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 

 

To read or not to read, that is the question...

 

MUST READ LIST

Yuval Noah Harari, Mustafa Suleyman, Daron Acemoğlu, Yanis Varoufakis, and Kojin Karatani must read the books on the list I propose below...

Why? Because Michel Foucault, once famously said,

“If I had been familiar with the Frankfurt School [Adorno, Horkheimer, Benjamin, and others], I would not have said a number of stupid things that I did say, and I would have avoided many of the detours that I made while trying to pursue my own humble path—when, meanwhile, avenues had been opened up by the Frankfurt School.”

This was after his visit to support Khomeini of Iran. Interview conducted by Gerard Raulet in 1983 and published as "Structuralism and Post-Structuralism: An Interview with Michele Foucault," in Telos 55 (Spring 1983), 7, 95-217, reproduced in Kritzman (1990: 17–47).

Now is the reading time for those who make new "fashionable nonsense." They can read all the books on the list, but if they had read only the ones under their names, most probably they might not have written what they had written:

 

Yuval Noah Harari must read:

George Gerbner, Against the Mainstream 

https://www.amazon.com/Against-Mainstream-Selected-Gerbner-Culture/dp/0820441635

Harold Innis, Communication and Empire

https://www.amazon.com/Empire-Communications-Voyageur-Classics-Harold/dp/1550026623

Daron Acemoğlu must read:

Arif Dirlik, Postcolonial Aura

https://www.amazon.com/Postcolonial-Aura-Criticism-Global-Capitalism-ebook/dp/B079Z9J3TY

Kojin Karatani, Isonomia-Origins of Philosophy

https://www.amazon.com/Isonomia-Origins-Philosophy-Kojin-Karatani/dp/0822369133

Yanis Varoufakis must read:

Marshall McLuhan, Global Village-Transformations in World Life and Media in the 21st Century

https://www.amazon.com/Global-Village-Transformations-Century-Communication/dp/0195079108

Kojin Karatani must read:

Veysel Batmaz, Digitalism vs. Capitalism

https://www.amazon.com/Digitalism-vs-Capitalism-Ecumenical-Dimensions/dp/B0D9SJ3XSL

Mustafa Suleyman must read all…

Do you fear that Trump will trump capitalism?

 The American imperial colonialists and warmongering globalists who are exporting so-called “their democracy” to various “non-inclusive institution regions” by proxy wars with the creation of fundamentalist religious soldiers financed by the CIA and by the “democratic” establishment of the North American State created the same in the US as it created in us, globally. Why are Marxists and leftists among American intellectuals and academics impeaching the American people and American democracy? Democracy is everywhere the same and producing the same results. It must be understood that democracy, the cradle of capitalism, is dying. Capitalism will be buried by digitalism... 

Who is going to make the coffin? Trump or globalists? That is the question! 

Good morning, Vietnam!

Interested further? Then read Digitalism vs. Capitalism!

Claim and Confession...

Read and watch the “confession” first, and then the “claim” and think... Who does want to give a prize to "priceless" research, or what is the price of this prize? 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBQzHJq5cpQ

16:06: PAUL ALIVISATOS (President of the University of Chicago; John D. MacArthur Distinguished Service Professor in the Department of Chemistry):

“James, you shared with me earlier how there were some moments where you first realized what methods would be needed for you to make your discoveries and so on. Just say a little bit about some of the moments when the research really advanced and what that was like for you.”

