Thursday, October 20, 2016

Sputnik — Newsweek’s Eichenwald Doubles Down on Debunked Conspiracy, Loses It on Twitter

If you're following this, the media battle heats up. Whose disinformation?

Newsweek’s Eichenwald Doubles Down on Debunked Conspiracy, Loses It on Twitter


Bob said...

Who doesn't lose it on Twitter??

peterc said...

Funny, Bob. :-)

Tom Hickey said...

Actually, Twitter is the place that the US establishment and establishment up-and-comers and wannabe interact with each others. Losing it in not cool and being cool is very import for VSPs and people who want to be seen as VSPs. Kurt Eichenwald is already there and doesn't need to prove it. Losing it makes no sense for him. This was a blunder.

peterc said...

Interesting, Tom. So MMTers' detached cool on twitter should pay off eventually. :-)

Tom Hickey said...

Right, Peter. That seems to be the plan, and it is working. They have gaining allies. Stephanie especially is hammering on it. At FB, too. Social media seems to have replaced blogging at NEP.

I'd like to see more blogging there, too, but social media is somewhat time-consuming (which is why I am not ore active there), and it takes some time to write up a tight blog post, which is why I don't do that either and restrict myself to commenting, which I can do on the fly.

Also, Bill's output at his blog is amazing and he is prolific at churning out books lately, too.

I think that Bill and Randy's new intro texts will be game-changers as they are more widely adopted. Over time, other text authors will have to incorporate MMT descriptions of ops and accounting, too.

It really is looking like we are finally getting into the last mile.

Now someone needs to write the popular book laying out the progressive vision and how to actualize it using MMT knowledge along the line of John Kenneth Galbraith's The Good Society (1998), which borrowed its title from the very popular and influential work (1923) of Walter Lippmann, who also wrote The Public Philosophy.

Here is an interesting compare and contrast between Walter Lippmann and John Dewey.


With only some fear of oversimplification, the fundamental differences between Walter Lippmann and John Dewey that are of concern here can be introduced by giving attention to Lippmann’s deceptively simple formulation of a central problem in democratic theory: “The environment is complex. Man’s political capacity is simple. Can a bridge be built between them?”1 Or, borrowing Dewey’s formulation of the same problem, we might ask “how the gap between the limited capacities of the citizen and the complexity of his environment [is] to be bridged.”2 That such a gap existed was a point of agreement between Dewey and Lippmann. Both understood the difficulties that would result from a relatively uninformed and incompetent citizenry governing popularly in the complex modern age of political affairs. Where the two men had a fundamental disagreement was not so much in their diagnoses or critiques of the problems in modern democracy as in the constructive and prescriptive aspects of their respective democratic theories.3

Where do we want to go as a society and how to get from here to there?

Bob said...

I'm too old to take Twitter culture seriously.

Hillary@Putin: Hasta la vista you Russian meddler

Followed by World War III.