Know is, who took documents out of the scif. If thats illegal then biden would have been illegal. Thank you. Host joe is next, dayton, ohio, good morning, joe. Caller good morning from a balmy 70 degrees here in dayton, ohio. 2a joe biden willfully retained documents. Hurs own words. Joe biden military classified secrets to his ghost writer. Joe biden told his ghost writer. You will know her from her books and her work with cmn. And she was a Ground Breaking scholar before becoming chairperson of the ftc, and thats impressive because shes still very young, i think the youngest in history. What im most interested about todays discussion, carnegie has been doing a lot of work on political economy so this fits in well. It has become a draw. I to say interesting times, but eunusualness in our politics is ans of the political economy moment were living thru in many ways. In that sense, i think, chairperson cox remarks from r particularly important because shes somebody who has trayed to assert a new conception of one of the fundamentals of our think about the idea ofwe competition and what it does to drive innovation, to lower price for consumers, etc. She has won, as you might expect for somebody trying to assert a new way of conceptualizing a fundamental concept in our political economy, shes won plaudits from those taking on big tech in the name of consumers as well as raise criticisms and questions from those who wonder actions may weaken the United States position on National Security by negatively impacting our competitiveness in the world or affecting the ecosystem here at home in the National Security space. I expect shell address those concerns and others in her remarks. Its a pasure to you with us here today, welcome to the Carnegie Endowment and we look forward to your speech. [applause] good afternoon, everybody. Its great to be here with you all. Many thanks to dan and tino and the Carnegie Endowment for hosting me today. I want to start off by thain foc chair to come here to discuss our global competitiveness. The federal trade commission fo Consumer Protection law. We focus primarily on the domestic markets an u. S. Economy. Through this work we get■ a ground level view of how markets are structured in america. And how the extent of competition or consolidation drives outcomes that affect all of us. Like many across government the f. T. C. Is watching closely ase d a. I. Tools creates tuns and risks. Our work is already tackling the daytoday harms these tools■. ■ cantor beau charge from voice cloning scams to commercial surveillance. But beyond these immediate challenges, we face right now a more fundamental question of power and governance. Will this be a moment of opening up markets to free competition, unleashing the full potential of emerging technologies . Or will a handful of dominant te control over key tools locking us in to a future of their choosing . The stakes of question are enormously high. Technological break throughs candice rupt markets, spur Economic Growth, and nature of war and geopolitics. Whether we opt for a National Policy of consolidation or of competition will have huge consequences for decades to come. As in prior moments of contestation we are starting to hear the arguments that america must protect its domestic monopolies to ensure that we stay ahead on the global ser thn promoting free and fair competition, this National Champions argument holds that coddling dominance. I want to explain why we should be extraordinarily skeptical of this National Champions argument and why we should instead recognize that monopoly power in America Today is a major threat to our National Interests and global leadership. Lets begin by looking at the world of the re of competition in providing for a common defense. In 2021, an errant spark in an explosives factory in louisiana destroyed the only plant in the United States that makes black powder, a highly combustible product used to make mortar artd tomahawk missiles. Theres no substitute for black powder and it has hundreds of military applications. So when that factory blew up and we didnt have any backup plans, it destroyed the only black powder production in all of north america. Theres a simple lesson here, dont put all of your eggs in one basket. This is but one of many examples of how consolidation today is threatening our National Interests. Economists often think about monopolies in consolidated markets as causing the problem of higher prices and lower outputs. Weve seen how monopolies also can foster systemic concentrating production also concentrates risk. Im sure somebody could argue that it was more efficient to put black powder production in one plant in louisiana. And maybe it was. Until it wasnt. Defense officials the problem of monopoly now country as a strategic weakness. The pentagon has been warning about vulnerabilities iny suppln for years. One top official recently noted that our increased reliance on a small number of contors for critical capabilities impact ours ability to ramp up production. One early victory after i the f. T. C. Was blocking the proposed merger between lockheed and aerojet. Aerojet is the last independent u. S. Supplier missile