English

Tech companies that hold enormous monopolistic power like Amazon, Google and Facebook may have used its power to expand their market share and push competition out of the picture, but this may not be the case in the future as they may turn their power to extract consumer surplus. It’s a ticking time bomb that will inevitably towards regulation.

For tech firms to exert their monopolistic power, they rely on the common claim that they are trying to create jobs and boost economic growth, but this might not be the case in many cases. Monopolistic market players like Amazon have been able to expand their market shares by either lowering prices or large markups, which consumers have no choice but to buy. And by lowering prices, Amazon is pushing out competitors who cannot afford to lower their prices. This has been deemed as anti-competitive behavior and a move that threaten consumer wellbeing.

On the other hand, tech companies can also use their monopolistic power in other ways such as via lobbying efforts against competition regulations that would reduce them from exerting even more power. In America, this has been a practice used by Google and Facebook. In this sense, tech companies can have a vested interest in getting certain regulations passed in order to protect monopolistic market shares. The only way to solve this is through government regulation.

Amazon’s monopoly has also been cited as an example of Amazon’s opposition towards small businesses that are forced to sell their products on Amazon at unreasonably low prices. This would be an example of corporate welfare when the small businesses would not be able to compete with bigger competitors like Amazon, who are able to offer lower prices because they have the power of market share.

The antitrust lawsuit against Amazon by the state attorneys general of New York and Washington as well as the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) aims to help change the monopoly online retailer’s practices. This is a move with two goals in mind: first, that Amazon should have to meet the same regulations and market conditions as any other business. Second, to regulate Amazon’s monopolistic power so that its market dominance has been neutralized.

This may be one of the first real attempts to control the market power held by this firms and should not be taken as an assault on the free market, but as a response to correct market failures that, as the most basic economic theory holds, is a call to regulate in order to correct. Regulation in this sense tries to reestablish the balance between consumers, firms, government and the environment, it tries to level the field and try to make everyone part of the economic benefits that come from the valuable technologies and innovation this firms put on the table.

Latin America’s commodity dependance may finally come to an end thanks to its potential to become a renewable energy hub. With abundant renewable resources, the region can produce some of the world’s cheapest energy. This move could help Latin America to boost employment and diversify its economy.

Latin America has become a global leader in producing cheap natural resources and exporting them around the world. Yet there is a great deal of potential for it to monetise its clean energy potential. This is true for two reasons: Firstly, Latin America’s abundant natural resources provide plentiful bases from which to generate affordable renewable energy at a very low cost; Secondly, the region’s lack of manufacturing capacity has prompted many companies to look elsewhere for exports and relocation are on the rise.

Renewable energy is one such industry that could bring Latin America an economic boost. The sector boasts manufacturing that is competitive and export-driven, with overall tariffs well below prices in other industries. In addition, the region’s high reserves of renewable sources, such as wind and solar energy, can make it ever more affordable. The more the industry develops, the cheaper and cleaner its energy will become. This becomes even clearer when considering that Latin America is currently only responsible for less than 10% of global renewable energy production, a figure that is growing.

Despite this, the potential for growth in Latin America is huge and has been growing consistnently for the past decade. Moreover, this growth is expected to continue over the coming years. The International Renewable Energy Agency’s Renewables Global Status Report highlights that there are 1.3 million megawatts of renewable energy potential in Latin America. This figure could be as much as twice the size by 2030. With this growth comes increasingly important export opportunities, which is expected to expand 2-fold from around $15bn to $35bn per year by 2030.

This increase will be underpinned by increased joint research and development (R&D) between industry partners and the public sector to optimise energy generation and storage methods (for example, using wind power generated at night in order preserve its stability). These measures will further help to enhance the competitiveness of Latin America’s renewable energy sector, and make it more export-oriented.

This will boost growth in a variety of ways, from the expansion of related industries (for example, renewable energy storage) to increasing returns on R&D investments and the creation of new jobs. Generating clean energy from natural resources is an ideal opportunity for Latin America to diversify its economy while also boosting employment opportunities. It has the potential to combine economic development with social integration, as well as providing safety nets for domestic populations by lowering prices of basic goods and services.

