#economic disruption | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

mostlysignssomeportents · 3 months

Text

Big Tech disrupted disruption

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/02/08/permanent-overlords/#republicans-want-to-defund-the-police

Before "disruption" turned into a punchline, it was a genuinely exciting idea. Using technology, we could connect people to one another and allow them to collaborate, share, and cooperate to make great things happen.

It's easy (and valid) to dismiss the "disruption" of Uber, which "disrupted" taxis and transit by losing $31b worth of Saudi royal money in a bid to collapse the world's rival transportation system, while quietly promising its investors that it would someday have pricing power as a monopoly, and would attain profit through price-gouging and wage-theft.

Uber's disruption story was wreathed in bullshit: lies about the "independence" of its drivers, about the imminence of self-driving taxis, about the impact that replacing buses and subways with millions of circling, empty cars would have on traffic congestion. There were and are plenty of problems with traditional taxis and transit, but Uber magnified these problems, under cover of "disrupting" them away.

But there are other feats of high-tech disruption that were and are genuinely transformative – Wikipedia, GNU/Linux, RSS, and more. These disruptive technologies altered the balance of power between powerful institutions and the businesses, communities and individuals they dominated, in ways that have proven both beneficial and durable.

When we speak of commercial disruption today, we usually mean a tech company disrupting a non-tech company. Tinder disrupts singles bars. Netflix disrupts Blockbuster. Airbnb disrupts Marriott.

But the history of "disruption" features far more examples of tech companies disrupting other tech companies: DEC disrupts IBM. Netscape disrupts Microsoft. Google disrupts Yahoo. Nokia disrupts Kodak, sure – but then Apple disrupts Nokia. It's only natural that the businesses most vulnerable to digital disruption are other digital businesses.

And yet…disruption is nowhere to be seen when it comes to the tech sector itself. Five giant companies have been running the show for more than a decade. A couple of these companies (Apple, Microsoft) are Gen-Xers, having been born in the 70s, then there's a couple of Millennials (Amazon, Google), and that one Gen-Z kid (Facebook). Big Tech shows no sign of being disrupted, despite the continuous enshittification of their core products and services. How can this be? Has Big Tech disrupted disruption itself?

That's the contention of "Coopting Disruption," a new paper from two law profs: Mark Lemley (Stanford) and Matthew Wansley (Yeshiva U):

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4713845

The paper opens with a review of the literature on disruption. Big companies have some major advantages: they've got people and infrastructure they can leverage to bring new products to market more cheaply than startups. They've got existing relationships with suppliers, distributors and customers. People trust them.

Diversified, monopolistic companies are also able to capture "involuntary spillovers": when Google spends money on AI for image recognition, it can improve Google Photos, YouTube, Android, Search, Maps and many other products. A startup with just one product can't capitalize on these spillovers in the same way, so it doesn't have the same incentives to spend big on R&D.

Finally, big companies have access to cheap money. They get better credit terms from lenders, they can float bonds, they can tap the public markets, or just spend their own profits on R&D. They can also afford to take a long view, because they're not tied to VCs whose funds turn over every 5-10 years. Big companies get cheap money, play a long game, pay less to innovate and get more out of innovation.

But those advantages are swamped by the disadvantages of incumbency, all the various curses of bigness. Take Arrow's "replacement effect": new companies that compete with incumbents drive down the incumbents' prices and tempt their customers away. But an incumbent that buys a disruptive new company can just shut it down, and whittle down its ideas to "sustaining innovation" (small improvements to existing products), killing "disruptive innovation" (major changes that make the existing products obsolete).

Arrow's Replacement Effect also comes into play before a new product even exists. An incumbent that allows a rival to do R&D that would eventually disrupt its product is at risk; but if the incumbent buys this pre-product, R&D-heavy startup, it can turn the research to sustaining innovation and defund any disruptive innovation.

Arrow asks us to look at the innovation question from the point of view of the company as a whole. Clayton Christensen's "Innovator's Dilemma" looks at the motivations of individual decision-makers in large, successful companies. These individuals don't want to disrupt their own business, because that will render some part of their own company obsolete (perhaps their own division!). They also don't want to radically change their customers' businesses, because those customers would also face negative effects from disruption.

