close

As the nation gradually exits COVID and heads back into regular operations, the climate is ripe with opportunity to consider questions regarding the merits of regulatory freedom. Throughout the country, states have taken different stances on how to best approach the pandemic.

Some, such as New York and California, instituted a strong lockdown policy that vastly expanded government control over social and economic activities, while others, such as Florida and South Dakota, took a more hands-off approach, ensuring that the principle of individual autonomy drove good social and economic policy. These differing approaches offer a unique opportunity to evaluate whether the government is necessary to solve all of society's problems. History, free-market principles, and experience would certainly say that it is not.

For example, Brad Polumbo of the Foundation for Economic Education asserts the data is overwhelmingly in favor of free states over those states that locked down completely. For one, studies by The Lancet in July of 2020 and the Frontiers for Health in November of 2020 demonstrated that the stringency of COVID regulations showed no correlation with the numbers of COVID deaths within those states that promoted lockdowns. 

Instead, studies indicated that the stringency of COVID regulations led to great economic cost as businesses took significant financial hits. Social consequences have included an increase in suicides, domestic violence, and drug overdoses.

Meanwhile, when comparing lockdown states to those that took a more relaxed approach, the result is quite telling. In terms of unemployment, those states that have prioritized lockdowns have taken longer to return to normal than those that took a more relaxed position. On top of that, most states that took the hands-off approach are much better positioned with unemployment (about 3 percent) than those that took a strict lockdown approach.

On a practical level, the pandemic offered the opportunity to really put various philosophical and economic principles to the test. As the pandemic comes to a close, it is evident that mistakes were made. Not adhering to principles of economic and social freedom may have been one of those mistakes.  When making this kind of evaluation, hindsight is, of course, always going to be 20/20. However, the data demonstrates that moving forward, the best policy is that which adheres to limited government and prioritizes individual autonomy.

The Covid experience has only further demonstrated that there is no reason, pandemic or otherwise, that justifies government shutting down people’s lives and taking away their freedoms. As Mississippi and the nation at large return back to normal, it is critical that the protection of individual freedom and establishment of limited government ought to be the priority.

We live in a day when the logistics supply chain touches almost every aspect of life. From raw materials such as lumber and steel to complex electronics, practically every element of the market is somehow related to the workings of the logistics supply chain.

There have been multiple recent events highlighting the critical significance of a supply chain that can scale and adjust quickly to new scenarios. In the international trade sector, the accidental blocking of the Suez Canal slowed world shipping and completely halted all traffic through a waterway that facilitates 12 percent of all world trade.

On the infrastructure level, devasting cyberattacks targeted critical supply chain infrastructures and led to unforeseen shortages of essential resources. From a productivity standpoint, the logistics sector has had to confront the challenges of the backlog that came from a global pandemic with its labor shortages, lockdowns, and unprecedented demands for certain products.

In the wake of such shortages, it is more important than ever that our supply chain is strengthened and made to work better and faster. For these reasons, it is critical to recognize the role technology contributes to our supply chain’s ability to scale quickly in the event of future challenges.   

The technologies that carry promise for supply chain advancements are numerous. Although these technologies cover multiple sectors and accomplish numerous tasks, there is a combined effect that can reduce shortages, increase speed, and facilitate efficiency. 

A key technology with the potential to expand supply chain efficiency is the further implementation of automated data analysis. Using a combination of sensors, automated reporting, and location tracking, logistics companies have the ability to capture data trends and increase efficiency. 

Furthermore, artificial intelligence (AI) development has created a new frontier as companies can now utilize data through AI. Using AI, logistics companies can predict patterns and respond to supply chain variables as quickly as possible. AI does not just increase efficiency for large logistics companies. AI also opens up new doors for smaller logistics companies that may not have the expertise and workforce for large-scale data analysis.

Building on the power of data collection and analysis, there has also been an uptick in warehouse technologies that use data-driven decision-making to sort inventory, standardize inventory management, and ultimately send off orders for shipping. These technologies also increase the level of production, decrease the incidents of injury, lower labor costs, and improve product traceability.

All of these technologies have a real significance as America continues to face challenges to the supply chain. As many in the nation come to grips with just how far-reaching the inefficiencies in our system are, the solutions that emerging technologies bring to the table are practical tools that could help to meet new challenges. 

The free market developed the technologies to push the supply chain into the future, and the free market has the tools to make the supply chain more efficient. Instead of expanding government control of the supply chain and putting more regulations on transportation and logistics, government leaders should pursue policies that will encourage technology innovation and support the free market. As a result, our supply chain just might emerge better than ever before -and even more ready to meet the challenges of tomorrow.

