2nd Op-ed in Toronto Star newspaper: "What can Canada learn from the US Congressional hearing on Big Tech monopolies?"

I've got another oped in the Toronto Star newspaper today. It's about the US Congressional Hearing on Antitrust and 'Big Tech', which was held on 29th July 2020 and is well worth a watch to see politicians grilling the CEOs of Facebook, Google, Apple, and Amazon. The title of my oped is, "What can Canada learn from the U.S. Congressional hearing on Big Tech monopolies?". Here it is:

"In late July, the U.S. Congressional Subcommittee on Antitrust held an important hearing on the monopolistic power of Big Tech — Apple, Amazon, Facebook and Google. I recommend watching the hearing; it’s long but worth it if you want insight into what we need to do to avoid damaging our economy and society further.".

Read the rest here.

New book! "Assetization - Turning Things into Assets in Technoscientific Capitalism"

Fabian Muniesa and I have a new co-edited book out from MIT Press in the next few months. It's full of awesome research by people as obsessed with assets as I am - well, maybe not as obsessed! It'll be open access, which is great for a book as well. See here for more details.

We now have a nice, cool cover too!

Op-ed in Toronto Star newspaper

Here's my first oped in the Toronto Star newspaper, one of Canada's best selling dailies. My piece is largely a response to an article by Gillian Hadfield - see here - in which she promotes the notion of 'agile governance' as a way to regulate artificial intelligence; hence my title, which was actually changed from what I originally wanted it to be "Canada needs an FDA for artificial intelligence, not more ‘agile’ governance". Here it is:

"Imagine the following scenario: I’ve invented a new pharmaceutical drug; I think I know its benefits after clandestinely testing its effects using people’s health records; but I can’t say for sure as I’ve not been required to meet any safety criteria".

Read the rest here.

5th Op-ed in Globe & Mail newspaper

My fifth oped in Canada's Globe & Mail newspaper. Again, it hit a bit of a nerve, probably because it's about house prices and everyone seems to love talking about house prices. My focus this time was on housing affordability and the reason why increasing supply (of whatever type & tenure) will likely do nothing to reduce housing costs. It's called "The big problem with housing affordability? Real estate is still a valuable asset":

"I live in Toronto, and I rent. It was a deliberate choice when I first moved here in 2011, but now it’s not. I recently worked out that our family could buy a house valued at about $720,000 on our current rent: nothing close to the cost of a house on our street, currently selling for around double that. If we want to stay where we are – close to the subway, good schools and more – we can continue paying rent, or we can double our housing costs by buying in the neighbourhood. Buying would mean we’d be paying about 40 per cent to 50 per cent of our disposable income on housing, which is common in Toronto."

Read the rest here.

4th Op-ed in Globe & Mail newspaper

This is my fourth oped in Canada's Globe & Mail newspaper. It seemed to hit a nerve because it has over 200 comments - my other opeds have topped out around 10, I think. The response is probably because it came out around the same time as the main Canadian political parties were discussing the 'housing crisis' and their proposals to address it - it's an election year in Canada - plus I made a rather 'bold' prediction in it! Anyway, the piece is called "Canada has taken a perilous road to an asset-based economy":

"I predict that Canada’s housing market will crash next year, or in 2021 at the latest. A bold claim, you might think. But if we look at housing booms in the past, each lasted around 10 years and we’re reaching that boom end point in the next year or so. Canada largely survived the 2008-09 housing crash unscathed, which seemed – and still seems – like a good thing until you realize it just means this country has had another 10 years to embed housing assets at the heart of its economy."

Read the rest here.

Book review of Steve Fuller's "Academic Caesar" (2016)

I read Steve Fuller's recent book Academic Caesar (Sage, 2016) some time ago - during my sabbatical in 2017, I think - with the intent of writing a review of it. Which I did, but it sat on my laptop in a liminal state for some time as I tried to work out how to frame it (and then find the time to rework it properly).

I finally got round to writing it, and have published in on medium.com:

"Academic Caesar starts with an outline of the threats to the university in our neoliberal times, although Fuller avoids taking an easy pot(-shot) at neoliberalism as the cause of all our scholarly suffering.

Fuller points out that the changing political economy of the last few decades has left the university increasingly bereft of its original purpose, which he defines as ‘producing knowledge as a public good’ (p.15). As the state’s role has changed, especially through its inf(l)ection by neoliberal principles, this has transformed the rationale for university education, since the latter had been so dependent on the former since and during the post-WW2 golden age of capitalism. Consequently, as the state has changed, so does, necessarily, the university, becoming increasingly driven by the consumers of knowledge (i.e. students) rather than its producers (i.e. academics) (p.17)."

Here is the rest of the review.

3rd Op-ed in Globe & Mail newspaper

My third op-ed in Canada's Globe & Mail newspaper came out last month. It's called "Intellectual property might not be the best way to drive Canada’s future economy":

"As a university researcher, I talk to many new technology companies, their investors and the various policy-makers and stakeholders who are financially and politically invested in their success. Often, I’m left with a sense that their intellectual property (IP) is both a blessing and a curse. On the pro-side: holding an IP asset – usually a patent – gives companies something to show investors, in the hopes of receiving some investment. On the con-side: the same IP asset can end up becoming a large target for unscrupulous “non-performing entities” – perhaps better known as “patent trolls” – or larger competitors to aim at. Basically, a patent troll or large competitor can quite easily drive a new tech company into the ground with the threat of litigation; who, after all, wants to invest in a company with an impending court case hanging over them?"

Read the rest here.