A startup, by contrast, has no existing successful divisions and no giant customers to safeguard. They have nothing to lose and everything to gain from disruption. Where a large company has no way for individual employees to initiate major changes in corporate strategy, a startup has fewer hops between employees and management. What's more, a startup that rewards an employee's good idea with a stock-grant ties that employee's future finances to the outcome of that idea – while a giant corporation's stock bonuses are only incidentally tied to the ideas of any individual worker.

Big companies are where good ideas go to die. If a big company passes on its employees' cool, disruptive ideas, that's the end of the story for that idea. But even if 100 VCs pass on a startup's cool idea and only one VC funds it, the startup still gets to pursue that idea. In startup land, a good idea gets lots of chances – in a big company, it only gets one.

Given how innately disruptable tech companies are, given how hard it is for big companies to innovate, and given how little innovation we've gotten from Big Tech, how is it that the tech giants haven't been disrupted?

The authors propose a four-step program for the would-be Tech Baron hoping to defend their turf from disruption.

First, gather information about startups that might develop disruptive technologies and steer them away from competing with you, by investing in them or partnering with them.

Second, cut off any would-be competitor's supply of resources they need to develop a disruptive product that challenges your own.

Third, convince the government to pass regulations that big, established companies can comply with but that are business-killing challenges for small competitors.

Finally, buy up any company that resists your steering, succeeds despite your resource war, and escapes the compliance moats of regulation that favors incumbents.

Then: kill those companies.

The authors proceed to show that all four tactics are in play today. Big Tech companies operate their own VC funds, which means they get a look at every promising company in the field, even if they don't want to invest in them. Big Tech companies are also awash in money and their "rival" VCs know it, and so financial VCs and Big Tech collude to fund potential disruptors and then sell them to Big Tech companies as "aqui-hires" that see the disruption neutralized.

On resources, the authors focus on data, and how companies like Facebook have explicit policies of only permitting companies they don't see as potential disruptors to access Facebook data. They reproduce internal Facebook strategy memos that divide potential platform users into "existing competitors, possible future competitors, [or] developers that we have alignment with on business models." These categories allow Facebook to decide which companies are capable of developing disruptive products and which ones aren't. For example, Amazon – which doesn't compete with Facebook – is allowed to access FB data to target shoppers. But Messageme, a startup, was cut off from Facebook as soon as management perceived them as a future rival. Ironically – but unsurprisingly – Facebook spins these policies as pro-privacy, not anti-competitive.

These data policies cast a long shadow. They don't just block existing companies from accessing the data they need to pursue disruptive offerings – they also "send a message" to would-be founders and investors, letting them know that if they try to disrupt a tech giant, they will have their market oxygen cut off before they can draw breath. The only way to build a product that challenges Facebook is as Facebook's partner, under Facebook's direction, with Facebook's veto.

Next, regulation. Starting in 2019, Facebook started publishing full-page newspaper ads calling for regulation. Someone ghost-wrote a Washington Post op-ed under Zuckerberg's byline, arguing the case for more tech regulation. Google, Apple, OpenAI other tech giants have all (selectively) lobbied in favor of many regulations. These rules covered a lot of ground, but they all share a characteristic: complying with them requires huge amounts of money – money that giant tech companies can spare, but potential disruptors lack.

Finally, there's predatory acquisitions. Mark Zuckerberg, working without the benefit of a ghost writer (or in-house counsel to review his statements for actionable intent) has repeatedly confessed to buying companies like Instagram to ensure that they never grow to be competitors. As he told one colleague, "I remember your internal post about how Instagram was our threat and not Google+. You were basically right. The thing about startups though is you can often acquire them.”

All the tech giants are acquisition factories. Every successful Google product, almost without exception, is a product they bought from someone else. By contrast, Google's own internal products typically crash and burn, from G+ to Reader to Google Videos. Apple, meanwhile, buys 90 companies per year – Tim Apple brings home a new company for his shareholders more often than you bring home a bag of groceries for your family. All the Big Tech companies' AI offerings are acquisitions, and Apple has bought more AI companies than any of them.

Big Tech claims to be innovating, but it's really just operationalizing. Any company that threatens to disrupt a tech giant is bought, its products stripped of any really innovative features, and the residue is added to existing products as a "sustaining innovation" – a dot-release feature that has all the innovative disruption of rounding the corners on a new mobile phone.

