​In episode 81 of This Week's Economy, I discuss the Federal Reserve's looming decision on interest rates, the shifting dynamics in the U.S. labor market, California Governor Newsom's veto on AI regulation, and more!

Visit my website ⁠www.vanceginn.com⁠ for more information, and get show notes at ⁠www.vanceginn.substack.com⁠.

​Join me for Episode 115 of the Let People Prosper Show with Jessica Melugin as we discuss the high costs of regulations, the costs of regulating social media for minors instead of empowering parents to parent, and the next steps with AI from a free-market perspective. She is director of the Center for Technology & Innovation at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

Subscribe, share, and rate the Let People Prosper Show, get show notes at vanceginn.substack.com, and visit vanceginn.com for more insights.

Originally published at Discourse. 

​Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit heard arguments on the legality of banning the social media platform TikTok. The debate over whether TikTok should be able to keep operating in the United States brings the issue of government control over digital platforms to the forefront. It’s the latest frontier in the age-old battle between freedom and security, and there are certainly vociferous defenders on both sides.

Given that it is partially owned by the Chinese company ByteDance, TikTok has long been at the center of national security concerns. Some lawmakers argue that the app's data collection practices pose a risk, as Chinese laws could force ByteDance to share sensitive information with the country’s government. Casey Blackburn, assistant director of national intelligence, noted in an affidavit in the case that the Chinese government could attempt to “coerce ByteDance or TikTok to covertly manipulate the information received by the millions of Americans that use the TikTok application every day, through censorship or manipulation of TikTok’s algorithm, in ways that benefit the PRC and harm the United States.”

TikTok users should understand that using the platform comes with risks and decide, based on those risks, whether to continue using it or not. However, a U.S. government ban on TikTok would set a dangerous precedent, infringing on free speech, economic freedom and the future of innovation.

Lawmakers Are Concerned, Americans Less So
Certainly, the primary justification for a TikTok ban is that the platform puts our national security at risk. Lawmakers fear that TikTok’s parent company, ByteDance, could be compelled by Chinese laws to share data such as users' locations and personal details with the Chinese government. 

Additionally, concerns have been raised that TikTok could be used to deliver misinformation by controlling the content seen by its American users, especially during politically sensitive times like the U.S. presidential election or the Israel-Hamas conflict. This is a growing worry, given that over half of American adults report that they get at least some of their news from social media. Platforms can easily pick favorites by adjusting their algorithms, content and sources to be shown to users.

Florida Sen. Marco Rubio has called TikTok “China’s digital Trojan Horse,” claiming the app poses an unprecedented risk due to the potential for data misuse. These fears have propelled many lawmakers to back efforts to ban TikTok, believing that the Chinese government could use the platform for surveillance or to sway American public opinion. According to the American intelligence community’s annual report, “TikTok accounts run by a PRC propaganda arm reportedly targeted candidates from both political parties during the U.S. midterm election cycle in 2022.”

Meanwhile, average Americans don’t seem to share many lawmakers’ worries. Pew Research Center polling from the summer found that 42% of Republicans and right-leaning independents supported the ban, while only 24% of Democratic and left-leaning independent voters felt the same. And this support has fallen over time: While 32% of Americans support a TikTok ban today, 50% did in March 2023. 

Concerns have also done nothing to curb the platform's popularity globally and in the U.S. TikTok boasts 1.5 billion monthly active users and is now the fifth-most-popular social media platform in the world. Most of its users come from the U.S., with 148 million monthly unique users in this country. If Americans are concerned about the security risks posed by TikTok’s connection with China, they’re not letting it affect their behavior.

A Dangerous Precedent
While lawmakers’ concerns may be legitimate, they’re shortsighted. Focusing solely on TikTok’s risks overlooks the broader issue of how all tech companies—not just those owned by foreign entities—handle user data and are influenced by government officials. While other social media outlets don’t have the same connection with their ownership as those operating in an adversarial foreign country, the influence that the U.S. federal government has on some platforms is concerning. In fact, Facebook came under fire this summer when CEO Mark Zuckerberg publicly stated that during the pandemic the Biden administration pressured the company to censor content related to COVID-19.