In recent years, the political and economic landscape in the United States has brought about a subtle but significant policy proposal. This proposal involves special jurisdictions in a quest to help struggling businesses that have been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic or by poor economic infrastructure in their respective communities.  

As part of President Trump’s economic plan, states throughout the United States (in addition to the federal level) have instituted a plan to give tax breaks to businesses to try to revitalize the economy.  Mississippi is no exception as it has adopted various special economic zones with the express intent of prioritizing the investment and development of state infrastructure. In cities such as Vicksburg, this reform has reportedly saved jobs and helped stabilize the hurting economy. 

These Opportunity Zones are designated to “encourage long-term investments in low-income and rural communities through Qualified Opportunity Funds.” Currently, there are about 100 Opportunity Zones in Mississippi. This will last as a program until 2027 per the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. 

They operate on the basis that investors can earn tax relief through investments designated by the Opportunity Zone. Such benefits increase as the time the investment is held increases. These zones have been placed in strategic areas throughout Mississippi and particularly target low-income and rural communities.

As a matter of policy, this appears to generally makes sense on paper. It goes without saying that to get more money into struggling areas, it is important to have opportunities for capital investment. This has been done in the past by incentivizing businesses with generous tax breaks rather than just having federal or state grants to keep those areas from downing. In doing so, the principle of choice by the consumer remains intact, by allowing the private sector to direct capital to where it is most needed.  

In addition, such a policy has been propounded as a way to help fix economic decisions in the reality of business rather than the theory of bureaucracy. Opportunity zones can help promote economic growth in those hurting communities.

Tom Bell of the Foundation for Economic Education describes this principle perfectly and rightly suggests that, “it also bears noting that [these special jurisdictions] escape the charge that they can thrive only thanks to top-down subsidies. These days, special jurisdictions happen only if and when private investors fund them. That sort of objective oversight helps to ensure that special jurisdictions, far from floating on clouds of theory, have a solid grounding in the real world.” 

In recognition of this fact that these geographic zones are entirely dependent on private investment, it is important that they do not offer only fiscal incentives. Otherwise, some have rightly pointed out that Opportunity Zones could potentially lead to crony capitalism. It is important that Opportunity Zones be coupled with tangible evaluations for success by local community members in order to avoid this.

As Lotta Moberg points out, the focus of the zones must encompass whole regions and offer not just tax breaks but thorough deregulation as well that will assist in directing those investments. This was done in Hong Kong, and it not only liberalized the economy, but incentivized state officials to provide further reform. Ultimately, it confirmed one of Friedman’s primary predictions: “Privately created and managed special jurisdictions tend to outperform public ones.”

As a general principle, the people of Mississippi and businesses ought to welcome the concept of free-market zones as opportunities to fix their own communities that are struggling economically. However, rather than simply placing a tax break incentive to fix the problem, the mindset behind Opportunity Zones needs to have a broader application as state governments seek direct investments from the private sector.  

Ultimately, government incentives are not the answer to expanding investment. Rather than focus on specific regions, policies should lower taxes and regulation across the board. Free market investments that are not restrained by government action are much better solutions to building communities. Opportunity Zones may carry potential in some contexts, but ultimately it is broader freedoms for the free market that have the best chance at growing communities. 

In a day when high-tech farming and agriculture are growing in importance, high-speed internet technology is becoming an important tool for farmers across the country. Emerging mobile internet could play a key part in getting farms connected and expanding their capacity.

In order for agricultural implements to be connected to the internet, mobile connectivity is a critical component. Wired broadband infrastructure (such as fiber) is not always available in rural areas. But mobile internet connectivity is essential for elements such as tractors, drones, and other tools that may be outside the reach of a wired connection. 

A relatively high amount of bandwidth is required for mobile internet connections to achieve their highest potential for agricultural use. While the widely available 4G mobile internet technology common in cell phones allows for some applications, 4G was originally designed for private consumer use in cell phones. Thus, it is not as ideal for commercial applications, such as agriculture.

With speeds that are usually slower than a wired internet connection but relatively responsive, 4G is ideal for personal use such as checking social media, watching a quick video, or sending an email. But the technology doesn’t always carry the bandwidth that is needed in a commercial context.

But the exponential growth of 5G is expanding mobile connectivity capabilities, which carries some exciting possibilities for agricultural technology. What is 5G? 5G stands for “5th Generation” since it is the fifth generation of mobile internet technology. Unlike 4G technology, 5G technology provides the opportunity for mobile connectivity that meets or exceeds most wired internet speeds. 

