#commonweal — Public Fediverse posts
Live and recent posts from across the Fediverse tagged #commonweal, aggregated by home.social.
-
https://www.ncronline.org/opinion/ncr-voices/word-extinguished-bishop-barrons-digital-silence?utm_source=NCR+List&utm_campaign=33a44a4d85-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2025_02_17_02_10&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_6981ecb02e-33a44a4d85-231121892 #BishopBarron had been, and still is, one of the greatest #Catholicapologetics of our time, and has a history of progressive takes. His ministry, #WordOnFire, actually sued #Commonweal magazine for an article which compares his comment to a #DonaldTrump one. He's trying to be like too many #priests nowadays, taking this weird impossible #objectivity and #bothsidesism. I like and respect #RobertBarron a lot and encourage him to do more, and speak out more.
-
https://www.ncronline.org/opinion/ncr-voices/word-extinguished-bishop-barrons-digital-silence?utm_source=NCR+List&utm_campaign=33a44a4d85-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2025_02_17_02_10&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_6981ecb02e-33a44a4d85-231121892 #BishopBarron had been, and still is, one of the greatest #Catholicapologetics of our time, and has a history of progressive takes. His ministry, #WordOnFire, actually sued #Commonweal magazine for an article which compares his comment to a #DonaldTrump one. He's trying to be like too many #priests nowadays, taking this weird impossible #objectivity and #bothsidesism. I like and respect #RobertBarron a lot and encourage him to do more, and speak out more.
-
https://www.ncronline.org/opinion/ncr-voices/word-extinguished-bishop-barrons-digital-silence?utm_source=NCR+List&utm_campaign=33a44a4d85-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2025_02_17_02_10&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_6981ecb02e-33a44a4d85-231121892 #BishopBarron had been, and still is, one of the greatest #Catholicapologetics of our time, and has a history of progressive takes. His ministry, #WordOnFire, actually sued #Commonweal magazine for an article which compares his comment to a #DonaldTrump one. He's trying to be like too many #priests nowadays, taking this weird impossible #objectivity and #bothsidesism. I like and respect #RobertBarron a lot and encourage him to do more, and speak out more.
-
https://www.ncronline.org/opinion/ncr-voices/word-extinguished-bishop-barrons-digital-silence?utm_source=NCR+List&utm_campaign=33a44a4d85-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2025_02_17_02_10&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_6981ecb02e-33a44a4d85-231121892 #BishopBarron had been, and still is, one of the greatest #Catholicapologetics of our time, and has a history of progressive takes. His ministry, #WordOnFire, actually sued #Commonweal magazine for an article which compares his comment to a #DonaldTrump one. He's trying to be like too many #priests nowadays, taking this weird impossible #objectivity and #bothsidesism. I like and respect #RobertBarron a lot and encourage him to do more, and speak out more.
-
https://www.ncronline.org/opinion/ncr-voices/word-extinguished-bishop-barrons-digital-silence?utm_source=NCR+List&utm_campaign=33a44a4d85-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2025_02_17_02_10&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_6981ecb02e-33a44a4d85-231121892 #BishopBarron had been, and still is, one of the greatest #Catholicapologetics of our time, and has a history of progressive takes. His ministry, #WordOnFire, actually sued #Commonweal magazine for an article which compares his comment to a #DonaldTrump one. He's trying to be like too many #priests nowadays, taking this weird impossible #objectivity and #bothsidesism. I like and respect #RobertBarron a lot and encourage him to do more, and speak out more.