16:24: JAMES ROBINSON (The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel 2024, of University of Chicago. Prize motivation: “for studies of how institutions are formed and affect prosperity”):

“Well, I think—when we started working on these problems that we got the Nobel Prize for --Daron and I--, Daron grew up in Istanbul, and my father was a sort of itinerant engineer who spent most of his life working overseas, so I lived overseas when I was young. So we were very interested in these problems, but we found it very difficult to approach them because what we had all these intuitions, but the intuitions didn't sort of coincide with the way people studied the problems. So I think we had to find a kind of entry point, in some sense. And we, both of us, read when we were undergraduates Douglass North and Robert Thomas's book: The Rise of the Western World, which was about the kind of institutional transformation

that created the Industrial Revolution and this sort of so-called phenomenon of the great divergence. So we both of us had independently read that book,

and I just mentioned how we first started talking about Douglass North's work two hours after we first met. But how do you-- how do you approach that? How do you measure these things, and how do you-- So we started working on that, and we started reading a lot of history and sort of thinking about how to approach it. And we started putting data together but it has all of these problems that was talked about in terms of how do you know what's causing what, and what's the sort of forcing variable here? And then we were very fortunate because Daron was-- so we had all this data, and we started

working with Simon and one of Daron's colleagues also, the now Nobel laureate, Josh Angrist. Josh sort of understood most of these things before anybody else in the economics profession, how you dealt with these issues of causal inference. And so Daron started co-teaching labor economics at MIT with Josh; so none of us had any idea how to conduct an empirical study, in fact. 

Veysel Batmaz claimed that, there is no independent variable for Daron Acemoglu (variable that measures the CAUSE). Every assertion that shows a causal link should contain a measurement as an independent variable. If not, every variable can account for every other variable, leading to a huge tautology. He is dealing with three variables to be played in a very libertarian way, in a causal relationship: INSTITUTIONS, CHOICE, and POWER. In the equation he creates, each of these variables is an inter-correlated and mostly spurious dependent variable. (For an excellently worded elaboration on this: See, Daniel Sarewitz, “Economists Being Economists.” Issues in Science and Technology 40, no. 2 (Winter 2024): 102–104. https://doi.org/10.58875/KZIV5162)

“Transferring inclusive institutions to colonized countries by the power (state) of the colonizer makes prosperity” (see the Swiss Central Bank’s press release); then what is the cause?

Power (because it is transferring); or institutions (because inclusive, or produced power in the first place in the benevolent colonizer who introduced inclusive institutes to the colony; if so, the cause is again power). One wonders if power might be the institutions themselves! And that means one cannot get rid of power because only power makes decisions (i.e., choices). Or, sharing prosperity by the inclusive institutions of the colonized and colonizers power because colonized wisely accepted (chose) the power’s choice (inclusive institutions)? Or none of the above. Or, more correctly, all of the above (Acemoglu’s choice). If one cannot choose, I can pinpoint a very deep and unseen cause as well: Ripping off the surplus value of the colonizer due to the low "rule of law" (uninclusive institution) among the poor (in the colonized—they definitely need inclusive institutions)! This plausible statement was not among the control variables, but what the heck!

Seriously enough, I think constructing hypotheses without an independent variable and using all of the variables at hand that might be (in Acemoglu’s case are) extraneous, component, intervening, antecedent, suppressor, and distorter as dependent variables (choice is yours), with no controls accounted for, is worth a Nobel Prize (see: Morris Rosenberg, The Logic of Survey Analysis).

Instead of constructing a causal relationship with a robust independent variable accounted for with the controlled variables, Acemoglu makes the following equation:

With rational CHOICES (coming from the holy spirit,) POWER takes decisions (I think the first CHOICE is to choose to go to the colonized country, so to decide to establish institutions or transfer them to poor countries, mercy of Jesus, must be the second one. Whether this is a choice or one of the ten commandments is also unknown because it is coming from materialistically protestant ethics, here we need to explain the German situation and ask: Is German rule of law not enough? Or, being the most protestant of all, why was she late to behave in benevolence? Or the colonized people did not listen to Germans at all because of the Vatican? (Please do not overlook the propaganda department of the Vatican—Sacra Congregatio de Propaganda Fide!) to construct (the verb "create" is more appropriate) social structures (institutions; this time I believe the third choice just because to decide and construct are two different phenomena), and POWER again gains POWER through the things (institutional structures, as structuralist-functionalists assert) POWER establishes as INSTITUTIONS (this might be the fourth choice: to regain power—hospitals, charities, and schools, but firstly, administrative institutions such as assigning benevolent governors who are responsible for exported democratic institutions, but I assume factories, plantations, and mines are institutions as well, or at least their administrative parts are institutional; let’s name them as exploitative institutions) which uses technology by CHOICE and distributes its surplus value as revenue for the poor people which makes them “more” prosperous. (because all of them are “sacred” choices.) [Don’t read in the parenthesis if you are pro-Acemoglu. My comment is not only based the Press Release of the Central Bank of Sweden.]

