In another post (on social media) you indicate that it will be very hard to produce a "a set of new institutional arrangements which will help us solve the very real and serious problems we continue to face globally and allow us to believe in a promising future once again."
"The problem is not so much that people are being exposed to bad information and are thus changing their views on particular issues in destabilizing ways. It is, rather, that social media dramatically changes the way we interact with each other, alters our perception of prevailing norms and values, and thus plays havoc with our capacity to cohere and reason as a society. Because social media disrupts our collective capacity to process information and make judgments, studies of how individuals are affected inevitably fail to capture the problems of greatest concern.
"people looked in the store window ... and found such a dismal set of options that neoliberalism looked most attractive." I think it would be more correct to say that neoliberalism just had a better political marketing message, and it was easier to believe, given also that failures of the opposite excess were fresher in people minds.
"In this interpretation, the bitter side-effect of the otherwise marvelous fall of communism wasn’t that it validated neoliberalism, as Brad argues, but that it validated the rich world’s broader approach to generating new ideas and turning them into higher living standards"
I don't understand what you mean here. I think we all agree that the rich world approach to generate new ideas and turn them into higher living standard was investment in physical, social and human capital. Why would validating this approach be "bitter"?
I think that this approach was at some point conflated with neoliberalism, an implicit premature validation of which was indeed unfortunate, but then this is exactly what Brad is saying, isn't he? I am confused ...
In another post (on social media) you indicate that it will be very hard to produce a "a set of new institutional arrangements which will help us solve the very real and serious problems we continue to face globally and allow us to believe in a promising future once again."
From https://ryanavent.substack.com/p/time-to-outgrow-social-media?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
"The problem is not so much that people are being exposed to bad information and are thus changing their views on particular issues in destabilizing ways. It is, rather, that social media dramatically changes the way we interact with each other, alters our perception of prevailing norms and values, and thus plays havoc with our capacity to cohere and reason as a society. Because social media disrupts our collective capacity to process information and make judgments, studies of how individuals are affected inevitably fail to capture the problems of greatest concern.
"people looked in the store window ... and found such a dismal set of options that neoliberalism looked most attractive." I think it would be more correct to say that neoliberalism just had a better political marketing message, and it was easier to believe, given also that failures of the opposite excess were fresher in people minds.
"In this interpretation, the bitter side-effect of the otherwise marvelous fall of communism wasn’t that it validated neoliberalism, as Brad argues, but that it validated the rich world’s broader approach to generating new ideas and turning them into higher living standards"
I don't understand what you mean here. I think we all agree that the rich world approach to generate new ideas and turn them into higher living standard was investment in physical, social and human capital. Why would validating this approach be "bitter"?
I think that this approach was at some point conflated with neoliberalism, an implicit premature validation of which was indeed unfortunate, but then this is exactly what Brad is saying, isn't he? I am confused ...