The Punjab Curriculum & Textbook Board also confiscated a book published by Oxford University Press for printing Malala's picture alongside that of military officer Maj Aziz Bhatti.
https://theprint.in/world/pakistan-seizes-textbook-for-printing-malalas-picture-in-list-of-important-personalities/695346/
Bhutto arrived in New York today after he departed for the country on Sunday. His visit generated accusations from the PTI that the PPP leader was seeking a "backdoor deal" from Washington.
The PPP had shot down the allegations, lashing out at the "puppet government" for creating a hue and cry over the PPP leader's personal visit.
After landing in New York, the PPP chairperson refused to speak to the media, saying he is on a "personal visit" to the US.
"When I come here next, in September, I will then speak to the press," he said.
"Bilawal Bhutto will not go to Washington during his visit," clarified PPP-USA President Khalid Awan.
The PPP responded back to Gill's statements, accusing the "puppet government" of being worried about Bhutto's visit for no reason.
"Fawad Chaudhry, Shahbaz Gill and Farrukh Habib are also worried that their leader Imran Khan cannot go to the US without diplomatic immunity because of pending cases in the USA's courts,” PPP Parliamentarians’ Secretary Shazia Marri had said in response to Gill's press conference.
Marri had said Bhutto had hope in the strength in the people of Pakistan and it has been proven how General Elections 2018 were stolen from the PPP by creating obstacles in the party's path.
She had said that it is also on record that those who stole the PPP's mandate have been admitting that opponents of the PPP have been brought to power through rigging in elections.
https://www.geo.tv/latest/359595-bilawal-bhutto-will-not-visit-washington-during-us-visit-ppp
WHEN Prime Minister Imran Khan categorically endorsed China’s line on Uighur Muslims he succumbed to political expediency: “Because of our extreme proximity and relationship with China”, he said, “we actually accept the Chinese version.” A savvier politician facing the Chinese media might have tried a little hemming and hawing rather than dispense with truth, human rights and Muslim solidarity. Still, one must not be too harsh on the PM; any country which owes its life to a powerful patron has little leeway.
Much loved by some but feared by others, China today is an economic superpower. Geopolitics changed in 2017 when its GNP shot above that of the US. But what accounts for its phenomenal rise and ferocious progress? Equally, one may ask: why has Pakistan been on external life support from 1947 onward and barely limped along? The difference cries out for an explanation.
Max Weber, the 19th-century German sociologist, would have an answer. Since his pioneering work, social scientists know economic growth goes hand-in-hand with a society’s collective worldview and culture. Through data-driven research, Weber explained why Protestants and Calvinists had far outpaced Catholics in generating wealth and industrialising Europe. He concluded that progress-friendly cultures demand belief in rationality, rule of law, planning, punctuality, deferred gratification, and expectations of reward in this life rather than the next.
Certainly not how minorities should be treated! But there’s much else that China can teach Pakistan.
Were he alive today, how would Weber see China in relation to Pakistan? First, China’s worldview is — like that of 19th-century Protestants — entirely future-focused and this-worldly. Notwithstanding the pride Chinese people take in their ancient science and civilisation, there is no deep nostalgia and no calls for Ertugrul-like men on horseback to resurrect some ancient kingdom. Whether for good or bad, and whether under Mao’s revolutionary communism or under Xi Jinping’s capitalistic communism, the Chinese are a plain, hard-headed lot.
This attitude sets the tone for education, both in school and university. Knowing that universities are the engines of progress, China is super-careful about who gets admitted. At the level of language, reasoning and math skills, Chinese students are expected to know everything that American students learn — but better. Today’s gaokao — the cheating-free university entrance exam — is a carryover from the rigorous exam system (keju) of ancient China’s civil service.
Reputed to be the toughest in the world, gaokao beats even that for various IITs (Indian Institute of Technology). Unfortunately, educated in a memorisation-heavy culture steeped in religious matters, most Pakistani university professors — including those who are HEC certified and with hundreds of research publications — would not clear Chinese university entrance exams.
