MIT Professor Daron Acemoglu Talks Liberal Democracy

Summary

Podcast Summary: MIT Professor Daron Acemoglu Talks Liberal Democracy

Podcast: Bloomberg Talks
Host: Carol Massar (with Tim/co-host)
Guest: Daron Acemoglu, Nobel Laureate Economist, MIT
Episode Date: August 13, 2026

---

Overview

This episode features a deep dive into the current crisis facing liberal democracy, with MIT Professor and Nobel Laureate Daron Acemoglu. Focusing on themes from his new book, What Happened to Liberal Democracy? Remaking a Politics of Shared Prosperity, the conversation explores the decline and challenges of liberal democracy, the impact of technology and social media, the role of economic inequality, and the crucial need for participatory citizenship. Acemoglu discusses both the roots of the crisis and practical ideas for democratic renewal.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The State and Purpose of Liberal Democracy

[02:45]

• Why write this book?
  • Acemoglu sees liberal democracy as humanity’s greatest achievement, now under threat after decades of success.
  • "We are, I think, at the cusp of losing it... we have to rebuild liberal democracy unless we want to risk losing it." (Acemoglu, [03:20])

2. Defining Liberalism and its Global Interpretations

[03:45 – 06:25]

• Liberalism is about protecting individual liberties, the weak, and societal progress.

• U.S. and European definitions differ; Acemoglu stresses the importance of institutionalizing these ideals in actual practice.

• The post-WWII period saw both growth and relative equality, but now, inequality is rising and trust in democratic institutions is plunging.

• Polarization and dissatisfaction, especially among non-college educated citizens, threaten the future of democracy.

  Quote:
  "If you look at the picture, it’s very different. Shared prosperity doesn’t work anymore. Inequality has increased a lot, but worse in the United States, we’ve seen about half of the population without a college degree experience stagnant or declining wages for about four decades..."
  — Daron Acemoglu [05:38]

3. Is the Crisis Inevitable or Unique to the U.S.?

[06:25 – 08:07]

• Acemoglu warns against blaming current problems on one leader or country—similar democratic backsliding is happening globally.
• Viktor Orban’s shift in Hungary is a telling example of liberalism’s arc, but similar dynamics are evident in the UK, France, and Germany.

4. Models (or Lack Thereof) for Today's Democracy

[08:16]

• No country stands as an "ideal liberal democracy."
  "Liberal democracy is always a work in progress." — Acemoglu

• Ireland’s recent citizens assemblies and referendums serve as examples of functional participatory democracy.

5. The Importance and Erosion of Community

[10:08 – 12:59]

• Community and shared values are historical pillars of liberal democracy—now weakened.

• Participation in local groups, unions, and diverse workplaces used to foster bridges among citizens; today, educational and economic divides have eroded these common spaces.

• The shift from melting pot workplaces to segmented workplaces (e.g., Google vs. McDonald’s) highlights a growing social divide.

  Quote:
  "Community was quite important for liberal aspirations going back several hundred years...and all of these, you see, they start at the community level."
  — Daron Acemoglu [10:09]

6. Technology, Social Media, and Democratic Decline

[13:11 – 17:40]

• Technological transition (algorithmic feeds, social media) has deepened division and undermined community.

• Algorithms amplify polarization and incivility, promoting incendiary content over constructive discourse.

• Offline interactions (local leisure, friendships) are declining, reducing opportunities for messy, compromise-building social ties.

  Quote:
  "Nobody calls anybody anymore. And that is very important because the social networks that we form are messy. They teach us to make compromises..."
  — Daron Acemoglu [16:38]

Are Tech Companies to Blame?

• Responsibility lies with all citizens, but tech CEOs and their platforms play a significant part.
• "If democracy is in crisis, we are all responsible because democracy requires active, vigilant, participating citizens." [17:45]

7. Declining Civic Engagement and Trust

[18:04 – 20:13]

• Americans are less active as citizens partly because democratic participation is "messy" and time-consuming.
• Symbolic acts like giving blood, once common, are now rare—reflecting eroding community-mindedness.

8. Economic Drivers of Political Discontent

[20:13 – 22:06]

• Acemoglu links voting behavior and political polarization more to economic stagnation and disappointment in leadership than to concerns about democracy itself.

• Polarized media ecosystems reinforce division and cognitive dissonance, making events like January 6th less salient to many voters.

