“
Should the future of our society be determined by the leaders of major tech companies? According to Nobel economics prize winner Simon Johnson, giving too much power to a small group of billionaires will come at the expense of the public interest.
The British-American economist, who teaches at MIT, also emphasized that the advancement of artificial intelligence (AI) should benefit workers with lower qualifications.
Automation and its impact on jobs are among Johnson’s key considerations in exploring the relationship between democracy and economic prosperity, a topic that earned him the Nobel Prize alongside Turkish-American economist Daron Acemoglu and British-American James Robinson.
AFP conducted a telephone interview with Johnson, which has been edited for brevity.
Q. Your research focuses on the connection between democratic institutions and economic growth, but many people in Western nations are turning to populist movements as they feel excluded from the benefits of growth. How do you explain this?
I was actually in France during your recent elections… While I’m not an expert on France, from my conversations and observations, it seems that even in more affluent parts of the country, people are disillusioned, frustrated, and feel let down by the democratic system…
This failure to deliver results to the public is a problem, and it’s crucial to address it by creating more high-quality jobs, which is the foundation of everything. Jobs where productivity and pay are higher, and working and living conditions are better than before or better than what previous generations experienced… If a system promises these things and fails to deliver, it’s understandable that there would be disappointment and backlash.
Will AI increase the productivity and wages of low-skilled workers, or will it lead to excessive automation where workers are replaced by self-checkout kiosks?
Q. Who will benefit from AI in this scenario? Will it be those with higher education levels?
Let’s be honest… AI primarily benefits major tech companies. In such moments, the individuals who envision and shape technology play a crucial role. These individuals are currently seen as heroes, but it’s important to question whether we should concentrate so much power in the hands of a few individuals.
We shouldn’t allow big tech leaders to dictate what gets developed, how it’s used, and how it affects jobs… If we do, we will only see their vision of the future, which serves their wealth, not the well-being of the public or communities…
Q. Do we need more regulations for Big Tech?
The business models of companies like Meta (Facebook and Instagram) and Alphabet (Google) are based on digital advertising. Digital advertising works by capturing attention, inciting emotions, and manipulating individuals. This is detrimental to mental health, especially for children, and poses a threat to democracy because it aims to provoke anger and conflict among people, leading to behaviors that wouldn’t occur in face-to-face interactions. Therefore, we need to recognize that digital advertising is akin to tobacco and junk food.
While I’m not advocating for a ban, I believe it should be heavily taxed. My proposal, alongside Daron Acemoglu, suggests imposing a significant tax on digital advertising, which could generate around $200 billion in additional revenue for the United States. Some of this tax revenue could be allocated to mental health initiatives, including those focusing on children.
Encouraging these companies to alter their business models and rely less on digital advertising would be beneficial on various fronts, including democracy. We need to de-escalate conflicts, depolarize discussions, and work towards finding common ground.
Recommended newsletter
Data Sheet: Stay informed about the tech industry’s biggest players with insightful analysis.
Sign up here.”