The authors present three case-studies of tech companies using this four-point strategy to forestall disruption in AI, VR and self-driving cars. I'm not excited about any of these three categories, but it's clear that the tech giants are worried about them, and the authors make a devastating case for these disruptions being disrupted by Big Tech.

What do to about it? If we like (some) disruption, and if Big Tech is enshittifying at speed without facing dethroning-by-disruption, how do we get the dynamism and innovation that gave us the best of tech?

The authors make four suggestions.

First, revive the authorities under existing antitrust law to ban executives from Big Tech companies from serving on the boards of startups. More broadly, kill interlocking boards altogether. Remember, these powers already exist in the lawbooks, so accomplishing this goal means a change in enforcement priorities, not a new act of Congress or rulemaking. What's more, interlocking boards between competing companies are illegal per se, meaning there's no expensive, difficult fact-finding needed to demonstrate that two companies are breaking the law by sharing directors.

Next: create a nondiscrimination policy that requires the largest tech companies that share data with some unaffiliated companies to offer data on the same terms to other companies, except when they are direct competitors. They argue that this rule will keep tech giants from choking off disruptive technologies that make them obsolete (rather than competing with them).

On the subject of regulation and compliance moats, they have less concrete advice. They counsel lawmakers to greet tech giants' demands to be regulated with suspicion, to proceed with caution when they do regulate, and to shape regulation so that it doesn't limit market entry, by keeping in mind the disproportionate burdens regulations put on established giants and small new companies. This is all good advice, but it's more a set of principles than any kind of specific practice, test or procedure.

Finally, they call for increased scrutiny of mergers, including mergers between very large companies and small startups. They argue that existing law (Sec 2 of the Sherman Act and Sec 7 of the Clayton Act) both empower enforcers to block these acquisitions. They admit that the case-law on this is poor, but that just means that enforcers need to start making new case-law.

I like all of these suggestions! We're certainly enjoying a more activist set of regulators, who are more interested in Big Tech, than we've seen in generations.

But they are grossly under-resourced even without giving them additional duties. As Matt Stoller points out, "the DOJ's Antitrust Division has fewer people enforcing anti-monopoly laws in a $24 trillion economy than the Smithsonian Museum has security guards."

https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/congressional-republicans-to-defund

What's more, Republicans are trying to slash their budgets even further. The American conservative movement has finally located a police force they're eager to defund: the corporate police who defend us all from predatory monopolies.

Image: Cryteria (modified) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:HAL9000.svg

CC BY 3.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/deed.en

284 notes · View notes

keepyourpantsongohan · 5 months

Text

Meaningful Highlights from Kakashi Retsuden:

Minato catching Kakashi before he falls, the same way Kakashi always does for his students. And Kakashi, even at eight or nine years old, straight out of his father's funeral and before being his student, immediately relaxing when he runs into Minato: His feet tangled beneath him and he pitched forward. Into someone’s back. “You were really strong back there,” a voice told him, and he suddenly saw bright golden hair. He felt his breathing become a little easier. The Yellow Flash of Konoha. Namikaze Minato.

Kakashi describing his current feelings about his father: Now he felt proud from the bottom of his heart to have been born the child of the White Fang of Konoha.

Kakashi wanting to help the people of Redaku in a way that they can sustain themselves, even as he actually is providing a great deal of support through the process: The people of this country had to learn how to stand up and walk under their own strength. Give a starving person bread or teach them how to grow wheat. As Hokage, Kakashi had always chosen the latter.

Kakashi reflecting on his time as Sixth Hokage he eschewed tradition to build something that developed beyond shinobi: A never-ending peace. That was what Kakashi had sought as the Sixth Hokage. An orderly society that would go on and on even when he was not the Hokage, even when the day came when the role of Hokage disappeared. To create a framework so that they would never again fall into the quagmire of war.

The way Kakashi shows that he still views all of the former students taught by him and his friends in a parental and protective way: They had long since reached adulthood, and some were now parents while others were active on the front lines as shinobi. Even so, no matter how many years passed, to Kakashi, they were his precious students and the next generation who needed to be protected. Seeing them having so much fun was enough to ease his heart.