  Quote:
  "If the media ecosystem was integrated and the communities were integrated, that would be much harder..."
  — Daron Acemoglu [21:21]

9. Regulation and Free Speech in the Algorithm Era

[22:23 – 24:28]

• Acemoglu advocates for strong free speech protections for individuals, but not for algorithms:

  "I am a free speech absolutist. I think individuals should be free to express their opinion, but I don't think free speech extends to algorithms."

• Proposes limiting algorithmic amplification—to return to non-algorithmic social feeds—would reduce toxicity and manipulation.

10. The Role of Money in Politics

[25:48 – 27:57]

• Participatory citizenship is undermined when money dominates politics.
• Decisions like Citizens United empower corporate and wealthy interests over regular citizens.
• "If we do not regulate how money is used in politics, then one person, one vote doesn't really mean much." — Acemoglu

11. The Future of AI—Threat or Opportunity?

[28:06 – 32:21]

• AI is transformative, but direction matters:

  • If AI automates away jobs, it erodes dignity, participation, and democracy.
  • Acemoglu urges development of "pro-worker AI"—tools enhancing, not replacing, human contribution, especially for less wealthy or less-educated workers.

• Current tech giants are not focusing on pro-worker AI, but a societal shift can change this.

• Both government and society need to redirect AI development incentives.

  Quote:
  "There is nothing in AI that says it should create inequality or it should automate work... Developing AI in a way that's not going to sideline workers, but make workers more productive..."
  — Daron Acemoglu [28:39]

12. Urgency & Wariness for the Future

[32:21 – 33:47]

• The path ahead is not easy; failure of liberalism risks the rise of anti-liberal, anti-democratic alternatives: oligarchy, authoritarianism, ethnonationalism, or extreme movements.

• Using the Roman Empire as an analogy, Acemoglu argues internal failures—unmet promises, neglected problems—are the real threat.

• Renewal is possible if liberal democracy can adapt and fulfill its potential.

  Quote:
  "If liberalism does not remake itself, it will be anti-liberal, anti-democratic alternatives... that will win out."
  — Carol Massar, reading from Acemoglu’s book [32:28]

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• "Liberal democracy is always an aspiring ideology, and liberal democracy is always a work in progress."
  — Daron Acemoglu [08:16]

• "If democracy is in crisis, we are all responsible because democracy requires active, vigilant, participating citizens."
  — Daron Acemoglu [17:45]

• "I am a free speech absolutist... but I don't think free speech extends to algorithms. So that's why we need to put some rules for algorithms."
  — Daron Acemoglu [23:25]

• "If we do not regulate how money is used in politics, then one person, one vote doesn't really mean much."
  — Daron Acemoglu [26:02]

• "There is nothing in AI that says it should create inequality or it should automate work... Developing AI in a way that's not going to sideline workers, but make workers more productive..."
  — Daron Acemoglu [28:39]

• "We have problems inside liberal democracy. We didn't live up to our promises..."
  — Daron Acemoglu [33:02]

---

Important Timestamps

• [02:45] — Why Acemoglu wrote the book / Stakes for liberal democracy
• [04:05] — Definition of liberal democracy
• [05:38] — Decline of shared prosperity & trust
• [07:28] — Viktor Orban as an example
• [08:16] — No contemporary ideal liberal democracy
• [10:09] — Role of community and shared values
• [13:48] — How technology/algorithms polarize society
• [16:38] — Impact on friendships and messy social ties
• [19:51] — January 6th, economic drivers of division
• [23:25] — Free speech does not extend to algorithms
• [26:02] — Money’s role in undermining participatory citizenship
• [28:06] — AI: threat and pro-worker potential
• [32:28] — The alternative to remaking liberalism is dire
• [33:02] — Roman Empire analogy for democracy’s collapse
• [33:48] — Faith and hope for renewal

---

Conclusion

Daron Acemoglu delivers a nuanced and urgent call for revitalizing liberal democracy. He emphasizes the need for community, participation, responsible technology, and more equitable economics—noting that without reform, democracy risks giving way to darker alternatives. The conversation is candid about current failures but optimistic that with action, the liberal democratic project can be renewed for a new era.

---

Resource Mentioned:

• What Happened to Liberal Democracy? Remaking a Politics of Shared Prosperity by Daron Acemoglu

Guest Credentials:

• Nobel Laureate in Economics
• Institute Professor, MIT Department of Economics

Transcript

[Amazon Health AI Announcer]

Amazon Health AI presents Painful Thoughts I. I can't stop scratching my downtown. Mm, yeah, but I'm not itching to go downtown and tell a receptionist I'm here to talk about my downtown. Some things you'd rather type than say out loud.