Second, a reborn Weber would see China clearly defining its national interest with economic advancement being at the very top. As a rationalist-materialist country China aims at becoming the world leader in space exploration, brain science, quantum computers, electric cars, biopharmaceuticals, renewable energy, etc. Five-year plans are followed to the letter; there is no empty chatter or arbitrary wish lists.
At the next level of priority is politics. To reunite with Taiwan, China rattles its sabres from time to time. Nevertheless, China-Taiwan economic links are strong. Taiwanese companies have invested about $60 billion in China, and one million Taiwanese people live in China with many running Taiwanese factories. The Chinese political leadership keeps its military in check. There is no history of Kargil-like dead-end adventures and the military stays clear of trade matters. The warrior ethic is firmly subordinated to the capitalist ethic.
In Pakistan’s case, warriors define the national interest. Googling ‘national interest’, I found occurrences in speeches, university theses and in National Defence University publications. All such references were security and India related. In this single-minded approach, Pakistan-India trade remains hostage to Kashmir being resolved on Pakistan’s terms. Nowhere to be found is a plan for where the country hopes to be 20-30 years from now. No one takes the Planning Commission of Pakistan seriously.
Third, Weber would confirm that strong work ethics leads to high labour productivity, the backbone of economic growth. Although he knew only of Protestant-Calvinist workers and capitalists, the qualities of diligence, discipline, responsibility, punctuality and honesty of the skilled industrial workforce extends into the cultures of China, Japan, Vietnam, Korea etc.
In contrast, Pakistan’s labour productivity is appallingly low — less than half of China’s. Many economists and businessmen have pointed out that producing an item in high-wage China is cheaper than in low-wage Pakistan. Poor productivity owes to poor worker skills and general dissatisfaction. Exploitative employers pay minimum wages, ignore principles of fairness and disallow grievance mechanisms. But the ethics of workers are also low. Few take pride in or enjoy work, are diligent, or take initiatives. Like our parliamentarians and professors, most are shirkers who need to be reminded of their duties.
These poor habits start from Pakistani schools where kids are forced to focus on exam techniques and taught just enough to get by. Cheating is tolerated. Some parents — including those who emphasise religious rituals — encourage their children to cheat as a way to get ahead. But, at a still deeper level, quality education for all is impossible given extreme wealth disparities.
In China such disparities had been evened up by Mao’s communism. Although huge excesses happened in the Cultural Revolution, education was universalised and hard work celebrated. China is reaping dividends from its communist past. Pakistan never saw any such evening-up. Leaders of the Pakistan Movement — Jinnah and Allama Iqbal (the post-1930 Iqbal) included — were staunchly anti-communist. Some were big landlords who saw danger in educating their serfs. Education was a low priority in 1947 and remains low.
Curiously, the country that Pakistan’s founders feared and disliked most (after Russia) is now Pakistan’s closest ally. It does bash its Muslims; the evidence is irrefutable. Yet — other than how religious minorities should be handled — China has much to teach Pakistan. Among the most important lessons is creating a skilled workforce, giving dignity to labor, distributing wealth and public resources reasonably, emphasizing birth control, and encouraging a mindset oriented to the future rather than the past. If Pakistan wants to break the crutches of foreign dependence, that’s the way to go.
https://www.dawn.com/news/1634259/what-to-learn-from-china
https://www.balochistanvoices.com/2021/07/pakistans-burgeoning-population-challenge-or-opportunity/
“I want to talk about happy things, man!” protested President Joe Biden in early July, when reporters asked him about the imminent withdrawal of the last American forces from Afghanistan, expected sometime in the next few weeks. No wonder he wants to change the subject: America has been fighting in Afghanistan for 20 years. It has spent more than $2trn on the war. It has lost thousands of its own troops and seen the death of tens of thousands of Afghans—soldiers and civilians alike. Now America is calling an end to the whole sorry adventure, with almost nothing to show for it.The consequences of the conflict for Afghans, already catastrophic, are likely to get worse.