#kakashi retsuden #kakashi hatake #minato namikaze #sakumo hatake #light novels #light novel highlights #kakashi retsuden spoilers #i LOVE that kakashi's parental feelings go beyond team 7. like sai is there but he also feels this way about ino kiba tenten lee and karui #like they're ALL his kids to him #they also explicitly state it's BECAUSE of kakashi that the land of fire had technological + economic development. like it's his influence #for point 4: kakashi also notes that people disliked that he was disrupting the status quo/traditions #but he does it anyway!!! bc that's who he is!!#[sasuke voice] revolution <3 #ayesha talks anime #naruto series

316 notes · View notes

legalattorneyblog · 6 months

Text

Ongoing Conflict Between Israel and Palestine: A Look at Its Consequences

The continuous strife between the two regions has resulted in severe disruptions to the education system and the economy, hindering the progress and development of both communities. The recent incident involving the reported burning alive of Israeli soldiers held hostage has only intensified the animosity and deepened the scars of this long-standing conflict. Moreover, the presence of extremist…

View On WordPress

#Children&039;s Welfare #Civilian Impact #Economic Instability #Education Disruption #Geopolitical Tensions #ISRAEL #Middle East Conflict #Military Challenges #Palestine #women&039;s rights

3 notes · View notes

worldwatcher3072 · 11 months

Text

Unraveling the Rise of Authoritarian Leaders: Understanding the Complexities

In recent years, the world has witnessed a concerning rise in authoritarian leaders, challenging the foundations of democracy and raising questions about the factors contributing to this global trend. Exploring the underlying causes behind the ascent of these leaders is crucial to fostering a deeper understanding of the complex dynamics at play. In this blog post, we delve into the key factors that have shaped this phenomenon and shed light on its multifaceted nature.

Economic Insecurity and Discontent: Amidst economic inequality, job insecurity, and a sense of stagnation, many people have grown disillusioned with traditional political establishments. Authoritarian leaders often capitalize on this discontent by promising swift solutions and appealing to those who feel left behind by globalization and rapid societal changes.

Political Disillusionment and Erosion of Trust: Distrust in democratic institutions, perceived corruption, and a loss of faith in political elites have fueled the rise of authoritarian leaders. As citizens become disillusioned with traditional parties, they may seek alternatives that promise stability, order, and a break from established norms.

Identity Politics and Polarization: The growing divisions along lines of ethnicity, religion, nationalism, or ideology have provided fertile ground for the rise of authoritarian leaders. By exploiting these divisions, such leaders can rally support around a particular identity or group, using fear and grievances to consolidate their power base.

Technological Disruption and Information Manipulation: The advent of social media and online platforms has transformed the information landscape. Authoritarian leaders have adeptly utilized these platforms to spread disinformation, manipulate public opinion, and amplify extremist ideologies. Such technological disruptions have played a significant role in shaping narratives and influencing political outcomes.

Geopolitical Shifts and Nationalist Sentiments: Geopolitical shifts, global power dynamics, and the erosion of international alliances have contributed to the rise of leaders promoting nationalist or isolationist agendas. Economic uncertainties, migration challenges, and perceived threats to national identity have fueled a desire for strong leaders who promise protection and sovereignty.

Weak Democratic Institutions and Concentration of Power: The weakening of democratic institutions, erosion of checks and balances, and the concentration of power in the hands of a few have facilitated the rise of authoritarian leaders. A lack of institutional robustness and limited avenues for accountability can undermine democratic norms and enable the consolidation of power.

The rise of authoritarian leaders is a multifaceted and complex phenomenon that stems from a combination of economic, political, social, and technological factors. Understanding these underlying causes is crucial for safeguarding democratic values and promoting a more inclusive and resilient society. By addressing the economic insecurities, strengthening democratic institutions, fostering social cohesion, and promoting media literacy, we can work towards creating a more resilient democratic framework that safeguards the rights and freedoms of individuals around the world.

Note: This blog post aims to provide a general overview of the factors contributing to the rise of authoritarian leaders and does not explore each factor in exhaustive detail.

#Authoritarianism #Rise of authoritarian leaders #Democracy #Global politics #Political disillusionment #Economic inequality #Identity politics #Polarization #Technological disruption #Information manipulation #Geopolitical shifts #Nationalism #Democratic institutions #Power concentration #Societal challenges #Global trends

2 notes · View notes

mariacallous · 1 year

Text

Shaky grain deal. Ukrainian authorities have accused Russia of undermining the Black Sea grain deal by holding up ships, thereby limiting the amount of grain reaching other countries. According to the United Nations, there is currently a logjam of over 150 cargo ships. Officials are now scrambling to extend the fragile agreement, which is set to end around Nov. 19.