inputs and our investigation shows that the deal would have allowed lockheed to cut off rivals access to this key input and jack up the price that our government and ultimately the public has to pay. It was the first time in decades that ourovernment had sued the con sol to halt conle is daition in the Defense Industrial base. Its Defense Industrial base where we have a problem. The upon democratic showed fragility across the supply chains with shortages in 3■beverything from semiconducts to p. P. E. s. And its not just a once in seanchry pandemic. Even more routine disruptions like plant contaminations or hurricanes have revealed how in a concentrated system, a single shock can have cascading effects ranging from baby formula to i. V. Bags. Consolidation doesnt just cause problems with supply chains. For years successive administrations have sought to strengthen our Cyber Security defenses against a catastrophic effect. Just a few weeks ago, one of the main medical benefit claims networks in america changed health care was taken down for wes due to a cyber attack, depriving homents and medical provides of the ability to bill for their services and wreaking havoc across our health care system. Owned by United Health group which was allowed to buy change despite a d. O. J. Lawsuit seeking to block the quite simply, we have a fragility problem in america. Consolidation and monopolization have left us moreulnebl and less resilient in the face of shocks. But what about a. I. And the innovation economy, you might say. Baby formula shortages are one thing but the corporations that run Big Data Centers and large language modelsji a technical operations with tens of billions of dollars of capital to deploy, trillions in market capizaighly skilled professionals. Again, we should be guided by history. In the president of citibank and key leader on wall street, asked why antitrust enforcers were filing lawsuits against high tech american darlings like i. B. M. And at t. He said, whats the public good of knocking i. B. M. You have a . The conclusion to all this nonsense is that people cry, lets break up the yankees because theyre so successful. End quote. By contrast at that time, europe and japan were protecting their National Championships. America chose to promote competition. Those antimonopoly lawsuits ended up fostering innovations, including the cell phone they feel National Champions protected by japan and europe fell behind and are long forgotten. In the u. S. , we bet on competition and that made all the difference. Imagine a different world where todays giants never had a chance t and innovate because policymakers decided it was more important to protect i. B. M. And at t from competition and allow them to main■tain famously an engineer at kodak had invented the first portable digital camera in the 1970s but in part because it didnt want to cannibalize its existing sales. More generally, Significant Research shows that while monopolies may help deliver marginal innovations and improvements, breakthrough and paradigm shifting have historically come from the disruptive outsider. It is our commitment to free and fair competition that has allowed america to has its citp Breakthrough Innovations and lead as an economic powerhouse. The times when we have accepted the National Champions argument now serve as a cautionary tale. In the 1990s, a white house adviser one very High Tech Firm that was, quote, a de facto National Champion so important that you can be an outfor it in governme. And we did support it, providing it with government contracts and allowing to it consolidate the industry. Im referring, of course, to boeing which is the single best example of why a National Champion strategy can be in 1997, boeing became the only commercial Aerospace Maker in the United States. It came to enjoy the status after buying udouglas, the onlyc producer of commercial airplane, a merger that had been reviewed by the f. T. C. Boeing is the clearest example of a purposeful decision to bet on National Champions on behalf of american interests. To override european objections to this merger, the white house reportedly threatened the w. T. O. Sanctions if the e. U. Challengel champion. And so they got it. P as with most highly concentrated industries, three things happened. As United Airlines c. E. O. Recently noted, this allowed tboing slow down innovation and reduce product quality. Boeings r d lower than that of its only rival, airbus. Worse quality is one of the harms most economists expect from monopolization because firms that face little competition have limited incentive to improve products. Es started to view their knowledgeable work force as a cost rather than an asset with tragic outcomes. As one put it in 2000, boeing has been less a business than a association of engineers devoted to building amazing flying machines. This corporations engineers designed the b52 in a single weekend. But the new, postmerger boeing, dez mated it work force, offshored production and demanded wage concessions. The third consequence was that boeing effectively became too big to fail and a point of leverage for countries seeking to influence u. S. Policymaking. In 