For agricultural use, 5G has numerous applications that are continually expanding. For instance, 5G can power automated sensors that determine soil and crop status. The correct application of fertilizer can then be applied to specific areas of the fields.

Tractors, powered by 5G, can utilize artificial intelligence to assess crop health and detect weeds to apply precision herbicide. Drones, powered by 5G, can assess pests and specifically target areas that need pesticides. For livestock, 5G-powered tracking devices can track herd movements. The speed of 5G can be used to upload photos of dairy stock to analyze their health by artificial intelligence systems. When it comes to agriculture and 5G, quite literally, the sky is the limit. 

As farmers utilize the enterprise-level speeds of 5G, they will be able to monitor the ever-changing variables of agriculture more effectively. These emerging capabilities could have a tangible impact on greater efficiency, higher yields, and increasing profit margins for agriculture. 

America’s 5G internet infrastructure is building up at a rapid rate. Farmers, investors, and policy makers would do well to be prepared so that the industry can hit the ground running as 5G technology becomes increasingly available. 

In recent years, the Department of Defense has increasingly emphasized the need for defense technology developments and innovations from the private sector for the United States to maintain its military advantages. From a public policy perspective, few issues impact the private sector as much as the regulatory burden. With the private sector playing a growing role in national defense technologies, it is essential to consider the impact that such regulations have on private-sector research and development for technology.  

In the context of defense, innovation is not simply a matter of improving a consumer’s quality of life or economic outputs. The extent of innovation can ultimately mean the difference between victory and defeat. History demonstrates the role of the private sector in the development of technologies that are then utilized for military purposes. History also shows the tragic results on the battlefield that will occur if the private sector of an enemy nation is able to create superior technology and innovations.

For instance, it was the Wright Brothers who invented the airplane in 1903. Just six years later, in 1909, innovations and improvements encouraged the United States military to purchase the world’s first military aircraft from the Wright Brothers to be used for aerial scouting.  By the beginning of World War I in 1914, further innovations were built on the Wright Brothers' concept of a working flying machine. The planes were then used for fighter missions, bombing raids, and other military activities.

Lagging behind in the race to innovate the airplane had real consequences for the Allies in World War I. An innovation introduced in the German Army Air Service’s Fokker Eindecker fighter aircraft enabled them to achieve total air superiority for several months during a period in 1915-1916. This relatively simple innovation developed by a private sector airplane manufacturer in Germany used a timing mechanism that allowed a machine gun to fire in-between the propeller blades. Unfortunately, after the Allies began to have four losses for every aerial victory, Allied pilots got the nickname "Fokker Fodder." These losses continued until the Allies were able to study a captured Eindecker and replicate the technology.  

World War I and the Wright Brothers are in the distant past, but the strategic significance of private sector innovation is more critical than ever. The American regulatory environment compares relatively well against the regulatory boundaries for technology development compared to some other nations. However, America will have to work hard to maintain its place at the top as other countries reform their regulatory policies and use the results to develop military technology.

Ironically, despite being a totalitarian regime, China has recently introduced a plan to spur on “private sector” research and development in order for the nation to become more economically and militarily competitive. With a goal to become among the most technologically innovative nations in the world by 2035, China has introduced policies to lower regulations on banking, research, venture capital, and development. This should serve as a significant consideration for the United States as China continues to emerge as a growing security threat.   

In light of the significance of private sector innovation for national defense and international competitiveness, policy makers should pursue measures that lower the regulatory burden so that the private sector can more easily develop and innovate technology for defense use. Instead of using antiquated regulatory models to regulate cutting-edge technologies, regulatory frameworks should be implemented that are designed with innovation in mind, such as regulatory sandboxes.

The stakes are too high for American regulatory policy to justify hindering technological research, development, and innovation. The lessons of history and the importance of America’s international competitiveness are essential to preserving a strong national security.

Communications Specialist

Mississippi Center for Public Policy

Jackson. MS

https://talentmarket.org/commsmcpp/

Located in Jackson, the Mississippi Center for Public Policy (MCPP) is Mississippi’s free market think tank, advocating for the principles of limited government, liberty, and America’s Founding ideals for three decades. To learn more about the MCPP’s thirty-year efforts of advocating for freedom, look at our website: www.mspolicy.org

The Mississippi Center for Public Policy is looking to hire a Communications Specialist with a flair for producing engaging content across a variety of mediums and continuing to expand our audience. MCPP is looking to significantly step up its digital campaigning and output. The successful candidate will be key to making this happen. They will be conscientious, and able to focus on detail and work independently. Reporting to the Director of Communications, the role is based in our Jackson office, and the applicant would be expected to work from the office during normal office hours. 