#economic global extortion because if the deal isn't allowed to continue food prices WILL go up even more #and the level of poverty and starvation will as well particularly in countries and places already hard hit by inflation and disruption

6 notes · View notes

rhaenyras · 1 year

Text

a very specific brand of men thinks they can say anything as long as they keep their sexism and transphobia all wrapped in a pretty bow of "rationality" and "coherence"

#they invented tone policing just to shut off the oppressed minorities' pure unfiltered outrage #& ofc I can't help but smelling classism as well whenever they pat each other on the back over how well worded nd intelligent they sounded #the brand of men im referring to is upper class cishet men #they use podcasts and youtube videos to spread their filth and show off how 'articulated' they are #vs the minority they tried to oppress with their hateful content sounding a lot less consistent in comparison #even invoking biology lmao #or economics when the discourse shifts on welfare and why poor people's condition is not their fault #i firmly believe these are the people that should be denied higher level education.#it obviously isn't educating them into becoming tolerant members of a multi faceted society #all it's doing is allowing them to add more ammo to their already bountiful arsenal #and they call themselves 'disruptive' for telling the stone cold 'truth' lmao #reminds me of the millionaires from glass onion #i HOWLED when daniel craig exposed them for the dumb self-serving petty pathetic minions they are #in this particular case they were gaslighting a nb person into believing that her gender identity was just symptomatic of a mental illness #the way society used to call lgb people mentally ill 50 years ago and yet today they seem to have de-patologised these orientations????#do we need another 50 years to do the same with trans and nb people lmao #+ these men and women seem to give themselves the semblance of open mindedness but only as long as #the trans person in question commits to a full gender reassignment process #in any other case short of that they be like 'sorry but ur just a mentally ill bluehaired girl who's doing it for the (negative) attention'#yikes. ugh. yikes #we wouldn't even need educated well-spoken activists if these people weren't constantly trying to invalidate people's very existences #do you ever think about that? maybe minorities and women are tired of fighting #maybe we don't want attention. maybe all we want is recognition and respect #but no. obviously retaining your godgiven right to never use neutral expressions to address a nb person is more important #at least have the grace and dignity to stop pretending like you have no personal feelings against minorities reaffirming themselves #i hate when they pretend their only devotion and loyalty is to the defense of rationality and education #because that's just a decoy you use to be able to infiltrate intersectional safe spaces and we both know it you absolute dimwits #rant.txt

4 notes · View notes

the-funtime-autocrat · 1 year

Quote

While class conflict may have grown in the Americas due to free trade, In the East however with America and Europe having many of their industries and imports being based from countries like China, India, Russia, and Saudi Arabia, Western free trade has given rise to these Eastern countries to become superpowers like in the case of China and Russia and Regional powers who also have major effects on the world economy nevertheless like Saudi Arabia. This of course is more in line with Oswald Spengler view of the destruction of Western capitalism than it is with Karl Marx. In 'Man and Technics,' Spengler warned that western technological capitalism was not only destroying everything that was natural, but was also moving many industries to East Asian countries for profit and that this would eventually give these East Asian countries the economic power to rival the West. This is especially true for China, which has the second largest economy in world partially due to Chinese state intervention and the outsourcing of western industries to China. The importance of China and other eastern countries economies can be seen from the last two years alone. With China shutting down for Covid, which caused mass trade distributions and shortages in America and the world. To Russia, oil and natural gas being sanctioned by western countries due to the war in Ukraine which has caused a shortage of fossil fuels and the price of energy to increase. Not to mention, made inflation worse for many western countries. All this was also accelerated when Saudi Arabia and OPEC announced that they would decrease oil production by 2 million barrels causing more problems for western economies.

Albino Squirrel, “The American Protectionist Economy of The Past and The Protectionist Economy of The Future” (November 8th 2022).