Facebook, Google and Instagram collect similarly vast amounts of data, yet they have not faced the same scrutiny. Singling out TikTok with legislation is likely more about political optics and national security concerns than creating meaningful data security reforms. Meanwhile, there has yet to be credible, publicly available evidence of Chinese government actions that would warrant a ban on TikTok in the U.S. Jennifer Huddleston of the Cato Institute argues that banning TikTok could lead to government overreach, setting a precedent for further restrictions on technology under the guise of national security.

A ban would also undermine America’s role as a defender of free speech and openness. If the government starts dictating which platforms Americans can use based on political calculations, it sets the stage for future administrations to limit access to other platforms, potentially leading to broader censorship and reduced competition in the tech ecosystem. Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul highlighted these concerns, noting, “The Supreme Court will ultimately rule it unconstitutional because it would violate the First Amendment rights of over 100 million Americans who use TikTok to express themselves.”

Free Speech and Economic Liberty at Risk
The First Amendment guarantees Americans the right to free expression, and social media platforms like TikTok have become vital tools for communication. Millions of users rely on these platforms to share ideas, create content and engage in discussions. The proposed ban would curb individual choice, as people would no longer be free to decide which platforms to use. Instead of trusting individuals to make informed decisions, the government would be a gatekeeper for what platforms Americans can access.

Virginia Sen. Mark Warner, an architect of the ban, has said, “This is not an effort to take your voice away. … This is not a ban of a service you appreciate. … At the end of the day, they've not seen what Congress has seen.” While Warner’s concerns about data privacy are valid, addressing them by removing individual freedom to choose digital platforms is a imprudent solution that overlooks the broader implications for free speech and innovation.

Banning TikTok would also severely disrupt the economic opportunities it provides for businesses, especially small businesses. TikTok has become an invaluable tool for many entrepreneurs and content creators who rely on the platform to reach new audiences and grow their customer base. Since the pandemic, TikTok has allowed businesses to market their products in creative ways that larger platforms, like Facebook or Instagram, have struggled to match. TikTok’s launch of TikTok Shop in 2023, for example, has attracted more than 500,000 U.S. sellers who use the platform as a key component of their e-commerce strategy. Shutting down TikTok stateside would disproportionately harm these small businesses, removing a vital marketing and sales tools. Such a ban would stifle innovation and damage the dynamic competitive spirit that fuels economic growth.

The potential TikTok ban also raises concerns about market distortion. TikTok operates in a crowded social media space alongside competitors like Instagram, Snapchat and YouTube. Despite their extensive data collection practices, none of these companies are facing bans. If TikTok were banned, it would grant these other platforms an unfair advantage, not through innovation or better service, but because of government intervention.

Companies should rise or fall in a free market based on their ability to innovate, provide value to consumers and compete on a level playing field. When the government intervenes by banning one company, it creates artificial winners and losers. The tech industry thrives on competition, and government overreach in the form of platform bans undermines this competition. Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden has raised similar concerns: “Banning TikTok opens the door for future censorship of apps and technologies deemed politically inconvenient.”

Unleashing the Future … and the Free Market
Social media, artificial intelligence and data-driven technologies are driving a real global transformation. Government bans, however, risk stifling this growth. Instead of restricting platforms and technologies out of fear, we should encourage innovation and competition to allow new technologies to flourish.

By banning TikTok, the U.S. would send a message that government action can stifle innovation. Entrepreneurs may hesitate to invest in new technologies because of concern that their platforms could be shut down based on political whims rather than market forces. If the U.S. wants to maintain its position as a global leader in technology, it must foster an environment that promotes innovation and technological advancement, not one that restricts it.

In a free market, individuals—not the government—should decide which platforms they use. The federal government can certainly provide information for transparency about potential risks, but it should be up to consumers to assess those risks and decide what is best for them. The TikTok ban represents a paternalistic approach to governance, where the government dictates what is safe or unsafe for people, limiting their freedom to make informed choices.

We must recognize that nothing is without risk. Every decision we make involves weighing costs and benefits, and it is not the government’s role to eliminate all potential risks by controlling our choices. Individuals should be trusted to decide whether to use TikTok—or any platform—rather than having the government impose blanket bans.