True, al-Qaeda, which sparked the war by planning the 9/11 attacks from Afghanistan, is no longer much of a force in the country, although it has not been eliminated entirely. But that is about as far as it goes. Other anti-American terror groups, including a branch of Islamic State, continue to operate in Afghanistan. The zealots of the Taliban, who harboured Osama bin Laden and were overthrown by American-backed forces after 9/11, have made a horrifying comeback. They are in complete control of about half the country and threaten to conquer the rest. The democratic, pro-Western government fostered by so much American blood and money is corrupt, widely reviled and in steady retreat.In theory, the Taliban and the American-backed government are negotiating a peace accord, whereby the insurgents lay down their arms and participate instead in a redesigned political system. In the best-case scenario, strong American support for the government, both financial and military (in the form of continuing air strikes on the Taliban), coupled with immense pressure on the insurgents’ friends, such as Pakistan, might succeed in producing some form of power-sharing agreement. But even if that were to happen—and the chances are low—it would be a depressing spectacle. The Taliban would insist on moving backwards in the direction of the brutal theocracy they imposed during their previous stint in power, when they confined women to their homes, stopped girls from going to school and meted out harsh punishments for sins such as wearing the wrong clothes or listening to the wrong music. More likely than any deal, however, is that the Taliban try to use their victories on the battlefield to topple the government by force. They have already overrun much of the countryside, with government units mostly restricted to cities and towns. Demoralised government troops are abandoning their posts. This week over 1,000 of them fled from the north-eastern province of Badakhshan to neighbouring Tajikistan. The Taliban have not yet managed to capture and hold any cities, and may lack the manpower to do so in lots of places at once. They may prefer to throttle the government slowly rather than attack it head on. But the momentum is clearly on their side. At the very least, the civil war is likely to intensify, as the Taliban press their advantage and the government fights for its life. Other countries—China, India, Iran, Russia and Pakistan—will seek to fill the vacuum left by America. Some will funnel money and weapons to friendly warlords. The result will be yet more bloodshed and destruction, in a country that has suffered constant warfare for more than 40 years. Those who worry about possible reprisals against the locals who worked as translators for the Americans are missing the big picture: America is abandoning an entire country of almost 40m people to a grisly fate. It did not have to be this way. For the past six years fewer than 10,000 American troops, plus a similar number from other nato countries, have propped up the Afghan army enough to maintain the status quo. American casualties had dropped to almost nothing. The war, which used to rile voters, had become a political irrelevance in America. Since becoming president, Mr Biden has focused, rightly, on the threats posed by China and Russia. But the American deployment in Afghanistan had grown so small that it did not really interfere with that. The new American administration views the long stalemate as proof that there is no point remaining in Afghanistan. But for the Afghans whom it protected from the Taliban, the stalemate was precious. There will be a long debate about how much the withdrawal saps America’s credibility and prestige. For all its wealth and military might, America failed not only to create a strong, self-sufficient Afghan state, but also to defeat a determined insurgency. What is more, America is no longer prepared to put its weight behind its supposed ally, the Afghan government, to the surprise and dismay of many Afghan officials. Hostile regimes in places like China and Russia will have taken note—as will America’s friends. That does not make Afghanistan a second Vietnam. For one thing, the Afghan war was never really the Pentagon’s or the nation’s focus. American troops were on the ground far longer in Afghanistan than they were in Vietnam, but far fewer of them died. Other events, from the war in Iraq to the global financial crisis, always seemed more important than what was happening in Kandahar. And American politicians and pundits have agonised over whether to stay or go for so long that, now the withdrawal has finally arrived, it has lost its power to shock. To the extent that outsiders see it as a sign of American weakness, that weakness has been