IPI Ideas

In 2004 Congress passed and President Bush signed into law a three-year extension of the Internet Tax Moratorium, which has been in effect almost continually since 1998. Americans thus don’t have to worry about paying extra taxes for their access to the Internet, over and above what they already pay on telecom services. Or do they?

One constant theme of the consumer rights movement is that firms should make full disclosure of the terms on which they sell their wares. That theme is central to understanding H.R. 1201, the “Digital Media Consumers’ Rights Act of 2005.”
The problem is that H.R. 1201 itself doesn’t engage in full disclosure when it claims to address “mislabeled copy-protected music” and “other purposes.” It turns out that those unnamed purposes are no small add-on, but could eviscerate the already inadequate protection that federal law provides against copyright piracy.
In this IPI Ideas publication, Richard Epstein points out the hidden dangers in H.R. 1201, and suggests how its sponsors should fully disclose the bill’s effects if they plan to promote it in 2006.

The 20th century saw the trial and error of a philosophy that privately-owned economic goods did not benefit the general public. However, the 21st century has begun with a new twist: Is the public harmed by private ownership of intellectual property goods? Fortunately, earlier and wiser voices were insightful enough to include intellectual property protection in some of the basic documents that the world looks to as pillars of civil society.

Europe keeps trying to compete with the US by outregulating it, and exporting those regs to US companies. In further delaying and micromanaging its antitrust action against Microsoft, Europe seems more interested in using Microsoft and other US based multinationals as "cash cows" to fund projects (like aid to the Third World) that win Europe's bureaucrats great press releases, but do nothing to enhance the quality of life in Europe OR in Africa. Instead Europe should commit to greater economic freedom and opportunity on both continents, which would truly make a difference to the poor.

The public debate about Personal Retirement Accounts has been clouded by a smokescreen of false arguments from critics, and by a confusing array of options from reformers. Everything, it seems, is "on the table," except true Social Security reform based on personal accounts.

In an attempt to bring clarity and guidance to the debate, the Institute for Policy Innovation (IPI) submits these Design Principles for Social Security reform.

European regulations aimed at American economic and technological superiority might be dismissed as silly, but they forebode increasing competition-by-regulation rather than competition for freer markets. We can't wait to see what Europe will do next. The best U.S. policy is to remind the world of the superior power of economic freedom by cutting its own taxes and regulations to lure more business from abroad.

Municipal networks are a bad idea that will have a negative impact on the continued development of private sector investment in, development for and deployment of telecommunications services and the resulting economic benefits they provide to the U.S. economy.

Contrary to dire predictions, the telecommunications deregulation that began two decades ago has produced enormous benefits for consumers. Greater investment freedom has led to new product development and deployment, an expansion of consumer choice, price stability, and jobs creation. This has been particularly true for less-regulated sectors of the telecom industry, such as wireless and satellite.

The Social Security Personal Savings and Prosperity Act of 2004 has been introduced by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.). The bill closely follows the proposal authored by IPI Senior Fellow Peter Ferrara, published by IPI in June of 2003. The bill's reforms would ultimately provide for a dramatic increase in the personal prosperity of working people in America. It would be the most sweeping change in America's social and economic policy since the New Deal.

Dr. Mark McClellan, former commissioner of the FDA, has claimed that other countries are not paying their fair share of pharmaceutical R&D costs. A look at the data shows that Dr. McClellan was right. Most OECD countries pay significantly less for drugs than do U.S. consumers, even when accounting for the difference in purchasing power. If other countries want to reinvigorate their pharmaceutical R&D sectors, they have to be willing to relax their price controls and let markets work.