The question of a TikTok ban represents more than just a national security debate—it raises fundamental questions about the role of government in regulating technology, free speech and market competition. While national security and data privacy are important concerns, banning TikTok is not the answer. Such a ban sets a dangerous precedent that threatens individual liberty, economic freedom and innovation.

As Milton Friedman once said, “A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both.” The same is true for technology. We must allow the market to work, letting individuals decide how they engage with digital platforms. Banning TikTok risks not only the stifling of innovation but also the erosion of the freedoms that make America’s economy dynamic and competitive.

Originally published at Dallas Morning News.

On July 1, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the First Amendment’s protection of Americans’ free speech online in a landmark decision. NetChoice won against two unconstitutional laws passed in Florida and our own state of Texas. The Texas legislation in question would have given the government control over how social media platforms moderate content posted on their sites. This is wrong.

As with any other private businesses, social media companies should determine what is appropriate for their platforms without government overreach. Allowing the government to alter online speech is a violation of our First Amendment rights — plain and simple.

Fortunately, the opinions of the justices supported just that. Their decision in NetChoice v. Paxton and Moody v. NetChoice to send the cases back to the lower courts for consideration further reaffirms the importance of free expression, especially online.

As a proud Texan, I am reassured that the court recognizes the government should not be involved in content moderation on platforms.
The ruling in favor of NetChoice is a win for Texas and the future of our digital era, ensuring our state remains a beacon of free expression for all Americans.

Originally published at Sen. Rand Paul's office website.

​WASHINGTON, D.C. – Yesterday, U.S. Senator Rand Paul (R-KY), Ranking Member of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, joined by Congresswoman Harriet Hageman (R-WY) and Congressman Dan Bishop (R-NC-08), introduced the Standing to Challenge Government Censorship Act. This bill will prohibit federal employees and contractors from using their positions to direct online platforms to censor First Amendment protected speech, reinforcing our collective commitment to safeguarding the constitutional rights of all American citizens. The Standing to Challenge Government Censorship Act is a streamlined iteration of the Free Speech Protection Act, tailored to address the standing issues highlighted in Murthy v. Missouri.

“Americans are a free people, and we do not take infringements upon our liberties lightly. Our Founding Fathers enshrined the First Amendment to protect our God-given right to free expression, recognizing its fundamental importance to a free society,” said Dr. Paul. “With the Standing to Challenge Government Censorship Act, we will strip away the barriers preventing judicial review of coercive government tactics that silence dissenting voices and ensure that no government official or contractor can undermine the First Amendment rights of Americans. We must confront and dismantle this censorship apparatus to protect our fundamental right to free speech.”

“I have repeatedly said that the government cannot do by proxy what it is prohibited from doing directly. This is exactly what happened with the Biden Administration pressuring social media companies to suppress the free speech of American citizens. The Standing to Challenge Government Censorship Act will not only ensure future litigants would have standing, but also would also apply to the plaintiffs in Murthy,” said Rep. Hageman. “Our forefathers ratified the First Amendment recognizing that government actors would always seek to control public discourse in order to protect their own power structure. No one has a monopoly on truth, and the Biden administration and federal agencies are not entitled to declare that American’s speech is ‘mis-information,’ ‘dis-information,’ or ‘mal-information’ and silence the message, especially when you consider how much accurate and truthful information was squelched during Covid-19 and the 2020 election. We will continue to fight to protect our First Amendment rights.” 

“Americans have a God-given right to free expression, and the constant attacks on the First Amendment from government bureaucrats make safeguarding that right all the more important. Malicious actors within government should never be allowed to silence and censor Americans, and Americans targeted by the Censorship Industrial Complex deserve their day in court. This legislation will ensure just that by removing barriers for judicial review and cracking down on those who aim to trample on the First Amendment,” said Rep. Bishop.

The bill would:

1. Empower individuals to sue government officials who coerce online platforms into censoring constitutionally protected speech.
2. Apply to past First Amendment violations and establish a presumption of liability for any government official attempting to pressure platforms into censorship, thereby overcoming the causality issue identified by the Supreme Court in Murthy.
3. Provide a vital mechanism for all Americans to protect their constitutional rights and challenge government overreach. It ensures that government officials are held accountable for any attempts to infringe upon our fundamental right to free speech.

