape. Representatives Jansen Owen and Kent McCarty introduced House Bill 1055 to create a pathway for innovators to be exempt from onerous regulations.

It’s no secret that removing regulatory burdens is a catalyst for economic growth, and this bill seeks to accomplish just that in the agricultural sector. In an interview with Mississippi Center for Public Policy, Representative Owen noted: “Reducing regulatory burdens is key to growing our economy. This legislation will make it easier for farmers across Mississippi to earn their living, feed their families, and feed Mississippi’s families.”

According to the Mississippi Department of Agriculture and Commerce (MDAC), the agriculture sector directly or indirectly employs approximately 17 percent of the state workforce. Thousands of agricultural businesses have seen great success in the Magnolia State. Yet, many of the regulations in the state were written in the 1970s and 1980s and do not quite account for the innovative agricultural technologies and business models of the 2020s.

To address this problem, House Bill 1055 gives agricultural innovators the option to be exempt from certain regulations that do not have an effect on health or safety. Known as a “regulatory sandbox,” this regulatory relief model that exempts innovators from unapplicable regulations has seen success in several states and sectors, including financial technology, insurance, blockchain, property technology, and others.

While the complexity of agricultural regulations is immense, the bill establishes a straightforward and business-friendly program within the MDAC for innovators to test their products in the open market. If an individual encounters an agricultural regulation that is not tied to health or safety, they could apply to the innovation program and request an exemption. If the exemption request is not found to be a threat to public health or safety, the innovator’s request would be granted, and they would be permitted to operate under the exemption.

The agricultural innovations that could benefit from such a program are numerous, but these innovations can be easily summarized into two categories: innovative business models and innovative ag-tech. On the one hand, there are innovative business models that don’t quite fit into the current regulatory structure, such as urban agriculture and direct farm-to-consumer sales.

Agricultural technology also carries promise for the use of an agricultural regulatory exemption program. For instance, under current regulation in the state, a pilot’s license would be required in order for a drone operator to use a drone to distribute pesticides on fields. This is because of an outdated provision implemented in the days when planes were the only way to distribute substances via the air. Mississippi has a chance to show that it is open for business, and become a destination for agricultural innovators. Thanks to the forward-thinking of Representatives Owen and McCarty, the state could see the fruits of agricultural innovation grow and expand, without the impediment of excessive government regulations.

The issues of government administrative costs can often get enormously complicated, but in some cases, the issues can be fairly easy to grasp. For example, despite having a lower population than most other states, and a much smaller education budget, Mississippi’s Superintendent of Education receives among the highest salary of any state superintendent in the country.

Representative Nick Bain has introduced a bill to change that. House Bill 415 is a bill to cap the salary of the State Superintendent of Education to no more than 150% of the Governor’s salary. Senators Dennis DeBar, Angela Burkes Hill, and Chris McDaniel have introduced similar legislation in the upper chamber. The bills would save taxpayers money and direct more funding into the classroom. The Governor’s current salary is set at $122,160. The Superintendent’s salary is $300,000.

In an interview with the Mississippi Center for Public Policy, Representative Bain noted: “For me it is hard to justify her making that much. We have teachers in the classrooms with our children, who work their fingers to the bone, and they barely get by. It’s time we take a hard look at how she gets paid.” Representative Bain’s bill would lower the salary to a maximum of $183,240. This would place the Superintendent’s salary closer in line with the heads of other agencies in the state and the state education superintendents of other states.

Such actions by the legislature are applaudable. In 2021, MCPP released the “Fat Cat Report,” which outlined the top 50 state and local government salaries in Mississippi and found that many administrators within the education system made amongst the highest salaries in the state.

This coincides with an earlier report released by the State Auditor, which found that administrative costs have seen an overall increase. The report concluded that such funds could have been put back into the classroom, to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. It is also important to note that while the costs of education superintendents and other administrators were included in the increased costs, such cost increases do not include actual teachers, which are categorized as an inside-the-classroom cost.

While government agencies and administrators often insist on the need for increased funding, a good place to start might just be by decreasing the salaries of overpaid administrators. There is no defensible case for Mississippi’s State Superintendent of Education to make far more than the superintendents of other states, particularly when the state has consistently had education budget challenges.