[Daron Acemoglu]

There's no question too embarrassing for Amazon Health AI. Chat your symptoms and get virtual care 24. 7 Health care just got less painful.

[Carol Massar]

Bloomberg Audio Studios Podcasts Radio News all right, I'm just gonna say it. Settle into a chair if you're in a car. I say this often when we've got somebody spectacular. And we do have somebody spectacular on, because this is gonna be a conversation we have been talking about in the newsroom with our team. Everybody's been reading this book, highlighting different things, and so we're delighted to have a very special guest. I wanna start there with a quote from his new book just and the opening of it. The author I will do the reveal in a moment. Community, self government, economic security and other concerns relevant to the working class are thus central to the kind of liberal democracy he is advocating. These notions capture the essence of what the famous English poet and Republican thinker John Milton had in mind when he wrote, they who are greatest are not

[Tim]

elevated above their brethren, live soberly in

[Carol Massar]

their families, walk the streets as other men may be spoken to freely, familiarly, familiarly. Sorry, friendly, without adoration. This is in the introduction, page 28 of a new book out is entitled what Happened to Liberal Democracy? Remaking a Politics of Shared Prosperity. It's written by Daron Acemoglu, his economic science Nobel Laureate, and he is also Institute professor in the Department of Economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. I could go on about his accolades. I have to say, I said this earlier. You're the first person that my daughter, who's now 23, studied economics. I've been doing this for years. When I mentioned that I was reading your book and talking, she was starstruck. And she said from freshman year, she has been reading your research, citing it, citations, and all of the work she's doing. And she said, can you please get his autograph? So we are delighted to have you with us.

[Co-host (possibly Tim or another co-host)]

You've never said anything. Truly, you've never said, I've never heard you say anything like that in the six years we've been doing this together.

[Daron Acemoglu]

This is big with this introduction. I'll come every week.

[Carol Massar]

I apologize for kind of rushing and stumbling through, but I just. We are delighted.

[Daron Acemoglu]

Thank you. So am I.

[Carol Massar]

You've sparked a conversation for us, which is. I Think part of it. But let's get to why did you write this book? You write a lot, you do a lot of research. Why this book?

[Daron Acemoglu]

Because I think liberal democracy is one of the greatest achievements we've had from our ape beginnings and lives in very unequal circumstances, in very uncertainty existence mired by violence. Today we live in very complex societies, open to ideas, with lots of individual freedom. People participate in politics peacefully, reach compromise, sometimes consensus. And moreover, we get lots of things from the government, including our ability to express our voice. That is an amazing achievement. And we are, I think, at the cusp of losing it. Liberal democracy, which still in my mind is the best framework, definitely something we very much need for the future, is in crisis after decades and decades of actually serving us quite well. So we have to understand that crisis and we have to rebuild liberal democracy unless we risk, we want to risk losing it.

[Co-host (possibly Tim or another co-host)]

We're gonna talk about how you think we can rebuild it, but I wanna just get some parameters set here and do some definitions because early on in your book you talk about the definition of liberalism and how it means different things to different where you live. The European view versus the American view. Just straighten that out for us right now before we dive into this conversation.

[Daron Acemoglu]

Yeah, thanks, Tim. And that's very important. Liberalism has had many meanings over the ages and today it's a big tent. But at the core of it is a commitment to protect individual liberties, also protect the weaker members of society, and also a commitment to, to progress from which we all benefit. Those are the defining features of liberal ideas. And they have acted as a rallying cry for people to build a better society. And the way that I define it, liberal democracy is the institutionalization of these ideas. It's carrying them to the actual practice of our lives. And it's been brilliantly successful in the grand scheme of things. We've had decades of very rapid growth under liberal democracy for the about four decades following World War II. Those were not just high growth periods, but they were periods in which inequality was remaining stable or sometimes even declining. Every demographic group, men, women by race, different education groups, they saw their earnings grow very rapidly. And you know, always political disagreements were very important, but generally peacefully. Today, if you look at the picture, it's very different. Shared prosperity doesn't work anymore. Inequality has increased a lot, but worse in the United States, we've seen about half of the population without a college degree experience stagnant or declining wages for about four decades while productivity increased while people with college degrees, postgraduate degrees, improve their living standards Significantly. And when you ask Americans, they have such negative views of democratic institutions, their trust in Congress, in the Supreme Court, and the presidency is at an all time low. The country is polarized and very concerningly. All Americans, but especially the young, are much less willing to say that democracy is the best form of government, and they're willing to experiment with different ideas.

