The efforts of academics, conservative think tanks, and political leaders on emphasizing markets and reducing government paid off after the election of President Ronald Reagan, which resulted in a new mix of government and markets, although not to the extent that many proponents of small government favored. There have been additional legal procedures and political oversight, which has made it more difficult to regulate some markets; government services have been outsourced, and government spending on regulation and social welfare has been reduced. Bill Clinton, influenced by the anti-government mood in the county, supported deregulation of telecommunications, welfare, and banking, but Congress reversed the banking deregulation after a Wall Street collapse in 2008 and was forced to spend billions of dollars to save the economy. Despite the anti-government mood, nearly all the laws and programs established in the New Deal and Great Society eras have remained on the books and have not been repealed. Besides the bailout, there were some other significant expansions of government including most notably the Affordable Care Act, popularly known as Obama Care.

Data-related technology advancements have brought about a paradigm shift and have created a data-driven economy that requires a legal framework to regulate the economic behavior of its participants – both companies and consumers. However, legislators’ hands-off attitude, intended to promote a ‘free’ and unregulated Internet, has not realized the original internet dream of a borderless and radically democratic space. Some observers have even suggested that the Internet is beyond the sovereignty of governments, or even a fifth dimension, not subject to the same regulation as other domains of human activities.1 This laissez-faire approach to the digital economy has created a lawless arena where the strong prevail. These powerful participants also dominate in terms of data – the Internet’s most valuable asset – and through their actions, system leaders and silo providers are in fact hindering the free flow of information by ‘hoarding’ data (or, as the Commission formulated it, ‘data lock-in’).2 These barriers seem destined to increase in the future.

Prisons in this country did not fill simply because crime went up, police arrested more people, and judges sent them to prison. The crime surge’s primary contribution was that it fostered an environment where politicians and the public became attracted to harsh criminal laws. The steady ratcheting up of the severity of American criminal law played a larger role in Mass Incarceration than the transitory crime rise. This chapter introduces the critical punitive pattern: crime leads to public outrage, and outrage leads to harsher laws.

The 2002 Arab League Peace Plan calls for recognition of Israel and normalization of relations. This represents a sea change in the Arab consensus regarding the conflict. It is made conditional, however, on Israel affirming undertakings concerning borders and Palestinian refugees that are unacceptable to Israel. The agreements reached with Arab Gulf States are an extremely positive development. They represent increasing Arab acceptance of Israel as an existing State in the Middle East.There has however has been, as yet, no progress in negotiating with the Palestinians concerning the final status of the West Bank and Gaza.

In the wake of the recent financial crisis, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke argued repeatedly that fostering healthy growth and job creation required legislative action. He warned that continued political battles over fiscal and monetary policy, financial regulation and the debt ceiling were “deeply irresponsible” and would have “catastrophic consequences for the economy that could last for decades.” At the same time, like Alan Greenspan before him, Bernanke joined secretaries of the Treasury and other technocrats in guiding and enabling legislation, helping presidents outmaneuver critics and compensating for political uncertainty when political battles between the President and Congress stalled economic legislation. Far from being apolitical actors, these technocrats manipulated authority, exploited deference from politicians and business leaders, and alternately bolstered and challenged national politicians in order to shape US economic policy, manage market behavior and coordinate global activities before, during and after the recent financial crises.