Nobelist economist...

 

Nobelist Daron Acemoglu: “Academics must speak out about Trump!" 

Who is going to speak about Acemoğlu and his misleading research?

In the interview he gave to Jack Grove of the Times Higher Education (23 December 2024), the laureate of the Swiss Central Bank’s award in the name of Nobel, Dr. Daron Acemoğlu talks about the threat posed by the USA’s new president and the need for regulation of artificial intelligence.

He says: “Many vocal US academics have been uncharacteristically silent in recent weeks as America's president-elect has vowed to launch an assault on affluent universities. Donald Trump is a real threat to democracy.”

This is how Dr. Acemoglu has not shied away from public involvement. He thinks that his “Nobel” “honor” confirms and approves what he has declared and his standing as one of the most unique voices in American industry and technology. Yet he cautions that “not all recent scientific developments are beneficial.”

Wait a minute! These are the words of a science man who had said that “the inclusive institutions lead to prosperity and well-being of individuals” when he was receiving laureateship from the Swiss Central Bank: “This year’s laureates in the economic sciences – Daron Acemoglu, Simon Johnson and James Robinson – have demonstrated the importance of societal institutions for a country’s prosperity. Societies with a poor rule of law and institutions that exploit the population do not generate growth or change for the better. The laureates’ research helps us understand why.” Indeed?

Stop here: one of the best examples of “inclusive institutions” all around the world could be found in the USA and UK, as he claimed. No one can claim the opposite. Or can they? The USA and UK election institutions are some of the best, although some systematic technical problems arise from time to time. Election is an institution that covers, or extends to, or include all people in the USA and UK. It produces extensive and inclusive representation and checks and balances of the different segments of government. What more do you want? (One produced Trump and the other produced Boris Johnson, what the heck!) It brought prosperity as well. We have seen it in the last century. Of course, not from the exploitation (extraction) of the labor of other countries as a colonial and imperialist power and war exportation under the name of democracy but squirted from their own strength of its inclusive institutions (election institution), as a Nobel laureate, called Acemoğlu, once upon a time had claimed!

But we are learning from the most unique voice in American industry and technology, the laureate of the Swiss Central Bank’s award in the name of Nobel, who has not shied away from public involvement as other vocal US academics have, that this perfect inclusive institution (the American political system as a whole) can produce a threat to itself—to democracy! Science can do the same! What a profound and scientific finding! Are they the same person? Or are there two Acemoğlus?

Science is not a descriptive cognitive occupation only. It shows the consequences as well (causality). In order to find a causal relationship, you have to have an independent variable. There is none in Acemoğlu, et al. Or at all? Also, we have not heard from Acemoğlu (the second one) what would be the consequence of Trump and AI. According to Acemoğlu, the Second, “some technologies might be bad for society—and shared prosperity too.” Shared prosperity? Might the landslide triumph of Trump in the best inclusive institution in the world, the American democracy, have happened from an unshared prosperity? We heard no answer from the Swiss Central Bank laureate yet… For whom? He does not answer either, except to pinpoint the whole non-segmented, maybe “inclusive” society. Which society is this? He is an economist, not a communist. He does not indicate. Threat for all of us? If yes, what a pity! Nobel’s dynamite is one of the examples. He must dwell on Mr. Nobel and the dynamite as well, not only on Mr. Trump and AI!

In this blog you can find evidence of what I have written above. Please go to Archive of Previous Articles at the right column if you are interested.

 

SEASON’S GREETINGS…

HAPPY NEW YEAR AND A MERRY CHRISTMAS!

 

LET’S COMPARE TWO BOOKS WRITTEN 10 YEARS APART ABOUT THE FUTURE OF CAPITALISM:

 

KATARZYNA WALOTEK-ŚCIAŃSKA, MICHAŁ SZYSZKA, ARKADIUSZ WĄSIŃSKI, DANUTA SMOŁUCHA

New media in the social spaces. Strategies of influence

PRAGUE 2014

https://open.icm.edu.pl/items/82a8ee4b-b04a-4281-b572-0ecbe8bcd1fd  

“The ambiguity of socio-cultural transformations occurring within the new forms of interpersonal communication in the network media space exposes the semantic indistinctiveness of societies typology into present, emerging and future ones. The doubts increase along with more detailed analysis of differences between the information society or the knowledge society (classified as the emerging ones) and network society or virtual society (classified as the future one). There are many arguments proving that classification of this type does not describe the observed social and communication phenomena and processes sufficiently. However, the reflection upon such description, that would lead to better understanding of the nature of thesis changes, gains some intellectual freshness thanks to Castells’ concept of lows and “timeless” time. It seems to reflect the most originally the changing context of perception and thinking, the emerging forms of on-line social life which seem to be subject to spatial logic (timelessness). “Networkness” viewed from this perspective leaves no doubt that the near future will entail not only the diametrically technologically different life conditions but also mentally transformed humans of the new era.