[Carol Massar]

Joe, were we destined to come here? I think people point fingers at a particular president or political figure, but were we destined to be here?

[Daron Acemoglu]

I wouldn't say we're destined to be here, but I would also not blame it on a particular president or particular set of choices that are US specific, because you see very similar trends across many advanced nations and even in the emerging world. So there are some commonalities there. So that's very important to get the diagnosis right so that we know how to deal with it.

[Co-host (possibly Tim or another co-host)]

You actually make the point early on. I mean, this is the way your book begins. And Carol and I were both struck by this because we hear a lot about Viktor Orban now and the figure that he is in Hungary. But you make the point that, look, this is somebody who in the late 80s, early 90s, was a very different leader and represented something very different, not just for that country, but for Europe.

[Daron Acemoglu]

Absolutely, absolutely. And I think it is sort of telling of the arc of liberalism that he was the poster child for, you know, liberty for building democratic institutions, and then he turned his back to on all of these ideas. You know, the exact circumstances in Hungary, of course, are different. Post transition societies had a lot of trouble. Many of them navigated them better than Hungary. But I think the issues that we see in the United States have commonalities with Hungary, but they have a lot of commonalities with what's going on in the uk, in France, in Germany, in the rest of Europe.

[Co-host (possibly Tim or another co-host)]

Is there anywhere where this is not happening right now that you would hold up in 2026 as an ideal liberal democracy?

[Daron Acemoglu]

Ideal? Absolutely not. And I don't think, if you ask me what is an ideal liberal democracy going back. No, there isn't. Liberalism is always an aspiring ideology, and liberal democracy is always a work in progress. But today you see different degrees of crisis. And one place where I would say the crisis is also showing up in some ways, but in a less severe form is Switzerland. And one of the things about Switzerland is that it's much more participatory. And you also see even today, in this polarized world that we live in, where people shout at each other, social media has really created a very toxic ecosystem of exchange. You have recently experienced an amazing achievement in Ireland in the context of the decision on referendum, which was based on. On citizens assemblies, building consensus, changing people's minds, debating it for a long time and then putting it to vote for the people, where people actually said, this is what we want in two different referendums. So there are ways in which we can make this work even today. But there is a challenge.

[Tim]

There are challenges.

[Carol Massar]

And Tim and I both listened to some different podcasts. There's one you did with, I think, James Sanger of Harvard, that was really. I said, what was wonderful is it was a dialogue, which is so refreshing. We talk about just even in our world, that people don't debate anymore. It's. One view comes on and when I started doing journalism, you couldn't present one voice without having the other voice, especially on a topic. And it's interesting to see how things have changed. The sense of community, though, how important that is. And I think it might have been with Mr. Sanger, this concept of people or maybe living different worlds, completely separate worlds.

[Daron Acemoglu]

Absolutely.

[Carol Massar]

And that's a problem.

[Daron Acemoglu]

It's a big problem. But let's go back to community, because. Thank you for bringing that up, Carol. Community was quite important for liberal aspirations going back several hundred years. And when you look at early liberal democracy, communities played a very important role. One of the very bedrock ideas of liberal democracies, that there should be self government, people. It's not just that you should be free to have thoughts, that you should also be free to put them into practice. That means that to have some control over your life and it's not enough, or it's not even meaningful to say, oh, you can achieve that by going to the polls once every four years or five years and have a vote. No, that starts with local associations. What de Tocqueville saw in the United states more than 200 years, 150 years ago, and he thought that was just so remarkable. It starts with local governments where people participate. It starts with other organizations like labor unions, that were a very important way for many working people to participate in self government. And all of these, you see, they start at the community level. But there's one thing, something else. And then you actually put your finger on that, Carol, which is that when we have a debate, I think the best way of ensuring that we're not just talking past each other or we're not shouting at each other is that we have some shared values, shared moral understanding, shared principles. And that again comes from communities and then emanates from Communities to the national level. So all of these are very important. But liberal democracy over the last several decades has also turned its back on communities. Communities has become more segregated. There has been a deeper division in the United States between say, not just Republican and Democrat, but between more educated and less educated segments. Their values have diverged, their networks have diverged. And everything that was a bit of like a melting pot is no longer one very important one that we actually often overlook is where people work, the sort of. Of course I'm exaggerating, but the typical firm of the industrial age was like a manufacturing plant where you had managers, you had consultants, you had engineers, you had white collar workers, blue collar workers, custodial workers. So it was a real melting pot. Today the image that you might have in your mind is Google on the one hand and McDonald's on the other, and complete divide in terms of not just income, education and background and who works there. And so we're not getting that melting that will bring those shared principles together on which we can then build something better.