Additional support:
“In the covid era, the federal government systematically suppressed legal online speech that contradicted its policy priorities, including criticism of covid misinformation spread by the government on topics like immunity, school closures, mask and covid vaccine effectiveness, vaccine injuries, and vaccine mandates. Given the recent failure of the Supreme Court to protect Americans against this threat to free speech rights, it is vital for Congress to act to secure the First Amendment. I am pleased that Sen. Paul has authored such a bill which will prohibit Federal employees and contractors from censoring legal speech. I encourage all law makers to support the bill,” said Jay Bhatthacharya MD, PhD., Stanford University and plaintiff in Murthy v. Missouri.

“Rights that cannot be vindicated in court are not rights at all. By closing the courthouse doors to Americans who are victimized by government censorship campaigns, Murthy invites the government to violate First Amendment rights at will—so long as it does so indirectly, utilizing numerous government agencies, rather than directly or through a single agency. Murthy essentially gives the government a blueprint on how to censor American citizens. This legislation says, ‘not so fast’,” said Bradley A. Smith, Chairman and Founder, Institute for Free Speech.

“As we inch closer to a crucial election in November, Congress should act swiftly to stop government censorship by proxy and protect Americans’ access to information. By restricting federal employees and contractors from encouraging platforms to suppress speech directly or indirectly, this bill is an important step in the right direction. Heritage Action applauds Sen. Paul for fighting government overreach and the weaponization of censorship on Big Tech platforms,” said Ryan Walker, Executive Vice President, Heritage Action.

“Let the people sue government officials who are working on the taxpayer dime to censor everyday Americans. Senator Paul is valiantly defending our Constitutional free speech rights. This bill is a no-brainer,” said L. Brent Bozell III, Founder and President, Media Research Center.

“Senator Rand Paul has introduced legislation allowing citizens to sue the federal government for censoring their speech, protecting First Amendment rights. For too long, federal entities have violated free speech using government power and funds. This bill ensures courts cannot dismiss these cases on standing grounds, preventing constitutional abuses. Senator Paul’s initiative is a crucial step in safeguarding free speech, a cornerstone of our free society,” said George Landrith, President, Frontiers of Freedom Institute.

“The Supreme Court’s failure to decide the Murthy v. Missouri case on the grounds that Missouri did not have standing in their attempt to protect their citizens against unconstitutional government censorship was a travesty. Senator Rand Paul’s introduction of legislation to provide states standing to sue on censorship cases would provide perhaps the only vehicle for broadly protecting free speech rights from the federal government coercing and suggesting censorship via corporate social media proxies. Americans for Limited Government proudly supports the Rand Paul legislation,” said Richard Manning, President, Americans for Limited Government.
​
“Senator Rand Paul has long been a champion of free speech and individual liberty, and this is on full display today with his legislation that will help preserve our freedoms that some in the federal government too often are trying to destroy,” said Vance Ginn, President of Ginn Economic Consulting and Former Chief Economist of the White House’s Office of Management and Budget.

“As social media has grown to allow Americans more free and unfettered speech online, there have been highly motivated efforts by government officials to limit speech online using both direct and indirect forms of coercion. This is a direct challenge to the spirit and future strength of the First Amendment. The Consumer Choice Center strongly supports Sen. Paul’s “Standing to Challenge Government Censorship Act” as a vehicle to end unconstitutional jawboning and hold public officials accountable when they aim to suppress public discourse and free expression online,” said Yael Ossowski, Deputy Director, Consumer Choice Center.

“The Standing to Challenge Government Censorship Act is a necessary corrective to the Supreme Court ruling that current law does not provide standing to victims of government-directed censorship to get their day in court. Congress should pass it quickly to allow citizens to appropriately defend their First Amendment rights,” said Phil Kerpen, President, American Commitment.

