Bundestag First Said Kontext#Acemoğlu tauchte zum ersten Mal im Protokoll der 205. Sitzung des 20. Deutschen Bundestages am 16.12.2024 auf. Es wurde im Rahmen der Rede von Olaf Scholz (SPD) gesagt.
Video: https://de.openparliament.tv/media/DE-0200205003?q=Acemoğlu
José David Ávila y Zárate
K. SchrageDie Superreichen dürfen wegen ihres Geldes nicht noch einflussreicher werden. Das schreibt Nobelpreisträger Daron #Acemoglu. https://www.derstandard.at/story/3000000241184/daron-acemoglu-warum-die-macht-der-reichen-begrenzt-gehoert
Daron Acemoğlu: Warum die Macht der Reichen begrenzt gehört
Reichtum hat in den USA nicht nur einen hohen sozialen Status, sondern auch großen Einfluss auf Politik und Kultur. Aber viel Geld ist kein Maßstab für Weisheit. Es wäre höchst an der Zeit, den Tech-Milliardären Einhalt zu gebieten
Chuck DarwinTrio of US-based professors win Nobel economics prize for work on post-colonial wealth
Three US-based professors, including two UK-born academics, have been awarded this year’s Nobel prize in economics,
for showing how the political and economic systems introduced by colonisers can determine whether a country is rich or poor today.
The explanation put forward by Turkish-American Daron #Acemoğlu, Sheffield-born Simon #Johnson and Briton James A #Robinson,
suggests that inclusive institutions set up for the long-term benefit of European migrants ended up resulting in more prosperous societies in the long term.
However, they found that in countries where the aim was to exploit the Indigenous population and extract resources for the colonisers’ benefit,
the impact has been detrimental, and resulted in far poorer societies, leaving some countries trapped in low economic growth cycles.
Italian News by RSScorriere.it by Corriere
Il Nobel per l'economia a Acemoglu, Johnson e Robinson: l'annuncio del vincitore
Translated:
The Nobel Prize in Economics to Acemoglu, Johnson and Robinson: the winner announced.
#Acemoglu #Johnson #Robinson
https://video.corriere.it/economia/il-nobel-per-l-economia-a-acemoglu-johnson-e-robinson-l-annuncio-del-vincitore/1aa351a7-7065-4111-ae3b-9e296e1dexlk
Il Nobel per l'economia a Acemoglu, Johnson e Robinson: l'annuncio del vincitore
(LaPresse) Il premio Nobel per l'economia è stato assegnato a Daron Acemoglu, Simon Johnson e James A. Robinson per una ricerca sulle differenze di prosperità tra le nazioni. I tre economisti “hanno dimostrato l'importanza delle istituzioni sociali per la prosperità di un Paese”, ha dichiarato il comitato del Nobel dell'Accademia reale svedese delle scienze a Stoccolma. “Le società con uno scarso stato di diritto e istituzioni che sfruttano la popolazione non generano crescita o cambiamenti in meglio. La ricerca dei vincitori ci aiuta a capire perché”, ha aggiunto. Acemoglu e Johnson lavorano al Massachusetts Institute of Technology, mentre Robinson conduce le sue ricerche all'Università di Chicago. Il premio di economia è formalmente noto come Premio della Banca di Svezia in Scienze Economiche in memoria di Alfred Nobel. La scorsa settimana sono stati annunciati i premi Nobel per la medicina, la fisica, la chimica, la letteratura e la pace.
Werner Keil
Many technology companies would be more benign if they were owned and governed by their users.
Users have the most to lose from tech-driven addiction and automation,
and their data generate most of the companies’ value.
⭐️User-owners would share in this value and have an incentive to keep companies from causing harm.
❓How might users come together to start and run more technology companies?
Bringing together a disparate and dispersed group of people is difficult;
-- economists call this the #collective #action #problem.
👍Influential nonprofits such as the
🔸Center for Humane Technology and
🔸Project Liberty can play an organizing role,
incubating a new generation of user-owned social media businesses.