[Carol Massar]

Yeah, agreed. Like I just think about growing up and like the local shopkeepers and just we all were kind of running in each other or a religious organization and meant all different types of people. I know. We've got a question.

[Co-host (possibly Tim or another co-host)]

Yeah, this is actually a perfect question for, for a segue that we wanted to get to. And it has to do with technology and your view of technology. We open this conversation up to our viewers and listeners and we, we got a great question from Colin joining us from Atlanta. Colin writes in could digital connectivity allow a more direct democracy when moving slightly away from representative democracy and to direct democracy help alleviate concerns from those who are losing faith. So two different questions there. I wanted to start with the technology one, because you have some really interesting views about technology's role in actually moving us away from liberal democracy. What do you think?

[Daron Acemoglu]

Well, I mean, let me just say that technology plays a central role in the book in several parts, but centrally in understanding how we transition from an industrial economy to a post industrial economy. So the Google McDonald's is just a symptom of something much broader about how the economy is organized. And that was a technological transition. Partly globalization played a role as well. But second, algorithms are so much more important today. They in some domains actually rule our lives. So we have to come to grips with the information ecosystem, communication ecosystem created by algorithms. Now in both how digital technologies influence shared prosperity and how algorithm influence our communication. I don't think there is anything predetermined. Technology doesn't Come with a pre programmed thing that says, I'm going to create inequality, I'm going to destroy communication. It's how we use technology, how we define technology, how we develop it. And on social media, I think it's very telling to go back to how people were viewing it in the late 1990s, early 2000s. Everybody thought, I mean, almost everybody thought that this was gonna democratize communication. Arab Spring, The Arab Spring was Facebook and Twitter. In some places, the new wikis were going to make information available. And you know, those hopes. Okay, they turned out to be not right. Yeah, we can, we can agree on that. But they weren't completely naive. The reason why they weren't naive is because technology had that capability. We could have built new communities for reliable information, to create new compromises, to find new bridging ways in which we can bring ourselves together. But it turned out that the key decisions that many companies made were not about that. MySpace, for example, one of the first social media sites, is a bit closer to that because it brought communities together.

[Co-host (possibly Tim or another co-host)]

Shout out to Tom at MySpace.

[Daron Acemoglu]

Okay, fantastic. Yes. But algorithmic feeds that essentially amplified the most incendiary material, the one that gets views because it's extreme, that angers the other side and motivates your side to become even more vocal. Those are the kinds of things that rise up in the algorithmic feed. And another part, they are the things that create envy and undergird mental health problems. But all of them, you know what they also do? They take their attention towards social media communication. And as a result, Americans interact much less physically with other people. They have fewer friends, fewer close friends. They spend much less time going to bars, coffee shops.

[Tim]

Nobody calls anybody anymore.

[Daron Acemoglu]

Nobody calls anybody anymore. And that is very important because the social networks that we form are messy. They teach us to make compromises and they give us a lot of rich contextual information about our lives.

[Carol Massar]

Do you blame the tech CEOs who run those companies?

[Daron Acemoglu]

Oh, we might as well. Why not?

[Carol Massar]

Well, because it is an interesting time where you are seeing lawsuits against social media companies, meta platforms. We keep referencing this in their latest earnings. I think it was $2 billion for certain lawsuits. And they said it was a material impact on the company. And it's just the beginning of lawsuits from our reporting team. But I do wonder what is their responsibility? And, and this goes to. You get into this too, like the people who run these firms and they're very wealthy and very influential and I don't think I'm speaking out of turn. And we talk about having A seat at the table, the political table. We don't. It's people with their deeper pockets.

[Daron Acemoglu]

Well, you are very influential, Carol and Tim, but thank you.

[Co-host (possibly Tim or another co-host)]

We do have microphones, actually.

[Carol Massar]

You are very influential. But anyway, but like all of this,

[Daron Acemoglu]

of course, we all have respect, responsibility. We all have responsibility. And you know what? Let's take one step back. If democracy is in crisis, we are all responsible because democracy requires active, vigilant, participating citizens.

[Carol Massar]

Why aren't. Why aren't people more active?

[Daron Acemoglu]

I think we took some of these things for granted.

[Carol Massar]

Okay?

