Thanks a lot for all these comments. My point in writing this article was not to discuss how best to regulate taxi services and how Uber should be accommodated, if at all. All I wanted to say is that very often in Europe, as opposed to the US, regulatory restrictions protect incumbents without even an indirect reference to the general interest objectives these restrictions are meant to achieve. As a result, any entry that is perceived to eliminate some rents is prohibited, completely stopping innovation in many sectors of the economy. Innovative entrepreneurs exist in Europe as well. Let them start an activity when entry does not immediately affect any general interest. Adapt regulation to new technologies instead of blocking any technological development.
Having once observed that "a single spark can start a prairie fire," Mao Zedong might be less surprised by how far his ideology has spread than by its many forms. From the structure of Hong Kong's democracy movement to the opportunistic rhetoric of the Chinese central leadership, one can find glimpses of Maoism just about everywhere.
reviews recent books on Maoism, many versions of which continue to underpin Chinese politics to this day.
Policymakers on both sides of the Atlantic are increasingly unwilling to leave the governance of technology in the hands of those who design it. But will they succeed in taming Big Tech and developing global rules for the digital economy, or will dominant platforms and national interests prevail?