#Globalization #Trade #Protectionism #National Economics #Supply Chains #supply chain disruption #Geopolitics #Current State of Affairs #Heterodox Economics

1 note · View note

kalinahblog · 28 days

Text

Business and Economics in Wonka (2023)

I was watching the 2023 Wonka movie last night, and I was struck by the idea that the chocolatiers working against Willy Wonka provide a great example of several business concepts that I remember studying. It’s not always easy to spot concepts like an oligopoly, price fixing, and artificial scarcity in real life; but Wonka provides us with an excellent fictional example to learn from. The three…

View On WordPress

#artificial scarcity #business #business students #economics #educational #market disruption #market structure #movie review #price fixing

0 notes

independentjournalism · 1 month

Text

Driving Towards Unemployment: How Increased License Suspensions Could Stall the Economy

Good evening, everyone. This is Jordan The Producer with Independent Journalism and Media (iJam) bringing you the latest news. Today, we are discussing a concerning trend that could have widespread effects on employment and the economy. Construction zone: Credit iJam Media Group, LLC Recent data has shown a significant increase in license suspensions across the country. Whether it be due to…

View On WordPress

#consumer costs #contributing to economy #current events #delivery services #economic impact #iJam #independent journalism #Jordan The Producer #license suspensions #media coverage #news updates #policymakers #public policy #public safety #safeguarding rights #stay informed #supply chain disruptions #transportation industry #workforce issues

0 notes

gravitascivics · 2 months

Text

THEN THERE’S ANOMIE

Two honored sociologists who have contributed to the general understanding of deviant behavior have been Emile Durkheim (1858-1917) and Robert Merton (1910-2003). The last posting of this blog, which has been presenting a series of postings regarding the development of deviant proclivities in American culture, introduced the work of Durkheim and Merton. That posting indicated this one would share a model these writers, from different time periods, collectively present regarding deviance.

To begin, Durkheim noted that suicide rose in times of prosperity. Baffled, he began to theorize that in modern times people are subject to egoistic suicides, that is, suicides that are motivated by the inability to deal with fast paced societies and their unrealistic goals. In general, modern society promotes lofty goals while designating norms regarding acceptable behavior as it addresses those goals.

Further, people are socialized to accept these goals.

American culture is characterized by great emphasis on the accumulation of wealth as a success symbol without a corresponding emphasis on using legitimate means to march toward this goal … [D]eviant behavior among certain classes in American society cannot be explained by a lack of opportunity alone or by an exaggerated emphasis on a pecuniary value nexus … It is the set of equalitarian beliefs in American society, stressing the opportunity for economic affluence and social ascent for all of its members, which makes for the difference.[1]

If true, certain recent developments can’t help adding to deviant levels. That is, one can add to this mix of sentiments that a certain condition promotes. That is, a significant portion of the population has had its economic foundations pulled out from under it, such as the exportation of a significant number of manufacturing jobs during the recent past.

This results in the chasm between aspirations and reality and consequently, one can expect levels of deviance to increase. They can even be justified by disrupters as means to attain the goals Durkheim identifies. It is the opinion of this blogger that much of the polarized state of American politics one observes today can be attributed to this development.

And Merton outlines forms of behavior patterns that such disruptive conditions encourage, but common to these deviant adaptive patterns is the feeling of anomie. Anomie can be defined as a pervading sense: a fatalistic lack of cohesion with society. This sense can permeate among certain groups within the nation. Merton believed that lower income groups were naturally more predisposed to anomie.[2]

Given the historical progression this series has outlined in earlier postings – the progression from transcendentalism, pragmatism, and perceptual psychology – the progression has glorified individualism and self-centeredness. Plus, sociological/economic developments – increasing divorce rates, globalization of the economy, exportation of manufacturing jobs – anomie has become prevalent among larger segments of the population.[3]

This state of conditions naturally affects schools. The teacher corps and other school professionals around the country should be concerned with augmenting social norms which encourage non deviant behavior, and at the same time try to impart the necessary skills that empower individuals in attaining their social and economic goals. But beyond that, those very goals need to be questioned. While this blogger denotes a tinge of elitism in the Merton model, the reality is that pecuniary rewards are inordinately emphasized in this nation’s society.

As pointed out earlier in this series, American society lacks a substantive cultural philosophy. What philosophy it has is made up of vague notions of the “American dream” and individual rights. Institutions such as American education have promoted individualism. One finds oneself hearing only a limited social message in this vacuum, from Madison Avenue or disinformation being constantly emitted through social media.[4]

As for advertising, the message is simple and direct: buy things and services. As for social media: “you are getting screwed and you need to support X.” Either way, social worth is most exclusively tied to the ability to attain the things advertised or be associated with those who are sharing a delegitimate status while joining together to save the day.