[Daron Acemoglu]

We've gone down the path of sort of easy sort of life. And some of what democratic citizenship requires is messy. Some of the things that we should do in our communities are costly. Like, for example, giving blood. You know, you get very little benefit from that other than the pride that you're contributing to something. And people used to do that much more, and they do that much less. That's just a symbolic thing that shows that if you don't create the right narrative, the right sort of way of drawing on our responsibilities, people are going to start withdrawing a little bit, and then a little bit more and then a little bit more, and then the result is we're not participating in communities and we're not participating to defend democracy.

[Co-host (possibly Tim or another co-host)]

But I can't help but think of the changing view that Americans have about democracy in recent years. And I think back to the Democratic national convention in 2024 and the core message from Democrats, and it was, I'll never forget this. I was watching this on tv. I watched the Republican one as well, but they played this video that was basically a highlight reel of January 6th. And it was, you know, Carol and I were On Air covering January 6th when it happened. We were speaking to our colleagues who were at the Capitol who were, you know, felt under attack. And I remember watching that and thinking, wow, you know, there's no way that Trump is going to win this election because Americans are being reminded of this.

[Carol Massar]

Right, right, right.

[Co-host (possibly Tim or another co-host)]

But it's like January 6th never happened to so many people, including lawmakers who stand side by side with the president and at one point were very critical of him. And I'm just curious is like, does that stuff not matter in today's age?

[Carol Massar]

Or does it? Or does that really matter to show that there are people who somehow feel like I don't have representation? I'm looking for another way. I don't know if that's part of.

[Co-host (possibly Tim or another co-host)]

Well, I mean, I think, look, it also gets to the core. And we'll talk about Economics, but it's like, obviously it was what voters felt like. You know, they were driven by economic issues at the polls, not democracy issues.

[Daron Acemoglu]

I think they were driven by, motivated by economic issues. And they were also reacting to Biden's presidency that they thought in some ways didn't work very well. And I think part of the reason why January 6 was not front and center, it's cognitive dissonance. Once they said they were going to vote for the Republican alternative because we want to vote against the establishment. And right now the establishment is Biden. And the left is always more at the center of liberal democracy because it was things like the New Deal liberalism or the social democracy in Europe that led the charge. So it's more associated with, with establishment. So anti establishment feeling turns against that and then cognitive dissonance. I don't want to hold two conflicting thoughts in my mind. I'm going to support Trump. Well, then I'll downplay January 6th. But the media ecosystem played a very important role. If the media ecosystem was integrated and the communities were integrated, that would be much harder because your brother, you wouldn't be fighting with your brother. And he would remind you of, look, or don't you forget January 6th. But today, either in your community there is nobody who has an opposite view to yours, or if they do, the situation has become so polarized that you don't listen to them because you think of them as the enemy even when they are your brother. And that's really not very productive. But that's again, an ecosystem that we've created. We don't need to be in that

[Carol Massar]

ecosystem, do you think? And we're going to take a break and then come back and talk some more. In terms of social media companies, technology companies, there needs to be some kind of greater regulation over them in terms of these platforms because they are so influential.

[Daron Acemoglu]

Yes, absolutely. So let's take a step back. And democracy needs citizenry, as we discussed, but that needs to be informed citizenry. So information relevant for politics in some level is a public good. And if it becomes very polluted, it makes things very difficult. So imagine that a mayor takes important steps and shows how you can rebuild your community, provide better public services, improve things.

[Co-host (possibly Tim or another co-host)]

You mean the job of a mayor, for example.

[Daron Acemoglu]

But then social media presents that as a complete failure to everybody. That's going to create real difficulties now. But it's a very delicate issue. Liberalism, as I said, has to spend for start. To stand for freedoms and freedom of speech is critical. And I'm an absolutist Even if you

[Carol Massar]

don't believe in that or it's a controversial position.

[Daron Acemoglu]

Absolutely. I am, actually.

[Carol Massar]

That's so important to this.

[Daron Acemoglu]

I am a free speech. Absolutely. I think individuals should be free to express their opinion, but I don't think free speech extends to algorithms. So I should be able to say whatever you want. I want. You should be able to say whatever you want, Carol. But then if algorithms take the worst of what we say and amplify that, that's not freedom of speech, that's manipulation. So that's why we need to put some rules for algorithms. For example, one thing that would work is if we go back to the MySpace day without algorithmic feed you on social media. TikTok wouldn't work because it's exactly based on this algorithmic feed model. But the other ones would work. Facebook could work where just like before, you would go and listen to or watch the videos from your friends and neighbors or the trusted news sources, but not from the most incendiary sources that have been just fed to you by the algorithm that would, at one fell swoop, really change the dynamics of how

[Carol Massar]

we communicate and the financial structure of that business.