-
On 2nd April 2025, #CommonWeal, #Glasgow #Caledonian #University, and #Heriot-Watt University will be holding a #symposium on developing #sustainable #rural #district #heating systems in #Scotland ... online and in person at Heriot-Watt’s Borders Campus, #Galashiels. https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/scotland-beyond-net-zero-rural-district-heating-symposium-tickets-1087108704399?aff=oddtdtcreator
-
On 2nd April 2025, #CommonWeal, #Glasgow #Caledonian #University, and #Heriot-Watt University will be holding a #symposium on developing #sustainable #rural #district #heating systems in #Scotland ... online and in person at Heriot-Watt’s Borders Campus, #Galashiels. https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/scotland-beyond-net-zero-rural-district-heating-symposium-tickets-1087108704399?aff=oddtdtcreator
-
On 2nd April 2025, #CommonWeal, #Glasgow #Caledonian #University, and #Heriot-Watt University will be holding a #symposium on developing #sustainable #rural #district #heating systems in #Scotland ... online and in person at Heriot-Watt’s Borders Campus, #Galashiels. https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/scotland-beyond-net-zero-rural-district-heating-symposium-tickets-1087108704399?aff=oddtdtcreator
-
On 2nd April 2025, #CommonWeal, #Glasgow #Caledonian #University, and #Heriot-Watt University will be holding a #symposium on developing #sustainable #rural #district #heating systems in #Scotland ... online and in person at Heriot-Watt’s Borders Campus, #Galashiels. https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/scotland-beyond-net-zero-rural-district-heating-symposium-tickets-1087108704399?aff=oddtdtcreator
-
On 2nd April 2025, #CommonWeal, #Glasgow #Caledonian #University, and #Heriot-Watt University will be holding a #symposium on developing #sustainable #rural #district #heating systems in #Scotland ... online and in person at Heriot-Watt’s Borders Campus, #Galashiels. https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/scotland-beyond-net-zero-rural-district-heating-symposium-tickets-1087108704399?aff=oddtdtcreator
-
It occurred to me just now that if the universe is a simulation (which I do not believe but cannot disprove), something like @graydon's quarter-million years of wizard-war in the universe of the #Commonweal is not a very distant branch of either code or state. If you could write a physics package good enough to evolve galaxies and solar systems with modern humans ab initio, you could certainly do that plus "magic works, sometimes, for some people". Even with the algebraic topology.
-
Bishop #Barron's #WordonFire again threatens #Commonweal over article about #Trumpism
-
Bishop #Barron's #WordonFire again threatens #Commonweal over article about #Trumpism
-
Bishop #Barron's #WordonFire again threatens #Commonweal over article about #Trumpism
-
Bishop #Barron's #WordonFire again threatens #Commonweal over article about #Trumpism
-
Bishop #Barron's #WordonFire again threatens #Commonweal over article about #Trumpism
-
https://traffic.megaphone.fm/SM9075912261.mp3?updated=1706221074
For decades, Fr. Columba Stewart, a #Benedictine Monk of St. John’s Abbey in Collegeville, Minnesota, has traveled the world in an effort to preserve #manuscripts belonging to #EndangeredCommunities.
Books and fragile documents carry not just the stories and ideas that connected diverse communities, but also the physical traces of the individual scribes and #librarians who cared for them.
-
https://traffic.megaphone.fm/SM9075912261.mp3?updated=1706221074
For decades, Fr. Columba Stewart, a #Benedictine Monk of St. John’s Abbey in Collegeville, Minnesota, has traveled the world in an effort to preserve #manuscripts belonging to #EndangeredCommunities.
Books and fragile documents carry not just the stories and ideas that connected diverse communities, but also the physical traces of the individual scribes and #librarians who cared for them.
-
https://traffic.megaphone.fm/SM9075912261.mp3?updated=1706221074
For decades, Fr. Columba Stewart, a #Benedictine Monk of St. John’s Abbey in Collegeville, Minnesota, has traveled the world in an effort to preserve #manuscripts belonging to #EndangeredCommunities.
Books and fragile documents carry not just the stories and ideas that connected diverse communities, but also the physical traces of the individual scribes and #librarians who cared for them.
-
https://traffic.megaphone.fm/SM9075912261.mp3?updated=1706221074
For decades, Fr. Columba Stewart, a #Benedictine Monk of St. John’s Abbey in Collegeville, Minnesota, has traveled the world in an effort to preserve #manuscripts belonging to #EndangeredCommunities.
Books and fragile documents carry not just the stories and ideas that connected diverse communities, but also the physical traces of the individual scribes and #librarians who cared for them.
-
https://traffic.megaphone.fm/SM9075912261.mp3?updated=1706221074
For decades, Fr. Columba Stewart, a #Benedictine Monk of St. John’s Abbey in Collegeville, Minnesota, has traveled the world in an effort to preserve #manuscripts belonging to #EndangeredCommunities.