2020, during koafd, congress carved out a 25 billion line item just for this one aerospace producer. Relying on a National Champion creates supply weaknesses and taxpayer liabilities but ial creates geopolitical as a result necialts that can be exployed both by Global Partners and rivals. As it wasifyug mcdonelldouglas, boeing held a Board Meeting in beijing and lobbied congress to end the annual review of chinas trading rights planes. The Chinese Government in turn would order boeing planes contingent upon certain u. S. Policies like whether the u. S. Held off on sending warships into the strait of taiwan or whether the u. S. Lifted bans on the export of certain tech nolings. National champions are still corporations first. They have earnings calls, shareholders and quarter profit targets. When policymakers in washington decide to back a single monopoly their objectives are but one concern among many for thatatio. As thenexxon c. E. O. Lee raymond said, quote, im not a u. S. Company and dont make decisions based on whats good for the u. S. , end quote. These days the National Champions argument often gets made in the context of our dominant technology firms. We often hear that pursuing antitrust cases against or regulating these firms will weaken American Innovation and cede the global stage to china. These conversations often assume a cold war like arms race with eachrys firms in a zero sum quest for dominance. The reality today is that some of these same firms are fairly integrated in china and are seeking greater access to the chinese market. Wile theres nothing intrinsically improper about these ties, we should be cleareyed about how they shape business incentives. Various incidents in recent years have highlighted how, when u. Orporations are economically dependent on china, it can spur them to act in ways that are contrary to our National Interests. Vu even if americas dominant firms are not prioritizing americas National Interests, what do we make of the idea that they can keep america in the lead only if theyre left alone . This too is an argument we should treat with great skepticism. History shows us lumbering monopolies mired in red tape and inertia cannot deliver the Breakthrough Innovations and Technological Advancements hungry startups kend to create. It is precisely these breakthroughs that allow america to harness these cutting j technologies and made our economy the envy of the world tomorrow stay ahead globally we dont need to protectonopolies from innovation, we need to protect innovation from monopolies. We need to choose competition over National Champions. Into pn 2021, the f. T. C. Blocked nvidias attempted have been the Largest Semiconductor chip mernler in history. The merger would have allowed a major chip provider tool key Computing Technologies that rival firms depend on to develop their own competing chips. Next generation technologies affecting everything from data centers to selfdriving cars two. Years on, nvidia continued to providennovative products at lower costs than we predibbed they would have with the merger. Choosing competition works. The final argument ill leave you with is that protecting monopolies over competition i d. More brittle. Over the last couple of years ive had the chance to hear from thousands of people from across america from nurses, farmers and Grocery Store workers, to tech founders, Hotel Franchise yeses and writes for the hollywood. A recurring theme across their stories has been a sense of fear, anxiety and powerlessness. People from how markets monopolized by dominant middlemen enable coercive tactics. They feel that their ability to make a decent living or thrive in their craft is too often not a function of their talents or diligence but instead is the ars of distant giants. A basic tenet of the american experiment is that real libertyc coercion and the arbitrary, unaccountable power that comes with economic domination. Our antitrust laws were passed as a way to safeguard against undue concentrations of power in our economic spheers just as the constitution creates planses against concentrated power in our political sphere. I want to offer that recommitting to robust antitrust enforcement and competition policy is gad for america because it will make us materially safer, our technologies more innovative and our econ but also because it is essential for ensuring real opportunity for americans and that people in daytoday dealings experience liberty rather than coercion. As folks in this room know all too well, when people li fighting on their behalf and become a strategic weakness that outsiders are only too happy to exploit. Ankfully, over the last few years urn the biden administration, we have seen enormous progress across government in ensuring that we are centeringve americans in our policy decisions. From trade and industrial policy, to National Security and competition, the admintrat experiences and adopted new paradigms. A common throughline across these approaches is a commitmens in favor of reality and evidence. Fighting back against the challenges t about more than just enforcing the antitrust laws. But by seeking fair competition and by demonstrating to the American