Key Responsibilities

More important than any specific experience is a willingness to learn and be part of a fun, enthusiastic team.

Qualifications

To Apply

Qualified candidates should submit the following application materials as one PDF:

Applications should be submitted to Talent Market via this link: talentmarket.org/apply-for-your-dream-job/.

There is no application deadline for this position. Applications are accepted on a rolling basis.  This job will remain posted on our site until it is filled.

Questions can be directed to Katy Gambella, Network Engagement Manager of Talent Market, who is assisting with the search: [email protected].

While we thank all applicants in advance for their interest in this position, we are only able to contact those to whom we can offer an interview. Only direct applications will be considered. No phone calls, please.

Talent Market is a nonprofit entity dedicated to promoting liberty by helping free-market nonprofits identify talent for critical roles. We provide free consulting and recruiting services to free-market think tanks, policy organizations, research centers, and capacity-building institutions dedicated to advancing the principles of limited government and free enterprise.

Some may often get a sense of uneasiness when considering the future, especially within the context of employment.  People seldom truly know what the future holds. Generally, whenever there is a hint of “new” technology making life easier, there may come a sense of worry that someone may have to lose their job.

However, nothing can be further from the truth, and while our society does continue to progress into a more autonomous state, the opportunity for jobs is still very much alive.  In fact, studies have shown that there is quite often a positive effect between technological innovation and employment opportunities.

In Mississippi, several innovations have the potential to grow the economy substantially.  In pursuance of scientific advances, Adranos, Inc., a company originating from Alabama, is making a corporate investment as part of its relocation close to the Stennis Space Center. While the initial job count is only in its beginnings, it can only increase as this company continues to settle in and develop their rocket motor technology.

The Ingalls Shipbuilding company, America’s largest military shipbuilding company, also continues to grow the Mississippi economy and provide additional jobs.  In fact, they are projected to provide over 3,000 jobs as they are “steadily adding new team members to the growing workforce.”  This likely due to an increase in efficiency as the company finds new ways to organizing their business through new technological systems.

Mississippi companies have observed these opportunities and have sought to capitalize upon it.  For example, C Spire, a Mississippi-based company, has sought to create opportunities for education and training in areas of STEM seeking to create a technological movement within the state.  This includes ensuring that schools have sufficient internet, people have the resources to learn coding, and IoT innovations and telehealth are expanded to provide quality care for pervasive health issues in Mississippi.

The best response to all of these opportunities is to allow them to grow. This can be done by embracing the technological advances that remain evident throughout the state.  Government should keep these lanes of innovation open as the people of Mississippi embrace the innovations that will progress the economy into further prosperity.

The United States has a highly developed internet infrastructure with incredible successes to its credit. But problematic policy changes being considered in Washington may jeopardize that success. In recent months there have been calls from many to restore net neutrality.

What is net neutrality? Net neutrality is a policy that internet service providers (ISPs) have to give all internet content providers equal access and use of the ISP’s networks, and for no extra cost. Because of this policy, ISPs could not impose any additional charges on a content provider, regardless of how much data the content provider uses in a network.

For instance, a video streaming company might use a large amount of data on an ISP’s system when users accessed the service. Net neutrality would prohibit the ISP from making the video streaming service pay for the extra data that they used. Instead, net neutrality would force the ISP to spread out the data usage costs to the rest of its users.

Net neutrality does not just increase the cost of the internet for the average consumer. Net neutrality also lowers the incentive for ISPs to expand broadband service if there is no competition to host content provider data.

Former FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai removed Obama-era net neutrality rules in 2018. Pai reasoned that net neutrality forced ISPs to charge consumers more to equalize their operating costs across the board. Following the repeal of net neutrality, there was an increase in broadband investment as ISPs moved to make deals with content providers that would prioritize speed and efficiency for those high-usage content providers.

There have been incredible free-market successes in the wake of repealing net neutrality in America. Yet, there are renewed demands from some for the federal government to reinstate net neutrality. Indeed, the Biden administration is considering the reinstatement of net neutrality.  While such a move might be popular with certain groups in Washington, state and federal policymakers would do well to consider the negative implications that net neutrality could have on the strength of America’s broadband networks.

The failure of net neutrality in Europe is glaring evidence of how problematic the policy is. Amid the Covid-19 pandemic, there were concerns in Europe that the under-built broadband networks could not handle the uptick in internet usage. This network failure is largely due to the European Union’s net neutrality policies that had discouraged investment in broadband development prior to the pandemic.