evident for a long time. Unhappy things Shocking or not, though, the withdrawal is nonetheless a calamity for the people of Afghanistan. In 2001 many hoped that America might end their 20-year-old civil war and free them from a stifling, doctrinaire theocracy. For a time, it looked as though that might happen. But today the lives of ordinary Afghans are more insecure than ever: civilian casualties were almost 30% higher last year than in 2001, when the American deployment began, according to estimates from the un and academics. The economy is no bigger than it was a decade ago. And the mullahs are not only at the gates of Kabul; their assassins are inside, targeting Shias, secularists, women with important jobs—anyone who offends their blinkered worldview. America was never going to solve all Afghanistan’s problems, but to leave the country back at square one is a sobering failure. ■
https://www.economist.com/leaders/2021/07/10/americas-longest-war-is-ending-in-crushing-defeat
Mubasher Bukhari
@BukhariMubasher
A provincial assembly has passed a bill providing for summary trials of journalists, bureaucrats.The provincial assembly recently passed the Punjab Privileges (Amendment) Act 2021, sending a wave of concern among journalists, bureaucrats and the civil society. Media activists, press clubs and unions of journalists have since been protesting against this law, calling it a conspiracy against the freedom of expression.The passage of the law and the later conciliatory statements by the speaker indicate that the legislation was prepared and passed in haste and without any serious deliberation.Makhdoom Usman Mehmood of the Pakistan Peoples Party moved the bill as a private member. It also carried the names of some Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf and Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz members as sponsors. The bill was passed unanimously despite not being featured on the order of the day. Press clubs and unions of journalists, including the Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists, the All Pakistan Newspapers Society (APNS) and other bodies have strongly criticised the bill. Pakistan Press Foundation secretary Owais Aslam Ali says, “The law is an attempt to make the media a puppet. Already, the media in Pakistan is under pressure. There are so many state institutions being used to control the media. In such a situation, this bill was not needed. Now, any journalist who reports news about any member of the Punjab Assembly can be arrested and punished by the speaker or a committee.” “It is shocking that a PPP member tabled the bill after the PPP introduced the Protection of Journalists Bill 2021 in the Sindh Assembly to protect newspersons and their sources.” Clause 1 of the schedule, given at the end of the bill states: “Using criminal force to, or obstructing, assaulting, threatening or insulting any Member or an Officer of the Assembly in the discharge of their official duty may lead to six months’ imprisonment or a Rs 10,000 fine or both.” Talking to The News on Sunday, Malik Muhammad Ahmad Khan, an MPA and PML-N Punjab vice-president said PA officials were included after some media people exchanged harsh words with some of them. “The clause has been amended and assembly officials have been omitted from it,” he said. Clause 2 of the schedule reads: “Contravention of the provisions of the Rules of Procedure of Provincial Assembly of the Punjab, 1997, will incur a Rs 10,000 fine.” Clause 3 of the schedule says, “Breach of any of the privileges as provided in Section 16, or Section 17 or Section 18, as the case may be. It may lead to imprisonment of either description for three months, or a fine of ten thousand rupees, or both.” This clause indirectly targets the media and the bureaucracy. Coming to the media related clauses, the schedule in its Clause 6 reads: “Willfully publishing a false or perverted report of a debate or proceedings of the Assembly or a Committee or willfully misrepresenting a speech made by a Member before the Assembly or a Committee may lead to imprisonment for three months or a Rs 10,000 fine or both.” As a result, writing and publishing a commentary about PA’s proceedings will be a challenge. Clause 7 says, “Willfully publishing a report of a debate or proceedings of the Assembly or a Committee the publication of which has been prohibited or expunged by the Presiding Officer may amount to three months’ imprisonment or a fine of Rs 10,000 or both.” The restriction is apparently pointless as PA proceedings frequently go on air live. The speaker then expunges parts of it after they have been broadcast/telecast. The relevant news persons are sensitive to the rules in any case so that newspapers never publish the expunged remarks. Following