People that the era of monopoly dominance over their live kans end and is not inevitable we can help rebuild not just the confidence of the e entrepreneur but also a belief in American Government and its leadership both at home and abroad. Thanks so much, i look forward to the conversation. [applause] thank you, chair khan for those■e remarks. It is now my pleasure to introduce our moderator. Thank you so much. Thanks to carnegie and thanks to chair khan. First of all i want to amplify a few thickus said. There was so much in that speech. You know, the idea that resiliency had an efficiency model for the last 40 years or so ealy in our economy which is about sending cheaper, that rula lot of concentration, a lot of siloing. We discovered in the pan tell democrat pab democratic that this has vulnerabilities. This comes with limits. Chips is a great, you mentioned chips as a great example. It was always kind of amazing to me as somebody who has traveled a lot in asia, covered global business, that anybody, not just the u. S. But china or europe, thought that having 92 of all high End Semiconductors in one contentious island was a good idea. Im curious, as you think through the paradigm youre bringing to antitrust, where do you see some of those choke pointsee shove those places out there in the supply chains for defense but also in our industrial comments . In concerned about, thinking about. Yeah, i mean its real quite prif lent. I think much more know, should give us comfort. In our work we ealy see it in parts of the digital economy. Lle routine areas like baby form lavment a couple of years ago, you know, when americans were waking up and finding they couldnt find baby formula on their shelves the f. T. C. Launched a study to figure out what are the root causes ofis . One of them was that weve seen significant concentrations such that when you had a single bout of con testimony nation at a single factory it ended up having ripple effects. I think more generally weve seen some of the risks of concentration in cloud. In the Cloud Computing sector. Where at various points a single outage can result in pars of internet beingn. The f. T. C. In particular has also been looking at the Cloud Computing sector and trying to understand whats the Market Structure here. Whats leading t decent amount of concentration, is it just that there are such high fixed costs here. Such economies of scale. Or could there a anticompetitie tactics keeping this market less competitive . And what are the downstream risks of concentration . Be it for businesses that depend on these technologies and might wake up one day to see that their Cloud Computing costs have soared overnight, who might struggle to be transporting their data between different class computing company, but also from a Data Security■ perspective, its paramount that weve seen that concentrating data, especially when you have so many Cyber Security risks, can leave exposed be it at equifax or other areas. Thats important, can people me . Thats an important point. When i talked to the pentagon and the Security Community in general i hear discussion aboutf creating more robustness. As a way of creating more resiliency. Last lot of concern that that kind of heavy concentration, one and done, putting all your eggs in one basket, as you said. Theres also counterargument which you looked at that as we move into a world of a. I. , as we move into a world where, you know, wars are going to be fought in cyberspace, in data and data bec m champions have this new role. That this time is different. To use a phrase that i hate. But ill put forward that argument and i want to hear what you would say about it. The argument that i hear is that masses of data simply things like a. I. China for example, a state that has no assumptions of privacy, you can gather data at will, the state has control lot of big tea lot of people that run them and back them and lobby for them, would make that argument. Is big tech different in some fundamental way . Based on our experience historically there are significant risk wednesday you concentrate so much production or are so reliant on a small number of companies. Some of these risks are intrinsic. Some are more in terms of whether these corporate actors are really able to be good proxies and faithful proxies for u. S. Interests when their entangle. S may be all over the place. And a more fundam level, the f. T. C. Has been taking a look across the a. I. Stack from the chips to the cloud to the models to the downstreamations , you know, what is the Market Structure that were turnery seeing in each of these layers. What are the factors that are concentration. Historically even when weve had parts of the economy that are highly concentrated li the railroad, like Certain Telecommunications infrastructure. What weve done is applied certain rules that limit those infrastructuyj firms from using their power in abusive ways. I think this is a key miami for us to be understanding what are the Properties Across each of these layers. Do we think antitrust and competition will be sufficient to discipline market power and e abuses that can follow . Or do we need an additional set of policy tools