[Daron Acemoglu]

I know.

[Carol Massar]

I mean, that's the other thing.

[Daron Acemoglu]

Why do you think they're doing it?

[Carol Massar]

No, I know. Exactly.

[Co-host (possibly Tim or another co-host)]

It all comes down to that one word, engagement.

[Tim]

Right.

[Co-host (possibly Tim or another co-host)]

Which is what, you know, investors care about.

[Tim]

This is the Bloomberg Tech Minute brought to you by ChatGPT. Now with ChatGPT Work.

[Carol Massar]

Hi, I'm Carol Massar.

[Tim]

Doordash, the largest food delivery company in the US is building its own delivery drones and has gained the necessary FAA approvals to operate them commercially. The latest in its effort to delegate more orders to robots as a way of cutting delivery times. Bloomberg's Natalie Lung reports. The company says it has been conducting pilot programs with various restaurants, some of which have seen their order volume grow during the test period. The effort marks an expansion of DoorDash's in house robotics efforts to reduce reliance on human couriers for some orders, as their wages constitute a key expense to the business. Drones are also a way for DoorDash to cut delivery times on orders from more remote locations that some dashers may not want. That's the Bloomberg Tech Minute brought to you by ChatGPT. Put ChatGPT to work on your most ambitious ideas and projects. Get [e-mail] today by selecting work mode available on plus and Pro plans.

[Carol Massar]

I want to get to a question from Brendan, if I may, please. Brendan from Maryland. His question is, what is the meaning of participatory citizenship when so few have so much and so many are in need.

[Daron Acemoglu]

Yeah, I think that's a great question, because money plays a role in politics. And if we do not regulate how money is used, take it.

[Carol Massar]

Go ahead, take a drink.

[Daron Acemoglu]

Yeah.

[Carol Massar]

And we'll just say, Brendan, thank you for sending that message in.

[Daron Acemoglu]

Yes, thank you. Thank you. Great question. So if we do not regulate how money is used in politics, then one person, one vote doesn't really mean much. There are several political scientists who have documented that members of the House and Senate listen much more to their wealthier constituents. And then it's no surprise that most Americans say, you know, elected representatives don't speak for us.

[Co-host (possibly Tim or another co-host)]

That's who they're exposed to at fundraisers.

[Carol Massar]

If you go, that's what they need to get elected.

[Co-host (possibly Tim or another co-host)]

They need money to get elected. They need wealthy people to donate the money. They go, they interact with them.

[Carol Massar]

I would argue that limits.

[Daron Acemoglu]

Social status is very tied to money, too.

[Co-host (possibly Tim or another co-host)]

Yeah, but isn't the toothpaste out of the tube at this point? You said if we need to take there is money, as the Supreme Court said that, you know, there's essentially no limit to this.

[Daron Acemoglu]

I know that's a problematic decision. And, you know, it also intersects with what I just said. If corporations have rights, perhaps algorithms have rights, then we should give free speech to algorithms. No, no, I don't. I don't think we want to think about it that way. It's the individual and communities that should participate in politics, not corporations per se. Of course, humans form corporations, and those humans have their own say. They don't also need to agree. I can be in the same firm as you. We can have very different political views. So giving that corporation sort of the fiduciary or not, I mean, like the legal representation as if it's an individual, you know, what happens to our disagreements.

[Carol Massar]

So two things I think we want to touch on, because then we only have, unfortunately, about six minutes. So. AI Helpful, Hurtful.

[Daron Acemoglu]

We don't know all to play for. There is no doubt in my mind AI is a transformative technology. You can already see it, and it's going to advance even further. But if AI goes in the direction of automating more and more jobs, displacing workers, making many occupations obsolete, and the people who used to perform them, dispensable, I think that's not consistent with either shared prosperity nor with liberal democracy, because, remember, liberal democracy requires us as citizens participate. And that's part of the dignity of work, is part of that Having the means, having the importance in public life is part of that. If we create a two tier society with a lot of people who don't have a job or who are marginally employed, that's going to be a big challenge. But here is the catch. There is nothing in AI that says it should create inequality or it should automate work. AI is the best information technology ever invented. It can provide us very relevant information for problem solving, for doing our jobs better, for doing new things. And that's the idea that I call pro worker AI. Developing AI in a way that's not going to sideline workers, but make workers more productive at what they do, more central to the production process. And that's critically not just for educated workers. Imagine plumbers and electricians, many of whom are doing critical work for us and are underpaid and we need more of them. Imagine them becoming better and better both the training of these trades improves. But more importantly, with better problem solving capabilities, with better information in their hands, they can do many more things. And that's going to be so important if we can go in that direction.