While it’s a competitive field with entrenched players,
social media technology is not complex,
and there is a real hunger for more benign versions.
Existing firms can also be redesigned.
✅Instead of raising capital from profit-seeking corporations,
OpenAI could seek funding from users and give them representation on its board.
✅And with users on the board, the company might take more care to launch products safely
and dedicate resources to maintaining employment.
🔥Most important, more of the financial gains of the AI revolution would flow to the people creating the value.
If #Keith #Gill,
also known as #Roaring #Kitty,
could organize retail investors to drive up the market value of #GameStop by $10 billion,
could a similar approach have been employed to acquire Twitter for users in 2022?
Given the millions of defections from the platform since Musk purchased it,
it may not be too late.
The government can also help if it’s not headed off by Big Tech political contributions.
The 🔸Small Business Administration,
the Department of Energy and
the 🔸National Science Foundation
should ✅ encourage user ownership of the companies they fund.
The venture capitalists of Sand Hill Road will of course scream that this is #socialism,
but they will be wrong.
It’s just business.
#MOIC #Elon #Musk #Peter #Thiel #Marc #Andreessen #Ben #Horowitz #Trump #Reid #Hoffman #Harris #cryptocurrency #artificial #intelligence #Lina #Khan #addiction #eliminating #humans #Daron #Acemoglu
The root of the problem is that the United States and Silicon Valley in particular are dominated by what we call an
🆘 “investor monoculture.”
Modern corporations are designed to serve investors and no one else.
About 80% of public company stock in the United States is owned by institutional investors,
most of which have one objective:
to maximize profits,
largely in the short term and without regard to the costs for society.
In 1980, their share of stocks was just 29%.
Venture capital firms,
the biggest funders of Silicon Valley startups,
have grown from under $400 billion in assets in 2010
to nearly $4 trillion today.
Their performance is measured by
“multiples on invested capital,” or “#MOIC,” as insiders call it.
Suicide rates among young people are up more than 60% since 2007,
and U.S. democracy is in danger.
-- But these are not investors’ concerns.
Regulation and advocacy can certainly make a difference.
But Big Tech is cash-rich, lawyered up and capable of running circles around regulators.
It’s time for a different approach.
When businesses are owned and governed by employees, customers, suppliers or communities, they become less predatory
and more benign.
⭐️And as it turns out, corporations have been designed in such ways across time and cultures.
Capitalism comes in many forms.
❇️Farmers, employees or customers own and govern some of the world’s most respected companies,
including
Ocean Spray,
Publix Super Markets,
Organic Valley,
New York Life Insurance Co. and
Vanguard.
❇️Corporations such as Patagonia,
Rolex,
Novo Nordisk and
Ikea
are owned or controlled by nonprofits, trusts or foundations,
which have no investors
and thus face less pressure to boost profits.
Silicon Valley has examples too.
❇️Mozilla, which operates the web browser Firefox,
is owned by a nonprofit.
It has no incentive to maximize profits,
which explains why it does not sell user data to advertisers.
❇️Wikipedia, among the world’s most visited websites, is also run by a nonprofit,
which shows that scale and impact don’t always depend on investor capital.
❇️A nonprofit owns a majority of ChatGPT maker OpenAI,
a design it chose to “ensure that artificial intelligence benefits all of humanity.”
But its minority investors, such as Microsoft, are profit-driven,
which has led to concerns that it’s releasing products at an irresponsible pace.
#Elon #Musk #Peter #Thiel #Marc #Andreessen #Ben #Horowitz #Trump #Reid #Hoffman #Harris #cryptocurrency #artificial #intelligence #Lina #Khan #addiction #eliminating #humans #Daron #Acemoglu
Silicon Valley is maximizing profit at everyone’s expense.
It doesn’t have to be this way
A public battle has broken out among the titans of Silicon Valley.