and levers of the time we traditionally applied in somewherofinfrastruc . I want to dig into two pieces of that. Well have lots of time for questions and well take them virtually too. Well open it in about 15 or in about 10 or 15 minutes. This idea that companies are not country, nor should they be really, thats fundamental. How can we expect them when they are in, many big multinationals are in 100 mark, 120 markets. A lo china. A lot of Big Tech Companies would like more business in china. How can we couldnt count on chs even fa that were an argument were willing to accept. Its also interesting because if companies become National Champions there wou or couldnt do overseas, yeah . Is that something orr hearing . What sides of that argument i think historically weve seen Companies Want to have it both ways where they beth want the freedom that comes with being a skirting, you know, regulation or antitrust enforcement but then not also wanting to sign up with the limbs that would come with the obligations and responsibilities of being more faithful stewards of american interests. So you know, unfortunately, i think we see some of that opportunism in arguments made. I want to talk a little bit about ecosystems. You were talking a little bit about the impact ofnstream on consumers but also on markets. Something i have seen in my 33 years of reporting, a lot of it on t industrial comments is when you get concentration and you get a lot of, lets say, offshoring of production, taiwan chips would be a great emple. Youre then taking abentire ecosystem and you need iteration. You need a lot of pieces working together in order to innovate. Ie u. S. Trying to rebuild the chips industry. Not so easy to rebuild from scratch. Something im concerned about right now, i see private Equity Companies trying to wrap up a lot of small, mid sized pvaduste part of the green transition or some of the reindustrialization that might be part of our future here in e do you think about t . How do you think about concentration and the overall industrial common, data commons and ecosystem . I think one of the most innovative and impact. Parts of this admintrations Economic System is the industrial position and theless involvement by governmentp have less enforcement and we should use that as a tool to shape innovation and Technological Developments in the nations interest rather than assume theres no role for us to be playing and these are all just the outcomes of free market forces. So i think thats the ryrtant pt now the result of that in action. Right . Terms of the efforts to be really encouraging production and manufacturing in america. You know, the f. T. C. Plays a an adjacent of making sure that companies that are making their products in america are not losing out business to firms thatab yout p, many. Or for example if were giving out enormous subsidies or grants to try to incentivize production that we have markets where those newcomers can thrive and compete. One area, a little outside of what werecussing, was where the administration handed out a lot of funds has been agriculture. Where weve seen small and mediumsized business get support from the government in order to try to create more competition in the market. We need to make sure that in order for that toork, these small and medium sized operations are not coerced or muscled out of the market through mo knopp olistic tactics. So how antitrust policies is a really key complement to making sure some of our industrial policy or other Economic Policy goals are advanced. Its anyone, i think agriculture has a lot to do with security. Im remembering a piece i did about darpa who is running a program to decentralize food scorsing because of what youre saying. We all felt that interestingly duringhe the bizarreo sense of restaurants are empty yet you cant get what you want in the Grocery Store. Very highly stylized supply chains, theyre not talking to each other. Thats kind of what youre getting at. I think youre absolute liely s are interconnected in some fundamental way. Am i going to see question time up here on the screen . Im not wearing a watch, you gu prompt me. Four minutes. Ok, four minutes to questions. Be sure to get your questions. I forgot my watch today. I want to bring u ii hearing a lot in europe, i work if a british publication. Europeans, particularly small eupe but also allies and smaller nations in asia get very, very worried when they think in this new post neoliberal world theyve got two choices. China,er tboogle. That worries them. So how do you think about that . And also theres been a little bit of a pause on this conversation but late last year there was going to be a conversation between the e. U. Ane u. S. About clean Energy Supply chains, coming up with new paradigms. What kind of■unteractions do have with that conversation . As a general matt what i think is important about competition and antitrust, its about oxygen ating the market and ■c joks yes nateing the oxygenating the market and opening up the market. Opening up the market will allow of innovators to come in and enter and compete on the merits. I think promoting aligned with countries making sure they have more options. I