Which of the following was a major part of Johnsons Great Society quizlet?

Microsoft has responded to a list of concerns regarding its ongoing $68bn attempt to buy Activision Blizzard, as raised by the UK's Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), and come up with an interesting statistic.

In response to continued questions over whether Microsoft owning Call of Duty would unfairly hobble PlayStation, Microsoft claimed that every COD player on PlayStation could move over to Xbox, and Sony's playerbase would still remain "significantly larger" than its own.

Microsoft does not go into detail on its mental arithmetic here, but does note elswhere in its comments that PlayStation currently has a console install base of 150 million, compared to Xbox's install base of 63.7 million.

Watch on YouTube

Eurogamer Newscast: Are CD Projekt's Cyberpunk and Witcher plans too ambitious?

That claim is part of a range of comments given to Eurogamer sister site GamesIndustry.biz in response to the CMA's latest report, which otherwise mostly repeats many of the same concerns raised by the UK regulator - and others around the world - already.

For those following the case, the CMA's latest intervention will not come as a surprise - it is the next step on the regulator's recent roadmap for how and when it will weigh in with its final ruling. This month, we were due the CMA's October "issues statement" - and it seems that this is the document to which Microsoft has now publicly responded.

The usual topics are covered - surrounding the potential for the deal to harm competitors should Microsoft gain too much of an advantage owning Activision Blizzard franchises (mainly, Call of Duty) and therefore being able to leverage their brand power to become a dominant market leader in the console market and cloud streaming.

Specifically, the CMA sees potential for the deal to harm Sony but also other streaming services such as Google (perhaps a moot point now), Amazon and Nvidia.

"Having full control over this powerful catalogue, especially in light of Microsoft's already strong position in gaming consoles, operating systems, and cloud infrastructure, could result in Microsoft harming consumers by impairing Sony's – Microsoft's closest gaming rival – ability to compete," the CMA wrote, "as well as that of other existing rivals and potential new entrants who could otherwise bring healthy competition through innovative multi-game subscriptions and cloud gaming services."

In response, Microsoft said such "unsupported theories of harm" were not enough to even warrant the CMA's current Phase 2 investigation - which was triggered on 1st September.

"The suggestion that the incumbent market leader, with clear and enduring market power, could be foreclosed by the third largest provider as a result of losing access to one title is not credible," Microsoft told GamesIndustry.biz.

"While Sony may not welcome increased competition, it has the ability to adapt and compete. Gamers will ultimately benefit from this increased competition and choice.

"Should any consumers decide to switch from a gaming platform that does not give them a choice as to how to pay for new games (PlayStation) to one that does (Xbox), then that is the sort of consumer switching behavior that the CMA should consider welfare enhancing and indeed encourage. It is not something that the CMA should be trying to prevent."

The CMA is due to notify Microsoft of its provisional findings in January 2023, at which point it can seek possible remedies to any sticking points raised. The regulator's final report - and overall ruling - will then be published no later than 1st March next year.

To see this content please enable targeting cookies. Manage cookie settings

Become a Eurogamer subscriber and get your first month for £1

Get your first month for £1 (normally £3.99) when you buy a Standard Eurogamer subscription. Enjoy ad-free browsing, merch discounts, our monthly letter from the editor, and show your support with a supporter-exclusive comment flair!

Around the world and here at home, financial services are slowly moving toward open banking and open finance. A more decentralized and neutral consumer financial market structure has the potential to reshape how companies compete in the sphere.

This week, the CFPB will launch the process to activate a dormant authority under Section 1033 of the Consumer Financial Protection Act that I expect will accelerate this shift.

The provisions provide for personal financial data rights for Americans, but would only have teeth after the CFPB defined the specifics through rules.

While not explicitly an open banking or open finance rule, the rule will move us closer to it, by obligating financial institutions to share consumer data upon consumer request, empowering people to break up with banks that provide bad service, and unleashing more market competition.

If successful, it will also reduce the ability for incumbents to build moats and for middlemen to serve as gatekeepers. It will provide big advantages to those who provide the best products, service quality, and rates.

Today, I want to start off by talking a bit about the CFPB’s new approach to regulation. Then, I will describe what some of the features of a more open and competitive market would look like, along with where individual consumers and new firms will have more leverage and opportunities. I’ll then outline some details about where we are headed, as well as what we are hoping to avoid.  I’ll close by discussing the timeline and next steps to get this done.

Competition Catalysts

A few words about our approach to market regulation. Regulation of the financial services industry has a bad name, and rightfully so.

Financial regulators have largely complied with what dominant incumbents desire by writing complicated rules to fit existing business models. Much of it involves financial institutions handing consumers a lot of fine print that they may not even read, like those financial privacy notices companies send. It’s a lot of busy work and paperwork.

At the CFPB, we are shifting away from this approach, and instead, we are looking to create catalysts for more competition.

