While out of office the Republicans vehemently opposed anything that would raise the national debt. Now in office, they are proposing legislation that by most sensible estimates will raise the national debt by $1.7 trillion, or about 8%.
When Democrats controlled the White House they were in favor of allowing the national debt to rise so that they could provide a fiscal stimulus to the economy. Now in opposition (or perhaps more accurately, in the wildness) they are drawing attention to the national debt implications of the Republicans' tax giveaway.
The issue then is not the national debt, but what that borrowed money would be spent on. If it is to be on tax cuts for corporations and the rich, Republicans are all for it and the Dems oppose it. If it is to go to social programs, Democrats are for it. In the end, ones approach to borrowing is less to do with probity, but more a reflection of ones underlying values regarding equity and wealth distribution.
Friday, November 10, 2017
Do social media threaten democracy?
In the best tradition of economists, I think "it depends".
The instances in which social media have been of benefit to democracy are generally those in which information is tightly controlled by governments; the official media often peddle information that may be misleading or false, more propaganda than news. Here people have learned to be skeptical so they are better prepared to filter out fake news. Social media become a channel for ‘good’ information.
In democracies with a robust free press, many have become complacent and aren’t equipped with the instincts to sniff out fake news. The success of right wing talk radio and Fox news are testament to this societal weakness. In seemingly well-functioning democracies, truth telling has been taken for granted. There is no need to view social media platforms as tools for disseminating truth; they are entertainment, and pranks and conspiracy theories are their fare.
The metaphor of an echo chamber is often invoked when discussing social media. I suggest an alternative – a lens. It brings some things into sharper focus. Where there is a single unifying goal such as the search for an alternative to oppression and miss-rule, social media focuses attention on that goal. Where there is marked division, whether it be black vs. white, left vs. right, social conservative vs. liberal, focusing on these exacerbates the stark contrasts in positions, while domains of agreement are under served and ultimately ignored.
So, social media are useful where the press is not free and probably harmful where it is. Thus, to the extent that government control of traditional media goes hand in hand with illiberal, undemocratic regimes, then social media do threaten democracy.
The instances in which social media have been of benefit to democracy are generally those in which information is tightly controlled by governments; the official media often peddle information that may be misleading or false, more propaganda than news. Here people have learned to be skeptical so they are better prepared to filter out fake news. Social media become a channel for ‘good’ information.
In democracies with a robust free press, many have become complacent and aren’t equipped with the instincts to sniff out fake news. The success of right wing talk radio and Fox news are testament to this societal weakness. In seemingly well-functioning democracies, truth telling has been taken for granted. There is no need to view social media platforms as tools for disseminating truth; they are entertainment, and pranks and conspiracy theories are their fare.
The metaphor of an echo chamber is often invoked when discussing social media. I suggest an alternative – a lens. It brings some things into sharper focus. Where there is a single unifying goal such as the search for an alternative to oppression and miss-rule, social media focuses attention on that goal. Where there is marked division, whether it be black vs. white, left vs. right, social conservative vs. liberal, focusing on these exacerbates the stark contrasts in positions, while domains of agreement are under served and ultimately ignored.
So, social media are useful where the press is not free and probably harmful where it is. Thus, to the extent that government control of traditional media goes hand in hand with illiberal, undemocratic regimes, then social media do threaten democracy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)