This is all clear-cut but it's unclear, though, when and why it became apparent as power can become so almighty, and choices and institutions are all benevolent. God’s providence? Marx argues that the mode of production and property relations establish power. I claim that the technology makes modes of production and property relations from which power stems, in Digitalism vs. Capitalism.

 

Another NOBEL win:
Daron Acemoglu was criticized in Digitalism vs. Capitalism, and he won the Nobel Prize with a funny and empirically unsupported theory. Along the lines of Batmaz's criticism, the definite meaning of Daron’s win of the Swedish Central Bank's price in the memory of Alfred Nobel is that capitalism is definitely dying.

 

The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel 2024

14 October 2024

The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences has decided to award the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel 2024 to

Daron Acemoglu
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, USA

Simon Johnson
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, USA

James A. Robinson
University of Chicago, IL, USA

“for studies of how institutions are formed and affect prosperity”

They have helped us understand differences in prosperity between nations

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.

When Europeans colonized large parts of the globe, the institutions in those societies changed. This was sometimes dramatic, but did not occur in the same way everywhere. In some places the aim was to exploit the indigenous population and extract resources for the colonizers’ benefit. In others, the colonizers formed inclusive political and economic systems for the long-term benefit of European migrants.

The laureates have shown that one explanation for differences in countries’ prosperity is the societal institutions that were introduced during colonization. Inclusive institutions were often introduced in countries that were poor when they were colonized, over time resulting in a generally prosperous population. This is an important reason for why former colonies that were once rich are now poor, and vice versa.

Some countries become trapped in a situation with extractive institutions and low economic growth. The introduction of inclusive institutions would create long-term benefits for everyone, but extractive institutions provide short-term gains for the people in power. As long as the political system guarantees they will remain in control, no one will trust their promises of future economic reforms. According to the laureates, this is why no improvement occurs.

What you missed ...

What you missed if you have not read 

Digitalism vs. Capitalism 

by Veysel Batmaz

           The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2024 (9 October 2024)

They cracked the code for proteins' amazing structures

The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2024 is about proteins, life’s ingenious chemical tools. David Baker has succeeded with the almost impossible feat of building entirely new kinds of proteins. Demis Hassabis and John Jumper have developed an AI model to solve a 50-year-old problem: predicting proteins’ complex structures. These discoveries hold enormous potential.

The 2024 chemistry laureates

The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2024 was awarded with one half to David Baker “for computational protein design” and the other half jointly to Demis Hassabis, Google DeepMind chief, and John M. Jumper, Google DeepMind, London, United Kingdom, “for protein structure prediction”. Demis Hassabis and John Jumper have successfully utilized artificial intelligence to predict the structure of almost all known proteins. David Baker has learned how to master life’s building blocks and create entirely new proteins. Nobel Laureate David Baker is a professor of biochemistry, HHMI investigator, and the director of the Institute for Protein Design at the University of Washington.

 

        Excerpt from Digitalism vs. Capitalism (p. 155, 28 July 2024):

_“Capitalism is the most expensive mode of production

At a time when AI is shocking so many populations, the convergence of human intellect with AI and vice versa should not have surprised anyone. Today, we know more about the human brain, thanks to technology, and the so-called computer brain, an extension of human intellect, so that we can easily play with both of them.

We are both the Solaris Ocean and the Solaris Space Station crew!

This is what digitalism is going to do to decipher the minds of organic and inorganic beings.