protests by journalists’ bodies, Speaker Chaudhry Parvez Elahi issued a notification omitting entries 6, 7 and 10 of the Act. The notification says the speaker exercised powers conferred upon him under Section 21 of the PunabPrivileges Act 1972. However, constitutional experts say the speaker cannot abrogate any entry or clause without the approval of the House. Entry 8 says, “Casting or publishing any reflection upon the character or conduct of the Presiding Officer or any imputation of partiality against him in the discharge of his duties may lead to imprisonment of either description for three months, or a fine of twenty thousand rupees, or both.” This is ridiculous as almost every presiding officer faces the accusation of being partial. Apparently, this entry is meant to be used against opposition members. Entry 9 of the schedule says, “Making or publishing a maliciously false, scandalous, defamatory or derogatory statement concerning any Member in respect of his conduct as a Member or an Officer of the Assembly will lead to imprisonment of either description for three months, or a fine of ten thousand rupees, or both.” Given that the law of libel empowers every citizen to file a defamation case against anybody, this entry was totally unnecessary. To stopping the media from educating the people about what’s cooking in the PA in terms of legislation or budgetary documents, there is Entry 10 of the schedule. It reads: “Printing of a copy of any Act or Ordinance or of any report, paper, minutes or notes of proceedings of the Assembly or a Committee, which purports to have been printed by or under the authority of the Assembly or any Committee but which in fact has not been so printed or the tendering in evidence of any such copy as aforesaid will lead to imprisonment of either description for three months, or a fine of ten thousand rupees, or both.” This entry puts paid to all investigative journalism. The law seems to have been made to further empower the speaker. Entry 12 reads: “Willful failure or refusal to obey any order of the Judicial Committee under this Act, or any order of the Presiding Officer or any Member or Officer of the Assembly which is duly made under this Act will lead to imprisonment of either description for three months, or a fine of ten thousand rupees, or both.” The law empowers the Sergeant-at-Arms to arrest any person to prevent them from acting in any manner in breach of privileges within the precincts of the assembly. The arrests can be made without any warrant, at any place within the “precincts of the Assembly”, that has been defined as the assembly’s courtyard, hall, lobbies, press galleries, rooms etc. The law also allows for the use of “reasonable force as may be necessary” when making the arrests. Now, the speaker “can in writing direct the arrest and detention in custody” of a journalist, bureaucrat and/ or any lawmaker. The law further empowers the speaker to form a Judicial Committee of the assembly to try offences and award punishments and the sentence passed by the committee that will enjoy magisterial powers. Following protests by journalists, Speaker Chaudhry Parvez Elahi issued a notification on July 4. The notice says, “The Entries 6, 7 and 10 shall be omitted and the schedule will be renumbered.” The notification states that the speaker exercised powers conferred upon him under Section 21 of the Punjab Privileges Act 1972. Constitutional experts say that the speaker cannot abrogate any entry or clause from a law without approval of the House. In a media statement, Elahi said he held journalists in great esteem. He said the clauses that had sparked controversy, had been removed from the bill. However, journalists are not happy. Most of them see the action as an eyewash. MPA Khan said, “We wanted better working in standing committees. We wanted a law in this regard. The bill was tabled and passed unanimously. The PML-N raised questions on the media-related clauses before anybody including the media did.” “Now the objectionable clauses, including those about privilege of the assembly officials have been removed. If somebody publishes a concocted story against any of the legislators what can be done against them?.” Abid Saqi, a senior lawyer and human rights activists, says, “The bill clashes with Article 8 of the Constitution of Pakistan. Article 8 of the constitution of Pakistan reads: ‘Laws inconsistent with or in derogation of fundamental rights to be void. (1) Any law, or any custom or usage having the force of law, in so far as it is inconsistent with the rights conferred by this Chapter, shall, to the extent of such inconsistency, be void.’” Saqi says the law should be abrogated by those who passed it. Else, a court will nullify it if somebody files a petition. https://www.thenews.com.pk/tns/detail/861836-muzzling-dissent