Books and fragile documents carry not just the stories and ideas that connected diverse communities, but also the physical traces of the individual scribes and #librarians who cared for them.
-
It's Friday!!
This weeks podcast was kindly shared with us by Yes Skye and Lochalsh and features a presentation by #Commonweal 's Robin McAlpine of Direction: his strategy for independence.
For a wee taster clip click on the pic below or jump right into the whole episode here or wherever you get your podcasts
https://scottishindypod.scot/grassroots-indy-campaign/direction-a-realistic-strategy-for-independence/ -
@leadegroot There are a few counterarguments, not all of which I agree with, though I mention them here:
Norms modelling. Telling people unambiguously "this is not OK" may change minds. If not of the person the comment is directed to, then to those listening in. (These discussions we're having are public, there are many silent participants.) I've done this, had it done to me, and observed it in interactions between others. I see some merits. The modelling may be followed by a block or ban. Hacker New's moderator, dang, practices this often, and is instructive to study: https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=dang
Persuasion. Above and beyond norms, there's actual rational argument. My faith in its capacity has been profoundly shaken over the past decade or so...
Echo chambers. If two groups A & B sever all or most ties, then you end up with two separate communities with little interaction. There are those who suggest that this may not be a Bad Thing...
Some speech is directly threatening. This is what Doctorow's passage refers to mostly: that open/public discourse tends to be dominated by the most aggressive and repressive elements. This is especially true in the case of a major state OR non-state regime of oppression. Examples of the former being, say, North Korea, Iran, Syria, and Russia. Examples of the latter being narcoterrorists, racial/religious supremacists, and organised crime, as in Latin America, the United States, India, and offshore-banking locales. In practice, the distinction between state and non-state may be distinctly indistinct.
Specific communities may face greater threats. The rules for moderating, say, a private school's intranet discussion might be quite different from a service frequented by children or teens in an area strongly influenced by gang activity.
Disempowered groups both need and are threatened by open communications. There's a history going back millennia of slang and in-group language used to discuss issues in a way that the broader community can't understand or has difficulty in following. That this might translate to the Internet is hardly surprising. Groups need to communicate, but also to protect themselves from surveillance, censorship, manipulation, and propaganda. That these needs are inherently in conflict is simply part of the landscape. A concern I've had with the Fediverse is that many people have/are indicating that it is safe, in ways that I strongly suspect it is not. It's been protected to some extent by its small scale and obscurity. Those defences are melting away like fog under a hot sun as we speak. (#AlexStamos has commented on this recently as I've mentioned a few days ago.) #BlackMastodon (and other groups) have been increasingly vocal about the abuse they've found directed toward themselves, and they're not the only group with this issue.
I don't think that the problem can ultimately be solved just through moderation, though that's one tool. Ultimately there need to be political, legal, institutional, and cultural defences and remedies. But moderation can be a part of that.
Put another way: All cultures have limits on free speech, on privacy, cases under which the State can , will, and should investigate individuals and be able to demand information or sanction both action and speech. It's the ones that do so in a principled way that protects the least privileged and strengthens the #CommonWeal (see my pinned toots on that topic) which seem to me to best serve their inhabitants and themselves. And when that value breaks down ... nothing can save you. Certainly not individual initiative and technological fixes.
Edits: tyops, speling.
-
@leadegroot There are a few counterarguments, not all of which I agree with, though I mention them here:
Norms modelling. Telling people unambiguously "this is not OK" may change minds. If not of the person the comment is directed to, then to those listening in. (These discussions we're having are public, there are many silent participants.) I've done this, had it done to me, and observed it in interactions between others. I see some merits. The modelling may be followed by a block or ban. Hacker New's moderator, dang, practices this often, and is instructive to study: https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=dang
Persuasion. Above and beyond norms, there's actual rational argument. My faith in its capacity has been profoundly shaken over the past decade or so...
Echo chambers. If two groups A & B sever all or most ties, then you end up with two separate communities with little interaction. There are those who suggest that this may not be a Bad Thing...