The inadequate broadband infrastructure led to pleas from European policymakers that content providers limit the data they were pushing through the internet networks. Meanwhile, due to the higher investments in broadband development, the robust broadband infrastructure in the United States responded quite well during the pandemic compared to its European counterparts.  

The success of American broadband comes as little surprise to proponents of the free market competition as the driving force in broadband developments and innovations. As it claims to use the free market as the justification for social media content moderation, Big Tech often insists that companies have the right to decide which entities they will host on their services.

But there appears to be a double standard for many of them regarding the net neutrality issue as these companies themselves feel threatened by the ISPs. The Big Tech companies have a huge market share of internet content. In 2019, just six content providers accounted for 43 percent of all internet traffic. The content providers also can control the content on their massive platforms. Yet, these content providers insist that the ability of ISPs to determine the flow of data on their networks poses a threat to the freedom of the internet.

For instance, Twitter stated with dismay that without net neutrality, “ISPs would even be able to block content they don’t like.” Yet, Twitter and other Big Tech companies have given strong support for other policies, like Section 230, that allow social media companies to moderate, block, or remove certain content from their sites.

Despite the protests of some Big Tech companies, a market without net neutrality has the potential for increased innovation and competition. By allowing for the market to determine which ISPs will prosper as they offer the most attractive services to consumers, there is a real potential for the cycle of competition and innovation to continue. While net neutrality treats the internet simply as a means of broadcasting data in an unsystematic way, a free-market perspective views the internet as a dynamic marketplace commodity that continually responds to supply and demand patterns.

Despite the claims that net neutrality keeps the internet open and accessible, the record shows that net neutrality actually threatens the efficiency of the internet as it erodes the incentives to develop and grow internet infrastructure. Bad policies have harmful consequences. A step back to the failure of net neutrality is a step backward from the success of America’s internet infrastructure.   

The Mississippi space industry constitutes a growing role in the state economy with implications across a wide range of areas. The industry brings employment, infrastructure development, and technological innovations that increase the ability of the state and the nation to be internationally competitive in a growing sector. 

When understanding the space industry, it is essential to note the private sector shift that has taken place in recent years. Government-funded programs are no longer the sole actor in this enterprise. Instead, private enterprise has entered the picture as a growing contributor to progress in space. It is important not to impede this change in the space industry landscape but to encourage this development as a new and capable form of revenue and job growth.

The state of Mississippi shows great promise in this area. In particular, the Stennis Space Center in Hancock County is projected to be the “home to a modern, sustainable propulsion test enterprise by 2025 [and will provide] world-class test services to NASA, other government agencies, and commercial customers.”

In 2020 alone, it served as a major contributor to the Gulf Coast economies, contributing more than $1 billion to Hancock and Pearl River counties and St. Tammany Parish in Louisiana. Indeed, in 2021 Stennis Space Center conducted the hot fire rocket test for the Artemis I space mission, the first of several missions to space that will eventually culminate with Americans on the moon again. 

Inside the center, the E Test Complex provides opportunities for private sector companies such as SpaceX, Blue Origin, and Relative Space to test engines and help innovate this industry to unimaginable heights. It has been such a resource for companies in the space industry that companies have expanded the space center dramatically. 

Relativity, announced that they would be further expanding the Stennis Space Center through a $2.4 million investment. This is on top of their $59 million investment that has been reported to have created 190 jobs for locals.

On both a state and federal level, there seems to be increased attention on continuing this growth. In 2019, former Governor Phil Bryant started the Space Initiative, which seeks to attract more space companies like Relativity to Mississippi. He also announced the Mississippi National Guard Space Directorate formation, which is supposed to attract U.S. Department of Defense federal investments through President Trump’s Space Force. Both of these initiatives show promise in furthering innovation developments in the Mississippi space industry.

Mississippi would also do well from federal legislation such as Senator Wicker and Senator Hyde-Smith’s bill, the Licensing Innovations and Future Technologies in Space Act. Such legislation would significantly grow the space opportunities in South Mississippi by directing the Department of Transportation to build a facility in which federal employees can receive training on the process of licensing commercial space launch and reentry activities.

As an important free-market development, it is important to continue to allow growth in this area. The space industry is a continually expanding area of the American economy, both in the private and public spheres. The Mississippi government would do well to work for cooperation with the space industry as it brings matters of regulatory reform and economic freedom to the state.

magnifiercross linkedin facebook pinterest youtube rss twitter instagram facebook-blank rss-blank linkedin-blank pinterest youtube twitter instagram