Convergence, overlaps, separations, various intermingling, and above all, connectedness, are the way things are going to be[*].

Under the circumstances in which we are living now, capitalists’ fear that AI will take over the power of ruling classes and lay-people’s fear that they will lose jobs and incomes are futile. A new mode of consumption and production is on the horizon. And a new mode of forces and relations of production is coming close, as we are turning into hunters and gatherers of information, talents, content, know-how, knowledge, signs, images, symbols, and data. We were doing these already in manual and sensory (perhaps in analog) ways; now it is time to let it all be done by the digitalization of life, which means Digitalism, if we insist on naming it.

---

_[*]Organisms without brains can remember their past. Scientists found that Escherichia coli bacteria form their own kind of memory of exposure to nutrients. They pass these memories down to future generations, which can help them evade antibiotics, the research team reported in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA. Stanislaw Lem told us a long time ago. Researchers theorize that when iron levels are low, bacterial memories are triggered to form a fast-moving migratory swarm to seek out iron in the environment. When iron levels are high, memories indicate this environment is a good place to stick around and form a biofilm. "Iron levels are definitely a target for therapeutics because iron is an important factor in virulence," Bhattacharyya said. "Ultimately, the more we know about bacterial behavior, the easier it is to combat it." Souvik Bhattacharyya is the lead author and a provost early-career fellow in the Department of Molecular Biosciences at UT.

 

Memory is usually associated with higher organisms rather than bacteria. However, evidence is mounting that many regulatory networks within bacteria are capable of complex dynamics and multi-stable behaviors that have been linked to memory in other systems. Moreover, it is recognized that bacteria that have experienced different environmental histories may respond differently to current conditions. These “memory” effects may be more than incidental to the regulatory mechanisms controlling acclimation or to the status of the metabolic stores. Rather, they may be regulated by the cell and confer fitness to the organism in the evolutionary game it participates in.

 

“Memory in Microbes: Quantifying History-Dependent Behavior in a Bacterium” Denise M. Wolf, Lisa Fontaine-Bodin, Ilka Bischofs, Gavin Price, Jay Keasling, and Adam P. Arkin

 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2264733/

 

“The amount of digital data produced has long been outpacing the amount of storage available. This project enables molecular-level data storage into DNA molecules by leveraging biotechnology advances in synthesizing, manipulating, and sequencing DNA to develop archival storage. Microsoft and University of Washington researchers are collaborating (opens in a new tab) to use DNA as a high-density, durable, and easy-to-manipulate storage medium.” Microsoft.

https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/project/dna-storage/

 

Yuval Noah Harari is a Storyteller:

 

As more I listen to Yuval Noah Harari, the more I am confident I wrote an illuminating book titled Digitalism vs. Capitalism. The Son of the Trinity Mr. Harari is a very good storyteller, but all he is doing is telling stories, mostly distorted, equal to Carlo Collodi’s Pinocchio. All his books are full of “intersubjective reality” stories.

He does not know and mention about Herold Innis!

He does not know and mention about Marshall McLuhan!

He does not know and mention about George Gerbner!

He does not know and mention about Theodore Adorno!

He does not know and mention about Martin Bernal!

He does not know and mention about Jack Goody!

He does not know and mention about Arif Dirlik!

 

If he knew them, then he is plagiarizing from them all!

If he knew them, then he must have cited them properly, not twisted and upside down.

He uses and distorts these scholars' conceptual analyses. He does not use any causality in his narratives. All of these scholars and many more have an independent variable to explain the social humanity.

 

The Son of the Trinity Mr. Harari does not have a cause-and-effect relationship in his stories. Just a little example from his writings:

He claims that “information technology,” starting from newspapers, then radio, and television, is the only thing that can sustain democracy among large numbers of people. He asserts that the information technology has been created by the people to have a large scale of democracy.

 

This implies that he is unaware of why James Madison penned the 1st Amendment or how Publius penned the Federalist Papers.