There are many forms of procompetitive regulation, such as rules that reduce switching costs or barriers to entry, rules that promote price transparency and shopping, rules that reduce conflicts of interest, and rules that place limits on business activity in order to ensure that firms don’t exploit their control over critical networks. Ideally, these rules are bright lines that require a minimal number of lawyers who bill by the hour.

Telecommunications in the U.S. has several noteworthy examples. The Federal Communications Commission’s number portability rules reduced switching costs by allowing customers to move their phone number to a new carrier. This jumpstarted more competition in the market. Decades before, the so-called Carterfone rules ensured that new devices could be interoperable with AT&T’s network, through standardized jacks and plugs, even if produced by third parties.

These and other successful examples of regulation that decentralize market power are guiding our financial data rights rulemaking. With this in mind, here is what we think a more open and competitive market could look like.

A New Competitive Market

First, individuals and nascent firms would have more bargaining leverage. In today’s market, consumers can often permit access to their financial information through data brokers, sometimes referred to as data “aggregators.” But the broader overall regime is broken because consumer access is based on a set of unstable and inconsistent norms across market participants.

For example, even when large institutions that share personal data with their customers use APIs, there is no guarantee those institutions don’t play games on availability, latency, and critical data points, like price.

We expect that these games will become much more difficult for incumbents to play.

Specifically, we expect that the public will gain more bargaining leverage once data holding companies must share authorized consumer data with authorized third parties. And, this will lead to more shopping by consumers both because they have the leverage to walk away and because they will have access to more tailored products and services.

For instance, individuals who want to switch providers will be able to transfer their account history to a new company, so they don’t have to start over if they are unsatisfied with the service provided by an incumbent firm.

Likewise, nascent firms would be able to use data permissioned by consumers to improve upon and customize, to provide greater access, and to develop products and services. Under the current regime, nascent firms often find themselves in the position of needing to curry favor with big market players.

Second, there would be better security of personal financial data. One reason that the current ecosystem is unstable is that many companies currently access consumer data through activities like screen scraping. However, such methods are not secure, and they are likely not sustainable, especially as data security standards potentially evolve to a point that such activities may become blocked.

If a firm is required to make a person’s financial information available to them, or to a third party acting on the consumer’s behalf, via a secure method, we will be able to mitigate some of the problems that exist today.

For example, consumers who want to link their accounts with an app that helps them budget, make payments, or find a route to affordable credit would be able to do so without having to provide login credentials to third parties that are used in screen scraping.

People would feel secure knowing that both the data holder and the data receiver follow secure practices. For Americans to be confident that they have the consumer financial product that is right for them and their specific needs, they should be able to share their data readily, but safely.

Third, there would be more switching and incentives for better service. In an open and competitive market, it is easy for individuals to fire, or walk away from, their financial provider for whatever reason. For example, for most consumers, changing a bank account is a huge pain. Direct deposits need to be reset, as do scheduled payments linked by ACH or debit card. And consumers need to take these actions, while managing day-to-day liquidity issues. Our rule will facilitate third party companies that offer services to make switching recurring payments easier.

Importantly, a more open market will also make sure consumers won’t have to start from scratch. For example, Americans often use their deposit account history as a life ledger – it is a written record that keeps track of payments and deposits, which can be helpful for taxes, for disputes with merchants, or insurers, and for other purposes. By allowing consumers to transfer their ledger to a new institution, the rule could make switching institutions easier – you won’t need to maintain a relationship with your bank to maintain your written record.

A competitive market would also lead to unbundling where companies compete on individual products, rather than relying on captive customers or cross-selling scams. When markets aren’t competitive, we feel that we need to buy additional services from a provider we already worked with. But with more seamless integration, this will give us all more choice.

Fourth, more switching would lead to greater efforts by firms to maintain or win customer loyalty.

And, as for companies looking to draw in new customers – when consumers authorize transfers of their personal financial data, new providers will be able to treat them as if they have been long-time customers. Because of the authorized data, companies will immediately know the products and services that could best fit their new customers’ needs.

Large incumbents will find their customers to be less “sticky” and easier to “poach.” They’ll also find it harder to impose junk fees and harvest personal financial data for their exclusive use.

Finally, financial companies can find new ways to underwrite and score with less bias. Today, many companies are now exploring new underwriting models that return to core principles – assessing ability to repay without attempting to use outside information to model a consumer’s presumed ability to repay.

Transaction data will be especially useful for these purposes, and help bring an end to the current reliance on the three-digit social credit scores derived from credit reports that are cloaked in secrecy and rife with inaccuracies.

Rather than rely on black-box models that people can’t make sense of, lending can move back to real-world data about someone’s ability to pay back a loan. This will eliminate bias and reliance on credit scores and other proxies.

CFPB Financial Data Rights Rulemaking

With this new competitive landscape in mind, here is where we are headed. First, we expect to propose requiring financial institutions offering deposit accounts, credit cards, digital wallets, prepaid cards, and other transaction accounts to set up secure methods, like APIs, for data sharing.