Some speech is directly threatening. This is what Doctorow's passage refers to mostly: that open/public discourse tends to be dominated by the most aggressive and repressive elements. This is especially true in the case of a major state OR non-state regime of oppression. Examples of the former being, say, North Korea, Iran, Syria, and Russia. Examples of the latter being narcoterrorists, racial/religious supremacists, and organised crime, as in Latin America, the United States, India, and offshore-banking locales. In practice, the distinction between state and non-state may be distinctly indistinct.
Specific communities may face greater threats. The rules for moderating, say, a private school's intranet discussion might be quite different from a service frequented by children or teens in an area strongly influenced by gang activity.
Disempowered groups both need and are threatened by open communications. There's a history going back millennia of slang and in-group language used to discuss issues in a way that the broader community can't understand or has difficulty in following. That this might translate to the Internet is hardly surprising. Groups need to communicate, but also to protect themselves from surveillance, censorship, manipulation, and propaganda. That these needs are inherently in conflict is simply part of the landscape. A concern I've had with the Fediverse is that many people have/are indicating that it is safe, in ways that I strongly suspect it is not. It's been protected to some extent by its small scale and obscurity. Those defences are melting away like fog under a hot sun as we speak. (#AlexStamos has commented on this recently as I've mentioned a few days ago.) #BlackMastodon (and other groups) have been increasingly vocal about the abuse they've found directed toward themselves, and they're not the only group with this issue.
I don't think that the problem can ultimately be solved just through moderation, though that's one tool. Ultimately there need to be political, legal, institutional, and cultural defences and remedies. But moderation can be a part of that.
Put another way: All cultures have limits on free speech, on privacy, cases under which the State can , will, and should investigate individuals and be able to demand information or sanction both action and speech. It's the ones that do so in a principled way that protects the least privileged and strengthens the #CommonWeal (see my pinned toots on that topic) which seem to me to best serve their inhabitants and themselves. And when that value breaks down ... nothing can save you. Certainly not individual initiative and technological fixes.
Edits: tyops, speling.
-
@leadegroot There are a few counterarguments, not all of which I agree with, though I mention them here:
Norms modelling. Telling people unambiguously "this is not OK" may change minds. If not of the person the comment is directed to, then to those listening in. (These discussions we're having are public, there are many silent participants.) I've done this, had it done to me, and observed it in interactions between others. I see some merits. The modelling may be followed by a block or ban. Hacker New's moderator, dang, practices this often, and is instructive to study: https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=dang
Persuasion. Above and beyond norms, there's actual rational argument. My faith in its capacity has been profoundly shaken over the past decade or so...
Echo chambers. If two groups A & B sever all or most ties, then you end up with two separate communities with little interaction. There are those who suggest that this may not be a Bad Thing...
Some speech is directly threatening. This is what Doctorow's passage refers to mostly: that open/public discourse tends to be dominated by the most aggressive and repressive elements. This is especially true in the case of a major state OR non-state regime of oppression. Examples of the former being, say, North Korea, Iran, Syria, and Russia. Examples of the latter being narcoterrorists, racial/religious supremacists, and organised crime, as in Latin America, the United States, India, and offshore-banking locales. In practice, the distinction between state and non-state may be distinctly indistinct.
Specific communities may face greater threats. The rules for moderating, say, a private school's intranet discussion might be quite different from a service frequented by children or teens in an area strongly influenced by gang activity.
Disempowered groups both need and are threatened by open communications. There's a history going back millennia of slang and in-group language used to discuss issues in a way that the broader community can't understand or has difficulty in following. That this might translate to the Internet is hardly surprising. Groups need to communicate, but also to protect themselves from surveillance, censorship, manipulation, and propaganda. That these needs are inherently in conflict is simply part of the landscape. A concern I've had with the Fediverse is that many people have/are indicating that it is safe, in ways that I strongly suspect it is not. It's been protected to some extent by its small scale and obscurity. Those defences are melting away like fog under a hot sun as we speak. (#AlexStamos has commented on this recently as I've mentioned a few days ago.) #BlackMastodon (and other groups) have been increasingly vocal about the abuse they've found directed toward themselves, and they're not the only group with this issue.
I don't think that the problem can ultimately be solved just through moderation, though that's one tool. Ultimately there need to be political, legal, institutional, and cultural defences and remedies. But moderation can be a part of that.