have several more questions i want to ask. I want to start opening up and hopefully figure out how to get to virtual questions. We have a mic in here, does anybody want to start . And if you can jus we record sa question over here. You can just say your name an affiliation, please. Im roger, an editorial contributor on tech knoll and space policy for the hail newspaper. I have recent hi been trying to understand an f. T. C. Approach to Artificial Intelligence. This is not on antitrust but applies across the board to many systems. My question is, you should what circumstances should the exact same activity, ifo its commitd by a natural human being, using no Artificial Intelligence, versus the activity if its committed by a natural human being using Artificial Intelligence be treated differently orunished differently in in other words, a deceptive impersonation is something thats been used in marketing and politics since ancient rome and greece. You know theres a wide range of things you canasily imagine which are identical from the point of view of the recipient if its done by a human impersonator. So my impression is the f. T. C. Has gone down the path of treating the use of artificial■k intelligence sort of the way we do the use of a gun in a robbery or Something Like that. Its a different category if you us Artificial Intelligence even if its the exact same thing as if one didnt use it. Could you distinction wirn between the distinguish between the activities that require separate, more punishment, if Artificial Intelligence is used . Thank broader policy conversation going on in congress and elsewhere to figure out what is the right Liability Regime for a. I. Given that were going to face some of the very issues you identified from the perspective of the f. T. C. We have been focused on making sure that firms know theres no a. I. Exemption from the laws on the books. So if you use a. I. To engage in price fixg engage in fraud, price fixing and fraud are illegal under the law. Using ample i. Doesnt get you some type of free pass. Impersonation is one of the impersonation fraud someone of the largest sources of fraud we get every year. Even prixa. I. Tools, becoming more widely used. So people pretending to be the government, the inch r. S. , people pretenning to be gitimate businesses. And so weve been, you know, proposing a rule to make sure that we can actually go after that type of impersonation fraud and levy Civil Penalties and create deterrents. Weve thought to modify that rule further to make sure recovering impersonation of individuals. Because we know with voice cloning, these types of impersonations of everyday people is becoming much more common as well. Were very actively trying to figure out how do we update our tool kit to start addressing the kind of new a. I. Tactics weeg te marketplace. I think theres more for congress to be doing as well. Theres a good question here virtually. We have several hundred, i think, virtual parties pans. Amidst geopolitical rivalries requires a comprehensive approach. How do we balance regulation and legislation to ensure American Growth and dominance on the global stage . I heard you in the speech saying allowing competition, you feel, is the way to competitiveness and security. But maybe you can talk a little by about the idea of a comprehensive approach and have you in the time that youve been doing this job had particular tension points where you saw something in the market that, kosh, i would like to clamp down on this but what will the second or tertiary be for security or competitiveness . I think we see arguments made about potential tradeoffs betweenomti up marks and the effects on data privacy or security. I think in practice, you know, the f. T. C. Always tries to understand,ret kind of pretextual arguments or is there a real tension . We have technologists on board so we can pressure test some of those arguments more. Its a casebycase determination. I think more generally one area where i think we see a lot of alignment is on this issue of data kata security. So in the u. S. , its really the f. T. C. Thats on the frontlines of enforcing our existing that cover data privacy and Data Security protections. Weve really seen that its been a wild, wild west out there. Data broker that people very personal, intimate information is being freely trafficked. So somebodys precise location, their Sensitive Health data, their browsing data. There was Research Last year that found that if you were abroad you much difficulty, actually buy very Sensitive Data on u. S. Military members. In ways that people worried could, you know, be susceptible to blackmail and really challenging situations. So i think weve seen and the administration has recognized that having very fewulations on data privacy and security is actually creating much more risk. The president recently issued a Data Security executive order thats very attentive to these risks. As you know, charging agencies across the federal government to be thinking about how do protect americans data from foreign adversaries . I think thats an area where we see more alignment even though sometimes the argues that get made are in the other