After the bill was brought before the National Assembly in November 2020, the CII considered it (NA). Following its passage in the Senate, the bill sparked outrage among lawmakers, political leaders, religious scholars, and opinion-makers, including Jamaat-i-Islami (JI) Amir Sirajul Haq, Senator Mushtaq Ahmad, and Jamiat Ulema-e Islam of Fazal-ur-Rehman (JUI-F) Senator Atta-ur-Rehman. Following public pressure, Prime Minister Imran Khan's Parliamentary Affairs Advisor, Babar Awan, publicly met Speaker of the National Assembly Asad Qaiser and requested that the bill be referred to the CII. Babar Awan wrote a letter on behalf of Prime Minister Imran Khan, who was also informed of the bill's' 'un-Islamic aspects. ' In the letter, Awan draws attention to various contents and definitions in the bill. According to a report in Dawn, the letter notes: "Most importantly, it is being highlighted that the bill contravenes the Islamic [injunctions] and way of life as enshrined in the responsibility of the state in Article 31 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan". What is the proposed Pakistan's Domestic Violence Bill? The bill demands harsh penalties for all sorts of domestic violence. Any act of domestic abuse is punishable by a maximum of three years in prison and a minimum of six months in prison, according to the law. Furthermore, the offender may face fines ranging from Rs20,000 to Rs1,000,000. ‘Lightly beating’ wife permissible In 2016, the Council of Islamic Ideology (CII) advocated allowing a husband to ‘lightly' beat his wife if he feels it is necessary, as well as requiring women to breastfeed their children for two years. In the same year, the constitutional council ruled that the Punjab Assembly and the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) government's women's protection bills, which criminalised all types of violence against women, were "un-Islamic."They expressed concerns about several aspects of the law. According to The News International, the CII's judgement was finally given to the Human Rights Ministry in the third week of June, after the bill sparked controversy following its passing in the Senate.
https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/pakistans-islamic-body-that-said-man-can-lightly-beat-wife-halts-legislation-on-domestic-violence-bill-397103
According to the country’s ministry of national health services, 1,980 people tested positive for Covid-19 in the last 24 hours, as against 663 on June 21.Pakistan is bracing for what has been described as the country’s fourth wave of the coronavirus pandemic, with the number of fresh daily Covid-19 cases registering a three-fold rise over the corresponding figures from just three weeks ago. The country’s ministry of national health services on Sunday put the number of those who tested positive for Covid-19 in the last 24 hours at 1,980, while the number of those who succumbed to the viral disease in the same duration was recorded at 27. In contrast, three weeks ago, on June 21, the new daily caseload stood at just 663. In another concerning development, the positivity rate crossed 4 per cent for the first time since May 31 when it was at 4.05 per cent. According to the health ministry, Pakistan’s confirmed tally of Covid-19 infections has reached 9,73,824 of which 22,582 cases have resulted in deaths. The official data also shows that 9,13,203 people have recovered from the infection, while more than 2,100 people are still in a critical condition. Health experts have attributed this sudden uptick in cases to the reopening of the business and tourism sectors and have urged the government to announce a lockdown so that the festival of Eid al-Adha can be observed in accordance with pandemic-related restrictions. The government has also come under fire for holding board examinations of secondary and higher secondary students, despite warnings from Opposition parties, and protests by students. Going ahead with the examinations, health experts have warned, could lead to a further spike in fresh daily infections. However, according to reports, the Pakistan government is banking on its vaccination drive to prevent any further surge in Covid-19 cases. The government says it has administered more than 19 million doses of anti-Covid vaccines and has been urging people to get themselves inoculated at the earliest.
https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/pakistan-braces-for-fourth-covid-wave-as-fresh-infections-witness-three-fold-rise-101626002461560.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/10/opinion/bernie-sanders-interview-maureen-dowd.html
Antitrust lesson 101: Big government often makes big business bigger.