“No government should have the ability to control American free speech online or censor us from speaking. NetChoice applauds Sen. Paul for taking this important step to defend the First Amendment from government officials that abuse their power by trying to suppress open and free dialogue online. Sen. Paul’s bill makes it clear that Americans have the right to challenge the government for jawboning in court. NetChoice looks forward to working with Sen. Paul and the U.S. Senate to get this issue right so that Americans and businesses are protected from government interference when exercising their constitutionally-protected speech,” said Carl Szabo,Vice President & General Counsel, NetChoice.

“The recent decision in Murthy v. Missouri seemed to give government officials free rein to push social media companies to censor speech they dislike. Sen. Paul is stepping up to fix this by ensuring citizens have standing to sue when they do this. Free speech makes a comeback,” said Jim Hanson, Executive Director, America Matters.

Background:
On June 26, 2024, the Supreme Court ruled in Murthy v. Missouri, a landmark First Amendment case, that the plaintiffs did not have standing to seek an injunction against government officials who attempted to pressure platforms into censoring speech related to COVID-19. The court’s decision hinged on the plaintiffs seeking an injunction against future censorship, rather than compensation for past violations of their First Amendment rights. However, the plaintiffs would not have been able to seek compensation, even if they wanted to, as the Supreme Court has consistently refused to acknowledge a cause of action allowing individuals to seek compensation from federal officials for past First Amendment violations.

Like countless other Americans, Dr. Paul was also targeted by the pervasive censorship regime during the pandemic. In 2021, Dr. Paul posted a video on YouTube to educate the public about the potentially harmful consequences of relying on ineffective cloth masks to prevent the transmission of COVID-19. YouTube took down his video and suspended his account for a week. This blatant suppression of dissenting views led him to announce that he was quitting the platform and would henceforth post his content on Rumble.com. 

You can read the bill HERE. 

Organized by R Street Institute. 

“Parents know best for their kids. Not politicians, bureaucrats, CEOs, or anyone else. Sure, many parenting don’t make the ‘correct’ choices, as I make many mistakes, but government one-size-fits-none policies will make the situation much worse.”
—Vance Ginn, former Chief Economist for the White House Office of Management & Budget under President Donald Trump.

Originally published at The Center Square.

The recent surge of bills attempting to rein in social media outrage in Florida and across America has sparked debate over the role of government in regulating them.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis vetoed an initial bill banning minors on social media. In his veto message, he said, “Protecting children from harms associated with social media is important, as is supporting parents’ rights and maintaining the ability of adults to engage in anonymous speech.”

We should empower parents to determine what's best for their children on social media, or otherwise. This will work better than putting politicians and government bureaucrats in charge, which is what these types of bills do. These bills are likely unconstitutional, as they violate the First Amendment.

Furthermore, excessive government regulation of social media stifles innovation and entrepreneurship in the digital space, especially small businesses.

By imposing burdensome restrictions on online platforms, we risk hindering the development of new technologies and services that could benefit families. A more pragmatic approach fosters competition in the marketplace, allowing consumers to choose the platforms that best align with their values and preferences.

These regulations would hurt many start-up firms as they won’t have the resources to hire as many lawyers to jump through the hoops imposed on them that larger, incumbent companies can afford. They would also need to pay third-party verification systems that cost thousands of dollars, making it more challenging to start a business, as noted in a recent report by Engine.

Gov. DeSantis has been a vocal advocate for parental empowerment, emphasizing the importance of transparency and accountability from social media companies. His initial pushback of government overreach of social media should be championed rather than resorting to bans for questionable reasons, as social media isn’t the culprit for bad parenting or bad legislation.

In light of ongoing NetChoice cases at the Supreme Court, where the organization has fought against state-level regulations deemed infringing on free speech and commerce, we should uphold free speech in the digital age. By joining parents in advocating for greater transparency and accountability by social media companies where applicable, we can champion the interests of Americans and assert state sovereignty.

​Rather than relying on government mandates and regulations, we should foster a culture of parental responsibility and provide families with the resources they need to navigate the digital landscape safely.

If politicians and bureaucrats take over these responsibilities, it will lead to less incentive for parents to be engaged with their kids and what they’re doing online. This would be a terrible path forward as the government has already made bad situations worse regarding safety-net handouts, a monopoly government school system, and more.

