One problem that feels irresolvable to me is that we need to talk about the groups doing things but those groups are rarely well coordinated, and often not even groups.
I feel like the best retort now to anything I write is: Who do you mean by Democrats/Republican/the left/the right/the media/the public health community/VCs etc
Parties and traditional media are a lot weaker than they once were. A lot of narrativizing comes from scans of social media sentiment, where you can identify the faction pushing a view, but that faction may not represent the broader group, or be internally organized
Maybe it was always like this.
Political parties used to be much more ideologically diffuse, even as they were organizationally stronger. So what did it mean to say Democrats in 1955?
But it feels particularly endemic now.
Maybe just replace all group descriptions with "Some people, but not all people, are..."
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Assuming those pushing the corporate greed story also believe corporations were greedy in 2017, is the idea that something about the pandemic gave corporations way more pricing power with which to deploy their greed?
I'll give an example: MMTers really like the Keynes quote "anything we can actually do, we can afford."
Their critics say: It's a Keynes quote! So it's something the Keynesians knew.
But in years of reporting with Keynesian economists, it is definitely not how they talked.
There was *far* more discussion in the 2010s of debt-to-GDP ratios and Reinhart/Rogoff than of the real productive limits of the economy, and where we were in relation to them.
I’m going to back a few days in Discourse Time, and say something I think has been missed the Joe Rogan/Covid mess (I realize there are now other messes).
Once you’re here, all the answers are bad. They’re all bad because they all harm the thing you’re trying to protect: Trust.
Having one of the most popular podcasters in the world become a platform for vaccine misinformation?
That’s bad, for obvious reasons.
But bringing more attention to that misinformation, and making those sympathetic to him feel persecuted and censored?
Also bad! You’re alienating and angering the exact people you need to reach.
The research and example I use suggest high levels of trust in institutions lead to better outcomes. That probably leads to more trust! It can be a positive feedback loop.
Or it can go the other way, and in America, it has.
But I'm also not convinced the relationship between trust and institutions is solely or mainly mediated by institutional quality or performance.
The "Revolt of the Public" argument is partially that digital communication does a lot to reveal elite failures that always existed, but did less to erode trust back when elites had more control over information flows. That seems right to me.