While we expect to cover more products over time, we are starting with these ones. Through these transaction accounts, the rule will be able to facilitate new approaches to underwriting, payment services, personal financial management, income verification, account switching, and comparison shopping.

Starting here will also mean that our jumping-off point is where industry infrastructure for consumer-authorized financial data sharing has already begun to take shape.

Second, we will be looking at a number of ways to stop incumbent institutions from improperly restricting access when consumers seek to control and share their data.

We will be developing requirements to limit misuse and abuse of personal financial data, as well as frauds and scams. A common point of concern across jurisdictions around the world is how unscrupulous actors will look to harvest and hoard consumer financial data as it increases in scale.

Data can be monetized in nefarious ways or even used by state and non-state actors. While Americans are becoming numb to routine data breaches, including massive ones like the Equifax failure, we know that more needs to be done to stop this underworld from intercepting even more highly sensitive personal data.

We are exploring ways to ensure that when consumers share their data for a specific use, that is the only use it will be used for. We know this will be a challenge, given how difficult it is to enforce restrictions, like purpose limitations and data deletion requirements.

I’ve asked that our staff look at alternatives to the so-called notice-and-opt out regime that has been the standard for financial data privacy. For example, the longstanding Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act privacy rules don’t give consumers meaningful control over how their data is being used.

When a consumer permits their private data to be used by a company for a specific purpose, it is not a free pass for a firm to exploit the data for other uses, no matter what the legal mouse-print may say.

Third, we are exploring safeguards to prevent excessive control or monopolization by one, or even a handful of, firms. A decentralized, open ecosystem will yield the most benefits for creators and consumers alike. At the same time, there will be strong incentives for gatekeepers and intermediaries to emerge, extract rents, and self-preference. In consumer financial services, we have a number of highly concentrated submarkets: the credit reporting conglomerates, the card networks, the core processors, and more. It’s critical that no one “owns” critical infrastructure.

For example, in telecommunications, the open internet, powered by protocols, like the hypertext transfer protocol, helped to create a new worldwide web. No one “owned” this internet. Of course, many actors have sought to obtain, and in some cases successfully grabbed, more control. Threats to openness have come from browsers, operating systems, app stores, infrastructure providers, and others that already have scale or provide a must-have component.

There will undoubtedly be similar efforts when it comes to open banking and finance, potentially from Big Tech firms or a consortium of incumbents. We’re thinking through how standard setting could be rigged in favor of some players over others, where an intermediary or other platform could undermine an open and neutral ecosystem.

Process and Timeline

In terms of process, here is what you can expect. The CFPB is subject to a rulemaking step that is unique among financial regulators. Before issuing a proposed rule, the CFPB must convene a panel of small businesses that represent their markets to provide input on our proposals. This week, we will be publicly releasing a discussion guide that small firms can weigh in on.

Through that process, we’ll hear from small banks and financial companies who will be providers of data, as well as the small banks and financial companies who will ingest the data. We will also gather input from the “fourth parties,” the intermediary data brokers that facilitate data transfers.

In the first quarter of 2023, we will publish a report about the input we received through that process. This will inform a proposed rule that we are planning to issue later in 2023. We then hope to finalize the rule in 2024 and move to implementation.

There will be many opportunities to provide input to inform the public record throughout the process.

Conclusion

In closing, it is important to remind ourselves about why the United States has historically been a bastion of discovery and progress. We are at our best when our laws and rules facilitate seamless switching, reduce barriers to entry, eliminate conflicts of interest, and prevent infrastructure providers from denying access to critical networks.

Financial services are an essential part of our economic plumbing, and we will be working to let the market expand and develop new ways to help Americans live their lives to the fullest.

A more open ecosystem that is broadly inclusive of both consumers and businesses holds great promise. Our rulemaking will not turn on a switch, but I hope it will move us in that direction.

Which of the following were part of Johnson's Great Society?

The Great Society program became Johnson's agenda for Congress in January 1965: aid to education, attack on disease, Medicare, urban renewal, beautification, conservation, development of depressed regions, a wide-scale fight against poverty, control and prevention of crime and delinquency, removal of obstacles to the ...

Which of the following was a focus of President Johnson's Great Society?

The Great Society was an ambitious series of policy initiatives, legislation and programs spearheaded by President Lyndon B. Johnson with the main goals of ending poverty, reducing crime, abolishing inequality and improving the environment.

What did Johnson's Great Society plan include quizlet?

President Johnson called his version of the Democratic reform program the Great Society. In 1965, Congress passed many Great Society measures, including Medicare, civil rights legislation, and federal aid to education.

What was a major result of President Johnson's Great Society quizlet?

Explanation: Johnson helped back the 1964 Civil Rights Act which was the most significant civil rights legislation of the ear, it protected voting rights, desegregated all public facilities and created the Equal Opportunity Commission to protect job opportunities.