[Co-host (possibly Tim or another co-host)]

Are these massive firms that we talk about each and every day developing pro worker AI?

[Daron Acemoglu]

No. That's the problem. That's a problem. So if you want to look at the how grass is how full, you're absolutely right, Tim, that's not where we're going. But I don't think we should lose hope. Because if we suddenly had a change of heart among the young, amazing talent that goes into the tech sector and said no, rather than chase this dream of AGI, artificial general intelligence, artificial superintelligence, we want to do things that are helpful for how people communicate. Our workers, including nurses, educators, plumbers, electricians, really do their job will get them. It's not actually that hard to develop these technologies. It's much easier than developing super intelligent physicists. But that's not where we're putting our eggs.

[Carol Massar]

Do we need the government to get us? I mean, what's a company to say? I'm about making money, I'm going to go that path, which is a capitalistic society. If you become public, you want to reward your shareholders.

[Daron Acemoglu]

I think the government has a role to play. But let me make two other points, Carol. First of all, I don't think that developing pro worker AI would be a money losing proposition. If you're a company, if you can make your workers more productive, that's also beneficial for you. But it's only a mindset for a manager to say labor is a cost going to try to eliminate it. Labor is also your asset. And also tech companies that develop successful technologies of this sort, there will be markets for it, whether at the margin will be more or less profitable than other things. You know, details will determine that. But it's not going to be a money losing proposition if it's really worthwhile to do. You're right, but we need to get there and that's not where we are. The government has an important role, so does democratic society. These technologies are going to influence all of us. All of our lives are going to be shaped by, by the way, we are fortunate in the United States because they are going to shape the lives of another 6 billion people who don't live in the United States and in China. But they have no say. We at least have a say. We're still a democracy. Liberal democracy is in crisis, but we're still a democratic nation. So we can influence those things and it's just the right time to do it.

[Carol Massar]

We just have about a minute and a half left in the beginning.

[Daron Acemoglu]

There's so much more to discuss. I'll come back.

[Carol Massar]

So you're going to have to come back. But you say the path ahead is not easy. Forging working class liberalism is a tall order in the best of times and much more challenging in today's polarized environment with little trust in institutions and elites. Still, we have no alternative but to try. If liberalism does not remake itself, it will be anti liberal, anti democratic alternatives such as new oligarchies, authoritarianism, ethnonationalism, deep rooted hierarchy, or renewed extreme progressive movements that will win out. So the alternative is not great.

[Daron Acemoglu]

It's not great at all. But the way that I see it is like I draw an analogy with the Roman Empire. You can say the Roman Empire collapsed because the barbarians were very strong. But I think that's with the wrong perspective. The Roman Empire collapsed because it had lots of problems inside and that enabled the barbarians to exploit it. It's the same with liberal democracy. We have problems inside liberal democracy. We didn't live up to our promises. We are to our great potential. And that has made those anti establishment ideas, some of them, very ugly. Something that people turn to in reaction. So if liberalism remakes itself, I think it still has a lot of momentum.

[Carol Massar]

You have faith?

[Daron Acemoglu]

I have faith, I have hope.

[Carol Massar]

Do we have the right people to do it?

[Daron Acemoglu]

No, that's to be continued.

[Carol Massar]

So watch things like midterms and things. Yeah, come back, please.

[Daron Acemoglu]

I would love to.

[Carol Massar]

Okay, thank you. We would love it too. This was a treat. We were looking forward to it. So delighted. Daron. Thank you.

[Daron Acemoglu]

Thank you.

[Carol Massar]

Daron Acemoglu he is, of course, the author of the book what Happened to Liberal Democracy? Remaking a Politics of Shared Prosperity. He is a Nobel Laureate. He's an institute professor in the Department of Economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. And he's my daughter's like role model. This is Bloomberg.

[The Hartford Announcer]

When you're running a business, the best days are the ones where priorities stay on track. For midsize and large companies, risk can affect multiple parts of the organization at once, from property and liability to cyber and regulatory challenges. At that level, managing risk becomes an ongoing discipline. At the Hartford, the focus is on helping businesses manage risk before it turns into something more disruptive. And when losses do happen, that work is paired with insurance coverage shaped by years of underwriting, risk engineering and claims experience. Learn more@the Hartford.com riskmitigation policies provided by Hartford Fire Insurance Company and its property and casualty affiliates Hartford, Connecticut.