🔸One side, led by #Elon #Musk, PayPal co-founder #Peter #Thiel and venture capitalists #Marc #Andreessen and #Ben #Horowitz,
is backing Donald #Trump for president.
🔸The other, led by LinkedIn co-founder #Reid #Hoffman, is behind Kamala #Harris.
⚠️We should not make the mistake of thinking this is a battle over ideology or policy.
It’s a battle to ♦️maximize Silicon Valley’s profits regardless of the consequences for society.♦️
On this objective, both sides agree.
Andreessen Horowitz is one of the largest investors in #cryptocurrency and #artificial #intelligence,
and Trump has signaled that he would keep the government out of its business.
Meanwhile, soon after donating $7 million to a Harris super PAC,
Hoffman called for her to oust Federal Trade Commission Chairwoman #Lina #Khan,
who has brought antitrust cases against Big Tech and introduced rules to protect workers.
Silicon Valley, a longtime engine of human achievement,
has become a significant source of human harm.
Aware of the gathering backlash, its leaders have dived into the political fray 💥to protect their wealth.💥
Two Silicon Valley obsessions threaten the most damage:
creating human #addiction to increase profits
and #eliminating #humans altogether to decrease costs.
Social media platforms,
which started out by bringing old friends together and giving voice to the otherwise powerless,
have become “social slot machines”
compelling excessive use.
Gaming companies have a similar objective.
Teenagers today spend more than eight hours a day on screens,
fueling digital advertising revenues that reached $225 billion last year.
Meanwhile, the artificial intelligence revolution promises to cut labor costs.
A recent study by MIT economist #Daron #Acemoglu found that 50% to 70% of the growth in inequality between more and less educated workers can be attributed to automation.
Poverty rates in Silicon Valley’s home state are rising
even as AI makes Big Tech richer.
The broader prospects are equally concerning.
AI is enabling killer robots, autonomous weapons and massively destructive misinformation.
fanf42@martinanota y'a un truc bizarre dans cet article et l'original d'Acemoglu.
Enfin plusieurs, si on compte "la réforme des retraites était absolument nécessaire juste mal expliquée" qui a tous les red flags possibles en style En plus de ne pas franchement s'appuyer sur des faits.
Donc, le truc bizarre : il part du constat qui me semble 👌: "le problème, c'est la (non) lutte des classes et le fait que le centre gauche ait trahi pendant 40 ans les travailleurs au profit des multinationales et des milliardaires pour le pouvoir de leurs élites, et que les bénéfices portés par des gauches-pas-centre qui avaient mis en place beaucoup de choses pour les travailleurs les 4 décennies précédentes s'estompent, d'autant plus que les nouvelles technologies donnent encore plus de pouvoir de nuisance à l'extrême droite soutenue par des milliardaires (et des puissances antidémocratiques impérialistes ennemies)".
Et le truc bizarre, c'est cette conclusion : "donc il faut prendre le même centre gauche en lui disant de moins être ce qu'il est partout dans le monde avec pour conséquence le constat, plutôt que de chercher plus à gauche dans des parties qui comprennent et portent la lutte des classes".
Comment ça peut marcher ? Même gens, mêmes idées, même incitations, résultat différent ?
Ah, et mettre LFI en extrême gauche, c'est risible et juste une preuve que la fenêtre d'overton est complètement à droite.
J'imagine qu'ils mettrait Sanders/Cortez aussi dans les extrémistes ? C'est pas LO, lfi représente en terme d'idées exactement ce qu'Acemoglu donne comme solution à la lutte contre la montée du fascisme. Pas sûr que ça marche, pas sûr que l'implémentation soit correct, mais on est sûr que le système centre gauche produit la montée du fascisme.
Et tout ça me fait me rendre compte que je crois que je suis au stade dans ma vie politique où je considère que si vous vous sentez forcé de mettre "centre" gauche, c'est juste un marqueur pour dire "pro capitalistes, anti lutte des classes" et donc que vous êtes l'allié de la monté du fascisme.