Put another way: All cultures have limits on free speech, on privacy, cases under which the State can , will, and should investigate individuals and be able to demand information or sanction both action and speech. It's the ones that do so in a principled way that protects the least privileged and strengthens the #CommonWeal (see my pinned toots on that topic) which seem to me to best serve their inhabitants and themselves. And when that value breaks down ... nothing can save you. Certainly not individual initiative and technological fixes.
Edits: tyops, speling.
-
@leadegroot There are a few counterarguments, not all of which I agree with, though I mention them here:
Norms modelling. Telling people unambiguously "this is not OK" may change minds. If not of the person the comment is directed to, then to those listening in. (These discussions we're having are public, there are many silent participants.) I've done this, had it done to me, and observed it in interactions between others. I see some merits. The modelling may be followed by a block or ban. Hacker New's moderator, dang, practices this often, and is instructive to study: https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=dang
Persuasion. Above and beyond norms, there's actual rational argument. My faith in its capacity has been profoundly shaken over the past decade or so...
Echo chambers. If two groups A & B sever all or most ties, then you end up with two separate communities with little interaction. There are those who suggest that this may not be a Bad Thing...
Some speech is directly threatening. This is what Doctorow's passage refers to mostly: that open/public discourse tends to be dominated by the most aggressive and repressive elements. This is especially true in the case of a major state OR non-state regime of oppression. Examples of the former being, say, North Korea, Iran, Syria, and Russia. Examples of the latter being narcoterrorists, racial/religious supremacists, and organised crime, as in Latin America, the United States, India, and offshore-banking locales. In practice, the distinction between state and non-state may be distinctly indistinct.
Specific communities may face greater threats. The rules for moderating, say, a private school's intranet discussion might be quite different from a service frequented by children or teens in an area strongly influenced by gang activity.
Disempowered groups both need and are threatened by open communications. There's a history going back millennia of slang and in-group language used to discuss issues in a way that the broader community can't understand or has difficulty in following. That this might translate to the Internet is hardly surprising. Groups need to communicate, but also to protect themselves from surveillance, censorship, manipulation, and propaganda. That these needs are inherently in conflict is simply part of the landscape. A concern I've had with the Fediverse is that many people have/are indicating that it is safe, in ways that I strongly suspect it is not. It's been protected to some extent by its small scale and obscurity. Those defences are melting away like fog under a hot sun as we speak. (#AlexStamos has commented on this recently as I've mentioned a few days ago.) #BlackMastodon (and other groups) have been increasingly vocal about the abuse they've found directed toward themselves, and they're not the only group with this issue.
I don't think that the problem can ultimately be solved just through moderation, though that's one tool. Ultimately there need to be political, legal, institutional, and cultural defences and remedies. But moderation can be a part of that.
Put another way: All cultures have limits on free speech, on privacy, cases under which the State can , will, and should investigate individuals and be able to demand information or sanction both action and speech. It's the ones that do so in a principled way that protects the least privileged and strengthens the #CommonWeal (see my pinned toots on that topic) which seem to me to best serve their inhabitants and themselves. And when that value breaks down ... nothing can save you. Certainly not individual initiative and technological fixes.
Edits: tyops, speling.
-
@leadegroot There are a few counterarguments, not all of which I agree with, though I mention them here:
Norms modelling. Telling people unambiguously "this is not OK" may change minds. If not of the person the comment is directed to, then to those listening in. (These discussions we're having are public, there are many silent participants.) I've done this, had it done to me, and observed it in interactions between others. I see some merits. The modelling may be followed by a block or ban. Hacker New's moderator, dang, practices this often, and is instructive to study: https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=dang
Persuasion. Above and beyond norms, there's actual rational argument. My faith in its capacity has been profoundly shaken over the past decade or so...
Echo chambers. If two groups A & B sever all or most ties, then you end up with two separate communities with little interaction. There are those who suggest that this may not be a Bad Thing...
Some speech is directly threatening. This is what Doctorow's passage refers to mostly: that open/public discourse tends to be dominated by the most aggressive and repressive elements. This is especially true in the case of a major state OR non-state regime of oppression. Examples of the former being, say, North Korea, Iran, Syria, and Russia. Examples of the latter being narcoterrorists, racial/religious supremacists, and organised crime, as in Latin America, the United States, India, and offshore-banking locales. In practice, the distinction between state and non-state may be distinctly indistinct.