With more and more misalignment – i.e., social ties lacking meaningful commitments – or the availability of meaningful employment especially among low educated people, the social conditions leading to anomie are readily observable. Add to this the communication facility that social media affords, and the mix is quite disruptive and deviant.

With that staging, social studies curriculum development has a “full plate” of challenges to address. That will be the topic of the next posting as this blog continues this series of postings addressing deviance in the American culture. And just to give this notion of a curricular response legitimacy, one should keep the meanings of anomie – lacking social and ethical standards – and nihilism – rejecting moral principles due to seeing life as meaningless – in mind.

[1] Marshall B. Clinard, “The Theoretical Implications of Anomie and Deviant Behavior,” in Anomie and Deviant Behavior, edited by Marshall B. Clinard (New York, NY: The Free Press, 1964), 1-56, 14-15.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Given inherit challenges with measuring anomie among a population, the literature is not “one-sided” as to the levels and consequences of anomie to American society. See for example, Jean Paul Azzopardi, “America’s Overdose of Anomie,” Medium, January 10, 2017, accessed March 4, 2024, URL: https://medium.com/@jp_azzopardi/americas-overdose-of-anomie-1c0049844774#:~:text=They%20believe%20that%20American%20society,actively%20resist%20any%20institutional%20controls.

[4] In terms of the latter, see Barbara McQuade, Attack from Within: How Disinformation Is Sabotaging America (New York, NY: Seven Stories Press, 2024).

#deviant behavior #anomie #economic disruptions #individualism #civics education #social studies

0 notes

quillsword · 2 months

Text

Discover the shocking tale of a miscarriage of justice against President Trump and its ripple effects: a trucker boycott of New York City. Delve into the controversial fallout, the socio-political implications, and the broader discourse surrounding this unprecedented event - or just listen to my snarky ranting!

0 notes

earaercircular · 4 months

Text

Four surprises in the global race for green technologies

France is absent from the world podiums in the field of disruptive innovations likely to guarantee its economic sovereignty, according to a study by Fabrique de l'industrie[1]. All is not lost, however. Explanations.

At the time of the first progress report on the France 2030 program aimed at making up for the French industrial delay, the Fabrique de l'Industrie publishes a report[2] that serves as a warning. The conclusions that emerge from its examination of how disruptive technologies have emerged over the past decade are indeed bleak for France and the EU as a whole.

The United States and Asia in the lead

“We are immersed in the illusion that the EU is leading the way in the energy transition and the decarbonization of the economy. But the gap between the stated strategic ambition and the reality of the figures is striking,” underlines Vincent Charlet, general delegate of the ideas laboratory and co-author of the report of more than 70 pages.

An examination of twelve disruptive innovations, eight of which are directly linked to climate, reveals that it is the United States, Japan, South Korea and China that hold the upper hand. They are consistently among the four countries with the highest number of patents filed across all technologies examined.

Germany saves European honour

In agrofuels for aviation, quantum computers and messenger RNA[3], the United States alone holds more than half of the world's patents. Japan, China and South Korea are doing the same in hydrogen for transport, batteries for electric vehicles, photovoltaics and spintronics, even nanoelectronics “within a percentage point”, specifies the report.

There remain four areas where European countries occupy the top spot: offshore wind turbines, recycling of strategic metals, low-carbon steel and biological recycling of plastics. They are also in the leading quartet in eight out of twelve cases. But this is in six cases thanks to Germany alone.

Denmark, Finland and Sweden certainly stand out in offshore wind power and sustainable fuels for the aviation sector. But these two technologies are the lightest weights of the sample in the sense of the total number of patent filings granted. France for its part does not appear on any podium, moving from 5th to 9th place in the world.

The size of the country is not decisive

All is not lost as the authors of the report emphasize that it is not a question of size but of determination. They point to South Korea as proof: the undisputed leader in the twelve technologies studied, it is only twelfth in the world in terms of GDP and its economy is 1.6 times smaller than that of France.

In the eyes of the authors, the latest investment plan (PIE4)[4] outlines this determination by adopting a logic called “directed innovation” towards sectors and technologies deemed priority. Focusing on the criterion of rapid job creation would, however, threaten to result in sterile scattering, he warns.