direction. It does take a little more whole of government, holistic did the biden jicial e. O. Around competition in july, 2021, which was about lets get everybody working together wi on these issues. Do you speak to folks in the Security Community, do you speak to n. S. C. Are you having a conversation about this stuff with them . Yeah, were in pretty regular contact with them in all sorts of areas. We were specifically mentioned in that e. O. , Data Security is the most obvious but very regular conversations on a whole host of issues. Weve worked closely with the department of defense. An time where were reviewing a Defense Industry merger and so when we blocking the lockheed aerojet merger reflected a close work with them. From their understanding what would the impact of this deal oh is not just and ideal its happening in practice. Lets take another question from the audience. Right here in front. Thank you, i head a Public Policy group. Very nice to hear you tay. A different level of something which im sure you will have talked about but you did not mention it is the practice that in the u. S. What we have seen largely was a very strong promotion of economic democracye moving ahead of competition policy by the Inflation Reduction Act and chips act and so on. It is a little surprising but i suppose it has its own test. Having failed that, as tech grows, the return to capital and loi boar will converge. It is evident in the policies you spoke about in any part of the world. Now there is q everincreasing quality and Economic Growth is not inclusive. Evident in the kf support trump has been getting in the u. S. As aboutcome of this. What would you respond to that . Thats a lot. Its a really interesting point. In my conversations across the country ive also■p■ sensed whn people feel like theyre not able to get a fair shake in markets, in our economy, that really does implicate their sense of democracy and whether government is working for them, right, in some fundamental way. So we do see that deep connection. This is where across policy, right . Take ambassador Katherine Tai who has been eloquent about the ways weve been shifting to a workercentered approach to trade policy, recognizing that if youre just focused on shortterm efficiency metrics, that can really come at the expense of longterm stability and health domestically. I think thats one area where weve seen a reorientation based on our experience over the last couple of decades. But i think its something were seeing more broadly too. I want to amplify something the questioner said. I think the entire bargain, the neoliberal bargain, of cheap capital for cheap labor as long as prices are going down and share prices are going up. Thats board model. Thats not the new model, the president said that in his e. O. Were looking at a more holistic model, consumers, workers, businesses of all sizes. Interesting point. I want to come back to the point about that. There are questions on this side. Im michael nelson, i work two floors up here at the Carnegie Endowmented on technology. If you read the Business Press you see a lot of stories about competition policy with bylines from here in washington and brussels. Theres a lot of other countries involved, china, japan. Im wondering as you look around the world if you see competition authorities that are doing some new, innovative, usefulore atte. And then the other side are there places where you think, we have some real problems, some of these agencies need to think twice about the way theyre looking at antitrust issues . Thats a good question. The f. T. C. Has a long stapping history going back decades of, you know, working with cooperating with enforcers in other jurisdictions. Of course everyaws and policieso every take theirs own independent action with the principles in mind. I think one thing interesting for me when i joined the f. T. C. Was talking to enforcers in other countries was a sense that for the of decades, the message that some of these other enforcers had been hearing from the u. S. Was, you all are doing it all wrong and the best thing tomore. So we have been in a mode of exporting a more hands off approach to antitrust and competition policy. They have seen a pivot here domestically, i think its been really interesting for them to figure out what that means, you know, more globally. But i think, you know, weve seen a lot of jurisdictions grapple with more challenges and questions around how does competition work in Digital Markets . How do we make sure were updating our tools and framework for thinking about competition in very high tech or fast moving sectors and some of the paradecisional smokestacks that. Type of shared learning and you know, erns really useful. But ultimately everybody has their own laws. Ok. Im going to take one then ive got a last last question for you. The lady over here. Hello, everyone, thank you for the session. Im with the financial times. I think much has been said about smort of a new era of cooperation between sort of both regulators on both sides of the atlantic with your arrival at the f. T. C. And jonathan canters appointment at the d. O. J. I was wondering if you uld talk to us a little bit about