Specific communities may face greater threats. The rules for moderating, say, a private school's intranet discussion might be quite different from a service frequented by children or teens in an area strongly influenced by gang activity.
Disempowered groups both need and are threatened by open communications. There's a history going back millennia of slang and in-group language used to discuss issues in a way that the broader community can't understand or has difficulty in following. That this might translate to the Internet is hardly surprising. Groups need to communicate, but also to protect themselves from surveillance, censorship, manipulation, and propaganda. That these needs are inherently in conflict is simply part of the landscape. A concern I've had with the Fediverse is that many people have/are indicating that it is safe, in ways that I strongly suspect it is not. It's been protected to some extent by its small scale and obscurity. Those defences are melting away like fog under a hot sun as we speak. (#AlexStamos has commented on this recently as I've mentioned a few days ago.) #BlackMastodon (and other groups) have been increasingly vocal about the abuse they've found directed toward themselves, and they're not the only group with this issue.
I don't think that the problem can ultimately be solved just through moderation, though that's one tool. Ultimately there need to be political, legal, institutional, and cultural defences and remedies. But moderation can be a part of that.
Put another way: All cultures have limits on free speech, on privacy, cases under which the State can , will, and should investigate individuals and be able to demand information or sanction both action and speech. It's the ones that do so in a principled way that protects the least privileged and strengthens the #CommonWeal (see my pinned toots on that topic) which seem to me to best serve their inhabitants and themselves. And when that value breaks down ... nothing can save you. Certainly not individual initiative and technological fixes.
Edits: tyops, speling.
-
@argentum The term "rugged individualism" which is so often trotted out is quite literally a 1928 political slogan by Herbert Hoover.
If you look at early mentions of the term, virtually all are blisteringly critical.
It is of course a divide-and-conquer tactic.
By contrast, Hobbes' Leviathan is dominated by discussion of the common weal and commonwealth.
-
@gedvondur C'mon man, don't you have any respect for tradition?
In Ancient Rome ...
Fires would be fought by filling buckets with water and then throwing them against fire. Firefighters could also use axes to destroy buildings in order to prevent them from catching fire.[1] Once a house caught fire, [Marcus Licinius] Crassus would send his slaves to fight the fire. Once they arrived at the house, they would only put out the fire if the owner of the house sold the building to Crassus. Crassus would then sell the house back to the original owner at a marked up price.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefighting_in_ancient_Rome
https://books.google.com/books?id=9rI6CgAAQBAJ&q=Firefighting+in+Ancient+Rome&pg=PA407
And yeah, that's the "Rich as Crassus" guy, FYI.
#Sarcasm #Firefighting #Libertarians #CommonWeal #AncientRome #MarcusLiciniusCrassus
-
The debate on who has control over data typically creates two parties: the individual user who it is related to, and the corporation providing the platform or product.
We ought to add another party: the public. Perhaps data should be able to be used for the public good, and we should be able to participate in deciding what data is collected and how data is used.
-- lilactown @ HN
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28064953#data #DataAreLiability #Privacy #Surveillance #SurveillanceCapitalism #SurveillanceState #PublicInterest #CommonWeal #Facebook #HNComments
-
Despite misgivings about the institution myself, I like this Pappa: https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/258gq1/francis_the_papacy_the_poor_and_social_justice/
... and have for a while.
#CommonWeal #CovidRelief #Covid19 #austerity #economics #PopeFrancis #MarianaMazzucato
4/end/
-
Mariana Mazzucato on the just-passed US COVID relief package:
MARIANA: A one-time check of $600 is nowhere enough, for three reasons.
First, for the citizens in question, this amount will simply not be enough to allow people to access their basic human rights to food, shelter, and caring for their loved ones.
Second, the economy will not benefit by this meager relief. As Keynes taught us, boosting aggregate demand is critical for economic growth. Given the dire situation on disposable income, this relief will not help the economy get back on its feet.