…..

Regardless of the outlined threats and transcultural aspect of communication within the new media, it needs to be pointed out to the great opportunities and possibilities resulting from applying new media to various dimensions of human activity. The example which clearly shows new communication, social and cultural possibilities are virtual communities which develop in the dynamically spreading structure of network reality also called the network of networks. It is worth to state again that it releases the unprecedented communication strategies that join together the local, regional and global dimension of local interactions and social relations. This virtual community is created by network users, active and passive against the mainstream media influence, coming from different cultural and religious circles, various social classes, joint together by common fate or socio-political situation. These communities become free from the systemic limitations and barriers, they overcome social taboo and, at last, they integrate and undertake action against or despite the will of decision-makers of various origin and various position in the social hierarchy. The causal power of virtual communities originates from the very nature of virtual reality identified with implosiveness, inclusiveness and simulativeness. he specifics of the mechanisms that govern it, determines the new formula and shape of typical interactions in e-space as well as emotional closeness, community bonds and cooperation within a community. Undoubtedly, further observation and analysis will not only constitute a vast research field but will also bring about numerous new, unknown today, questions, dynamic changes and new threads in this extremely important reflection upon the social dimension of new media functioning.”

VEYSEL BATMAZ

Digitalism vs. Capitalism

ISTANBUL 2024

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0D9SJ3XSL

“A new version of the Marxist approach to the “Internet Age” is Manuel Castells’s notion of “network society and network state,” which shows us a more realistic picture of how we live in today’s capitalist digital technology. Castells is one of the comprehensive but not sufficient scholars to put Marx on his feet when he stresses the technological side.

When analyzing network society, Castell shares a similarity with the notion of “ecumenical society” suggested here (Digitalism vs. Capitalism), but he is very different in empirical conceptualizing and application. Castells offers that today’s politics is turning into a new type of state: the network state. It is the new phase of capitalism, according to him.

Castells does not see that all states and societies are networked in history. The Hunters and Gatherers have networks as sounds, voices, and tools as well as a natural division of labor; Mafia is a very well networked community. The Romans were very good at connecting the world they were controlling with networks of aqueducts, roads, colons, and army communication. Innis’s work, Empires and Communication, must be revisited to understand how the networks played a very important role in power usage and application, starting with the most important networking tool, the alphabet.

The production mode of creating networks is the main difference between then and now. It is the electrical energy transmitted by digitalized commands instead of human energy in Roman colonies. In fact, a colony of the Roman Empire was the first ecumenical network. “Colone” means, from Latin derivation, “colo”, 'cultivate, inhabit'.

Castells is one of the first primary figures who called upon the political and social changes in the age of information and cyber networking. When he calls the end result of digitalization “the network state,” as opposed to the national state, he gets very close to the formulation of the new mode of production of the digital age as “digitalism,” but he shies away immediately just because of his Marxist indulgence in production, not the mode of it, and not the consumption prior to it.

Nevertheless, one who wants to understand the world we live in must read especially the second volume of Information Age: Economy, Society, and Culture/Power of Identity, 2^nd Volume (1997). It stops telling us what will happen in the future.

The reason why he has not accomplished the inevitable task of his enormous edifice of work on the “new digital age” is that he takes the dynamics of information and networks but not digitalization and digitalism as the new mode of production. Information and networks were the oldest typologies of all societies in history. Not seeing them in the digital age with their changing functions, Castells assumes that the new information age, network societies, and the internet are only a new phase of global capitalism and thus have the sole capacity to change the power structure of national states.

….

Castell's main shortcoming is that he does not see any networks in history other than today’s; the second writer he edited claims that technology must not be substituted with history. So we can ask. What was the Roman Empire, or any other empire? How would we have gathered the historical facts if they had not been written by one of the most stunning technologies: the alphabet? Technology cannot be a substitute for history, but it is the thing that created it. On the other hand, Castell is sharing the same conclusion with me on ecumenism without knowing or naming it.

…

Castells is also very confusing in using rival terms such as knowledge and information. The article he wrote with Martin Conroy in 2002 criticized Poulantzas about his theory of state, titled “Globalization, the Knowledge Society, and the Network State: Poulantzas at the Millennium.” Wouldn't it be an information society? To call today a knowledge society is belittling the Axial Age, British empiricists, the Enlightenment, or German philosophical tradition.”

Digitalism vs. Capitalism