However there are several barriers that stand in the way. Corruption and idiosyncratic policies may impede the region to fullfill its potential and limits the growth today. Legislation needs to change in order to regulate investments and provide certainty to investors and consumers as well as regional cooperation to further the region’s objectives as a block, this will not only provide a better negotiating stance, but will also give geopolitical precense to a region that lacks agenda on the international plane.

We do not have an exact metric to determine when a company`s size starts to become a problem. Today, the biggest 5 companies in the S&P 500, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet and Facebook account for more than 28% of the index weighting and more than 25% of s earnings, according to Goldman Sachs.

The US faced a similar scenario at the beginning of the century when Oil, Railroads, Steel and many other sectors were controlled by enormous companies, the resolution was to break the companies apart to benefit consumers and avoid rent seeking monopolies and predatory behavior.

Even after the breakup, many of the resulting companies still possessed an enormous amount of power, both economic and political. Take Exxon as an example, it was one of the emerging companies after The Standard Oil Company was broken up, which a t the time was the biggest company in the world.

Almost 100 years after it was born, Exxon was the biggest company in the world and also regarded as the most powerful unelected force by Steve Coll, the author of “Private Empire: ExxonMobil and American Power”, at the peak of its power in 2012, who also narrates how it helped steer US foreign policy and its influence on governments abroad.

Forward to 2020, Exxon was expelled of the Dow Jones index and now is worth less than Jeff Bezos, nobody could have predicted in 2012 that the demand for oil would suffer such a dramatic change. But as it happens in politics, in business, the void left by Exxon on government influence was quickly filled by todays tech giants.

Apple is an active player in US-China relations and has been an important intermediate for both governments; Facebook has recently been called out for its power to manipulate elections and for being fertile ground for extremist groups; Google has thousands of people in Washington ensuring regulations benefit them and Amazon has been many times accused for violating workers’ rights and for mismanagement of its client’s personal information.

All five of today’s biggest companies are in the spotlight, calls for a new regulatory framework that would limit the companies size and its influence are heard all over the press and academia. Maybe more important than its size, regulation should handle the way these companies interact with users, making privacy a priority, enforcing freedom of speech which includes banning racism, sexual content, and any networking for illicit activities and, finally, making it illegal to design software with the purpose of it being addictive.

In the midst of the storm that markets have been lately, we have seen that the actions of some of the technology companies that facilitate remote work have endured the hits. As an example, one stock that has remained afloat and continues to rise is Zoom Video Communications Inc. This platform for videoconferences seems to be the most popular in the middle of the COVID-19 pandemic and there are hints that there is more than that to its 58% year-to-date rise.

For a long time, many companies have been reluctant to adapt new working models like outsourcing entire departments, hire temporal workers or by project, or having a clear home office policy.

Given our current situation, many of this new working models will be tested, not voluntarily but by force, in thousands of companies all around the world, and the result might determine how we work in the not so distant future.

In an enormous simplification, there are two possible outcomes: the first one is that these new forms of working result in a tremendous failure and the second one is that they prove valuable beyond our current scenario. If the result is the first outcome, we will see a gradual return to normality but if we face the second one, we will see companies trying to replicate the benefits that these innovations brought.

At first, non-essential responsibilities and positions will stand out because of its irrelevance during the crisis, this will lead to companies hiring temporary workers or outsourcing some areas, secondly, companies will notice that is more cost-effective to have people working from home since internet, energy, water and some other expenses are transferred to the workers, which will lead to companies to be more flexible regarding this subject and finally, working from home means less people commuting to work, less business travels and an overall benefit for the environment, this will lead to governments to push companies to adopt this new ways.

It is clear that not all works can be done from home, entire industries will see no significant changes in the composition of jobs like manufactures or services, but other industries will see radical changes made possible by technology that makes it possible to work from distance and this pandemic thar forced the test on these new ways of working.