Let’s stick with a proven approach that supports parents and social media providers rather than a top-down, likely unconstitutional one.

Originally published at Daily Caller. 

A new study from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has ruffled assumptions, asserting that “40% of global employment is exposed to AI.” The study also predicts that high-skilled jobs will bear the brunt of this transformation, disproportionately influencing roles that traditionally require higher education and professional experience. 

Among advanced economies, the IMF estimates that the share of jobs affected by AI could be 60 percent. Half of them could benefit from increased productivity, and the other half hurt by replacement. 

The IMF concludes that the impending shift should compel countries, particularly those well-prepared for AI integration like the U.S., to implement “robust regulatory frameworks.” They argue this would help cultivate a safe and responsible AI environment with safety nets to help those whose jobs are AI “vulnerable.” 

But we don’t have to look too far back to realize how attempting to harness AI innovation and its results would be disastrous for people and prosperity. 

The rise of AI presents a unique chance for society to better adapt to challenges and capitalize on new opportunities. Humanity has always adapted to new technological possibilities, turning most disruptions into positive outcomes. 

For instance, dedicated professionals called “calculators” once performed complex calculations. With the emergence of pocket-sized calculators in 1971, the computing revolution began, showcasing the transformative potential of technological innovation. 

Those human calculators, who would today be considered high-skilled, highly vulnerable individuals, went behind the machines and created and perfected better computational technologies. Whether or not they felt threatened by the technology, they adapted nevertheless and made their skills indispensable to the technology. As the electronic calculator removed much busy work, their minds were more available to focus on tasks machines couldn’t perform.

The emergence of health-related diagnostic tools like X-rays and MRIs did not render doctors less valuable but widened the breadth of their jobs. Tractors did not displace farmers but made aspects of the role significantly more accessible, allowing for higher output. 

The examples of technology helping humans by making their jobs easier are endless. 

High-skilled professionals facing AI exposure should view this revolution as an opportunity to learn and grow. Rather than advocating for regulatory barriers, individuals can proactively enhance their skills, pursue further education, earn certificates, or even explore career transitions. 

The power of spontaneous order in free markets lies in allowing people to innovate when not restricted by government overreach. The IMF study’s conclusion urging countries to hurriedly embrace AI regulation overlooks the resilience and adaptability inherent in free societies. 

Attempting to pause AI innovation is impractical in the face of rapid advancements by other nations. Our big tech competitors like China and the UAE will not inhibit progress with red tape, so why would we? We’ve already seen demonstrative instances. 

Recall that in June 2023, Meta launched what was, at the time, the largest open-source language model ever, Llama 2. For almost two months after that, America was the global AI leader due to this technology, only to be eclipsed by the UAE government with their release of Falcon 180b, which has more than double the parameters of Llama 2. 

In a matter of weeks, America lost its top spot in AI innovation. Imagine what would happen if we introduced more regulatory barriers, as suggested by the IMF, or required a pause in AI advancement, as suggested by Elon Musk and others last year. 

It’s not just the U.S. reputation as a world leader at stake but our very security, as we could quickly be overtaken by nations who embrace the power of AI in technology, cybersecurity, and beyond. 

To maintain leadership in the AI landscape, the U.S. must welcome disruptive changes and cultivate an environment encouraging competitiveness.

The future belongs to those who can adapt and innovate, and AI, as a tool created by humans, should be embraced rather than feared.

​Episode 78 is with Adam Thierer, innovation policy analyst at R Street Institute and author of, “Evasive Entrepreneurs and the Future of Governance: How Innovation Improves Economies and Governments?" 

Today, we discuss: 

1) What makes nations rich and how America has become the most prosperous nation on earth; 

2) The economic importance of failure, freedom, and permissionless innovation; and 

3) Why AI and technology must be embraced, and the issues with Biden's AI executive order.

Check out Adam's book: https://www.amazon.com/Evasive-Entrepreneurs-Innovation-Economies-Governments/dp/1948647761/ref

Please like this video, subscribe to the channel, share it on social media, and provide a rating and review. 

Also, subscribe and see show notes for this episode on Substack (www.vanceginn.substack.com) and visit my website for economic insights (www.vanceginn.com).