President Biden has modeled his spending agenda on the Great Society and New Deal. Now he wants to take antitrust policy back to the early 20th century. Or at least that’s how it looks from his executive order on Friday to regulate competition and impose more government control over the private economy. “In the early 1900s, Teddy Roosevelt’s Administration broke up the trusts controlling the economy—Standard Oil, J.P. Morgan’s railroads, and others—giving the little guy a fighting chance,” his summary states. Mr. Biden now wants to use regulation to break up Big Tech, finance, agriculture and healthcare companies, among others. At least two parts of his order are encouraging. He directs Health and Human Services to let hearing aids be sold over the counter, which would offset federal rules that make the devices more expensive than necessary. He also encourages the Federal Trade Commission to ban unnecessary occupational licensing, which is long overdue. These are the government barriers to entry that stymie entrepreneurs, often minorities, in services like hair-braiding or plumbing. These are deregulatory actions, but the rest of his order is about enhancing government power. Courts for more than a century have applied antitrust law based on the “rule of reason.” Scholars and judges across the political spectrum, including Phillip Areeda and Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, have shifted antitrust focus from market concentration to economic analysis and consumer welfare.The new Brandeisians in the Biden Administration led by the National Economic Council’s Tim Wu (godfather of net neutrality) and FTC chair Lina Khan want to replace the rule of reason with the rule of politics. Mr. Biden’s order includes 72 directives that mostly aim to shackle businesses.Consider railroads. Government regulation of railroad rates was among the great failures of the 20th century. It reduced private investment and service and drove many carriers into bankruptcy. Congress abandoned it in 1980, but Mr. Biden wants to revive it. His order summary says there are only seven Class I freight railroads compared to 33 four decades ago. Yet freight prices have dropped 44% since 1981. Mr. Biden wants to force railroads to hand over freight traffic to competitors, which would reduce private investment and shipping efficiencies. He also instructs the Federal Communications Commission to restore the Obama -era “net neutrality” rules that regulated broadband providers like railroads. Investment fell after the FCC imposed net neutrality, then surged after the Trump FCC liberated carriers. Broadband last year cost 20.2% less and was 15.7% faster than in 2015. One reason is fierce competition. Democrats opposed the T-Mobile-Sprint merger in 2018, but it has boosted wireless competition and investment. The tie-up shows how business consolidation can improve consumer welfare. Economies of scale can reduce prices. Size also gives businesses more leverage to negotiate lower prices with suppliers.Prescription drug prices have fallen 2% since 2018 as the Food and Drug Administration has approved more generics and second-line therapies. Competition is working. But Mr. Biden nonetheless orders Health and Human Services to “issue a comprehensive plan within 45 days to combat high prescription drug prices and price gouging.” Translation: Government price controls, which will reduce innovation and investment in new treatments. It’s no coincidence that consolidation has been greatest in the two industries that have experienced the biggest increase in regulation over the last decade—finance since Dodd-Frank and healthcare since ObamaCare. Bigger businesses can more easily absorb regulatory costs. After ObamaCare limited insurer profits, Aetna and Cigna merged with more remunerative pharmaceutical benefit managers. Medicaid expansion and low government reimbursement rates have driven hospitals to consolidate to augment their pricing leverage with insurers. ObamaCare’s “accountable care organizations” gave hospitals an incentive to acquire physician practices. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, primary-care-practice market concentration in metropolitan areas increased 29% between 2010 and 2016. A bigger government makes big business bigger. Mr. Biden especially has Big Tech in his bull’s eye. His order decrees “greater scrutiny of mergers, especially by dominant internet platforms.” But many tech acquisitions increase competition and benefit consumers. Amazon’s purchase of PillPack drove retail pharmacies to offer free prescription drug shipments. Specific Big Tech behavior, such as Google’s digital ad practices, may deserve antitrust scrutiny. But breaking up companies merely because of their size will take years to litigate with uncertain consequences and could help foreign companies more than consumers. That was the hard-earned antitrust lesson of the 20th century, and it appears Mr. Biden wants to doom us to repeat it.https://www.wsj.com/articles/joe-biden-20th-century-trustbuster-11625869633?mod=trending_now_opn_sf_pos2
By Saeed Shah
Islamabad wants a negotiated agreement, fears that outright Taliban takeover would galvanize Pakistani jihadists.آج کل مریم شریف صاحبہ کشمیر الیکشن مہم پر ہیں
— Raja Sheryar (@sheryarppp49) July 9, 2021
کسی بھی پاکستان پیپلز پارٹی کے کارکن کو مریم شریف صاحبہ کیلئے غلط زبان استمعال کرنے کی اجازت نہیں ہو گی
مخالف کی خواتین کو نشان بنانا گالم گلوچ کرنا پیپلز پارٹی کی سیاست نہیں @BBhuttoZardari pic.twitter.com/kjbesh4Pnc