Third, the money does exist: the government has simply decided to spend it elsewhere: for example, on corporate bailouts and defense spending.
It’s a crime and should be rectified as soon as possible. And if America truly wants to “lead” the world, then match the relief packages in other countries.
ANAND: I recently discovered that Pope Francis has a favorite economist — and it's you. What is it like being the pope's favorite economist [as he disclosed in his new book, “Let Us Dream”]?
MARIANA: As a very unreligious person, it feels great but uncomfortable. The funny thing is, he actually read my book a year ago and wrote an open letter in Argentina saying capitalism is screwed, but there's a book that tells us what to do. The Vatican, in some ways, has been talking about the common good for a long time. But there's no real equivalent for that concept in economics. ...
I'd argue that the concept exists, but is largely ignored, and is hard to measure: commonweal and social welfare.
#MarianaMazzucato #PopeFrancis #economics #austerity #Covid19 #CovidRelief #CommonWeal
3/
-
Mariana was recently name-checked by Pope Francis as his favorite economist (along with Kate Raworth). No big deal, right? Mariana teaches at University College London. She’s written important books like The Entrepreneurial State and The Value of Everything, making a case for rewriting some of the basic thinking of economics. And she is a rare instance of a scholar who follows her work out into the world, helping policymakers implement her theories. There is much to learn from her.
#CommonWeal #CovidRelief #Covid19 #austerity #economics #PopeFrancis #MarianaMazzucato
2/
-
$600 checks are a “crime,” says the pope’s favorite economist
I've only recently discovered Mariana Mazzucato[1], who seems to be establishing herself as a celebrity economist these days. She also has a fan in Pope Francis:
A conversation with economist Mariana Mazzucato on the case against Scroogenomics
... I sat down, virtually, with the brilliant economist Mariana Mazzucato to talk about the relief plan and the problem underlying it: a loss of faith in government action that becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy: People don’t believe in government action, so government isn’t empowered to act, so people believe less and less in government.
Notes:
#MarianaMazzucato #PopeFrancis #economics #austerity #Covid19 #CovidRelief #CommonWeal
1/
-
Pope Francis Laments Failures Of Market Capitalism In Blueprint For Post-COVID World
... Its title is Fratelli Tutti, and it is a scathing description of laissez-faire capitalism and a meditation on the coronavirus pandemic that has swept across the globe. ...
Picking up on some of his favorite themes, Francis says the marketplace cannot resolve every problem and denounces what he describes as "this dogma of neo-liberal faith that resorts to the magic theories of spillover or trickle." ...
"Every brother or sister in need, when abandoned or ignored by the society in which I live, becomes an existential foreigner, even though born in the same country. They may be citizens with full rights, yet they are treated like foreigners in their own country. Racism is a virus that quickly mutates and, instead of disappearing, goes into hiding, and lurks in waiting."
The encyclical is a sharp critique of nationalism and populism. In one section, he warns against "unhealthy 'populism' when individuals are able to exploit politically a people's culture, under whatever ideological banner, for their own personal advantage or continuing grip on power."
#PopeFrancis #capitalism #LaissezFaire #encyclical #CatholicChurch #fraternity #commonweal
-
Pope Francis Laments Failures Of Market Capitalism In Blueprint For Post-COVID World
... Its title is Fratelli Tutti, and it is a scathing description of laissez-faire capitalism and a meditation on the coronavirus pandemic that has swept across the globe. ...
Picking up on some of his favorite themes, Francis says the marketplace cannot resolve every problem and denounces what he describes as "this dogma of neo-liberal faith that resorts to the magic theories of spillover or trickle." ...
"Every brother or sister in need, when abandoned or ignored by the society in which I live, becomes an existential foreigner, even though born in the same country. They may be citizens with full rights, yet they are treated like foreigners in their own country. Racism is a virus that quickly mutates and, instead of disappearing, goes into hiding, and lurks in waiting."
The encyclical is a sharp critique of nationalism and populism. In one section, he warns against "unhealthy 'populism' when individuals are able to exploit politically a people's culture, under whatever ideological banner, for their own personal advantage or continuing grip on power."
#PopeFrancis #capitalism #LaissezFaire #encyclical #CatholicChurch #fraternity #commonweal