The myth of the start-up nation

This plan must also be based on the right actors. The opportunity for the authors to twist the neck of the popular start-up nation concept. “The idea that start-ups play a decisive role in the emergence of disruptive innovations is undermined by the data: they rarely appear among the main patent applicants” and never in South Korea, Japan or in Germany, they warn.

On the other hand, they point to the preponderance of large companies, except in France where the large public research laboratories are leading, undoubtedly due to past deindustrialization. “When large companies give up, the ecosystem becomes fragile and start-ups are the first to suffer,” they conclude.

Source

Ninon Renaud, Quatre surprises dans la course mondiale aux technologies vertes, in: Les Echos,7-12-2023 ; https://www.lesechos.fr/industrie-services/energie-environnement/quatre-revelations-sur-limpitoyable-course-mondiale-aux-technologies-vertes-2040016

[1] La Fabrique de l’industrie was created in October 2011 under an associative status under the 1901 law. Our board of directors brings together representatives of our financiers: the UIMM, France Industrie and the GIM. We also benefit from critical insights from the members of our orientation council: business leaders, representatives of trade unions and professional organizations, academic experts and media observers. They are the guarantors of the scientific quality, relevance and diversity of our work. https://www.la-fabrique.fr/fr/qui-sommes-nous/

[2] Sonia Bellit et Vincent Charlet : L’innovation de rupture, terrain de jeu exclusif des start-up ? L’industrie française face aux technologies-clés, Les Notes, 07/12/2023 ; https://www.la-fabrique.fr/fr/publication/linnovation-de-rupture-terrain-de-jeu-exclusif-des-start-up-lindustrie-francaise-face-aux-technologies-cles/

[3] In molecular biology, messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) is a single-stranded molecule of RNA that corresponds to the genetic sequence of a gene, and is read by a ribosome in the process of synthesizing a protein.

[4] https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/investment-plan/

#disruptive technologies #economic sovereignty #green technology

0 notes

reasonsforhope · 4 months

Text

"The Biden Administration last week [early December, 2023] announced it would be seizing patents for drugs and drug manufacturing procedures developed using government money.

A draft of the new law, seen by Reuters, said that the government will consider various factors including whether a medical situation is leading to increased prices of the drug at any given time, or whether only a small section of Americans can afford it.

The new executive order is the first exercise in what is called “march-in-rights” which allows relevant government agencies to redistribute patents if they were generated under government funding. The NIH has long maintained march-in-rights, but previous directors have been unwilling to use them, fearing consequences.

“We’ll make it clear that when drug companies won’t sell taxpayer funded drugs at reasonable prices, we will be prepared to allow other companies to provide those drugs for less,” White House adviser Lael Brainard said on a press call.

But just how much taxpayer money is going toward funding drugs? A research paper from the Insitute for New Economic Thought showed that “NIH funding contributed to research associated with every new drug approved from 2010-2019, totaling $230 billion.”

The authors of the paper continue, writing “NIH funding also produced 22 thousand patents, which provided marketing exclusivity for 27 (8.6%) of the drugs approved [between] 2010-2019.”

How we do drug discovery and production in America has a number of fundamental flaws that have created problems in the health service industry.

It costs billions of dollars and sometimes as many as 5 to 10 years to bring a drug to market in the US, which means that only companies with massive financial muscle can do so with any regularity, and that smaller, more innovative companies can’t compete with these pharma giants.

This also means that if a company can’t recoup that loss, a single failed drug can result in massive disruptions to business. To protect themselves, pharmaceutical companies establish piles of patents on drugs and drug manufacturing procedures. Especially if the drug in question treats a rare or obscure disease, these patents essentially ensure the company has monoselective pricing regimes.

However, if a company can convince the NIH that a particular drug should be considered a public health priority, they can be almost entirely funded by the government, as the research paper showed.

Some market participants, in this case the famous billionaire investor Mark Cuban, have attempted to remedy the issue of drug costs in America by manufacturing generic versions of patented drugs sold for common diseases."

-via Good News Network, December 11, 2023

#united states #us politics #biden administration #executive order #prescription drugs #medical news #healthcare #healthcare access #biden #big pharma #drug prices #public health #nih #national institutes of health #good news #hope

10K notes · View notes