that specifically in relation to a. I. Following a move that had been made on both 3qghis space, sort of the f. T. C. Launching an inquiry into the relationship between open a. I. And big players inech but also the u. K. And the e. U. Signaling theyre also looking at things like microsofts investment in open a. I. What are the conversations like now in that space for you specifically when it comes to rule making or enforcement more broadly . I think these are all fairly independent kind of organic areas of interest. The various jeurs dirks are pursuing. Of course were always really keen to enforcers learning so when we see a jurisdiction put out a report or study with their find wetion look at that very cl ground will differ quite significantly based on which country youre on. We have to account for those distinctions. But i would say right now theres a general posture of curiosity and really wanting to make sure were sharing learned experiences and lessons. And i would say a sense that we want to learn from the missed opportunities of web 2. 0. So in the early 2000s there was a sense that digital marks are so fastmoving that if you are to see problems of market power that will selfcorrect so the best thing for the government to do is to get out of the way. Two decades on, i think weve seen that some of those assumptions were unfounded and if anything weve seen how Digital Markets can be much quicker to tip. How Network Effects involve reinforcing vantes data can lock in monopolies in way that invite greater government scrutiny and vigilance much earlier. So i think across to say that ta sense we want to make sure were learning from those experiences as well. Weve got just a couple of minutes left. Nt your speech and earlier in answer to a question about a sense of americans havi individual agency and choice within their own communities. Its interesting to me that economic models that form the basis of a lot of poli idea than go, if you get tired fired tomorrow and walk across the street and get another job. How many people actuallthey the street and et get another job. Maybe on k street you could but i dont know. Im fascinating by that and im fascinating by what i see in polls, gallup i think, say as se gouging, corporate price gouging as being responsible for inflation as they do fiscal stimulus. Its right up so theres a sense of trust, agency, belief in government, starting to dove tail with issues of antitrust which is you wouldnt have maybe thought that 10 years ago. Seems like this was a wonky, technocratic area. But how do you think about that . Any that . I think youre right that we wouldnt have seen that 10 years ago but we did see it 110 years ago. The election of centered around the question of the monopoly problem. And a key issue on which different candidates had to share trues views was what are you going to do about the monopoly problem . I think there was a real sense that the monopoly problem had huge implications for people in their they were pay, how much they were making, but also in a more fundamental level whether decisions and ooples daytodae being made through the arbitrary dictates. R i think one shift we have seen in the u. S. Over the last few years people are connecting the dots more and more between the decisions we are making here in d. C. In antitrust and hoich they are paying for meeds and switching jobs or locked in. It is like to navite system. This isnt just the inevitability but legal■ choices that we can make in one direction to favor a small set of interests or promote a more democratic approach. It is exciting to see a lot of engagement with the f. T. C. We proposed a eliminate noncompete clauses in employment contracts. On an average . Usually a few thousand max. The only other one where more was in the junk fees rule and got it to 60,000. A sense from people that policy these noncompetes resulted in devastating effects in terms of people having to stay tied to toxic or abusive work environments, people having to commute hundreds of miles because noncompetes prevents them taking a job locally and there are labor markets and product markets and the results on innovation. I think overall r awareness in the choices we are making affecting peoples lives and wanting to make. H sure poliy makers are held accountable. And it can evolve. Thank you so much for erything that you do. Thanks for the Great Questions from the awed audience. [applause] i would like to invite everybody into the lobby. Thank you so much for coming. [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2024] captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org. More live coverage coming up this afternoon. Secretary of state blinken will brief reporters at the department on the conflict between israel and gaza and are your yeah and ukraine. 2 20. Later, President Biden will talk at live investment in milwaukee, also on cspan. Cspan is unfiltered view of government and funded by these television companiesnd more including cox. This is extremely rare. This is joe. When you are connected, you are not alone. Cox supports Public Service along with these other Television Providers giving you a front row seat to democracy. The house