When running for president in 1968,Robert Kernedy took aim at US economic statistics. Gross national product, he said, counted pollution, cigarette advertising, and the destruction of forests among a long list of social evils. It failed to measure importtant things in society such as the joy of poetry or the strength of marriages. Though little noticed at the time, his short section of his campaign speech has now become the battle cry of many diverse campaign groups.
Some claim that GNP, or gross domestic product, Imeasure the wrong things because they put a value on the goods and services produced and purchasedin an economy. This week's Dasgupta Review of the economics of biodiversity said GDP is "wholly unssuitable.. for identifying sustainable development”. Others claim that as this data stands at the pinnaclee of economic statistics, it gets too much weight by government and society. As the saying goes, "what is measured, counts".
Of course, everyone will have personal views on the relative value of journalists, tax lawyers or sex workers, but the beauty of GDP is that it just adds up their incomes, allowing people to argue whether the result is either morally right or wrong. It does not take an explicit view.
The past decade tells us that the measure is a reasonable indicator of society's values. Imagine if a
group of economists landed on earth at the start of 2020 and had to evaluate the world's happiness using
GDP. They would have noticed a slowdown in growth since 2008, and that China's GDP overtook that
of the US in 2014. They would have diagnosed general discontent and strife between the world's twoeconomic superpowers. They would have been correct.
The coronavirus crisis also taught us that we value information about jobs, incomes and profits somuch that when GDP statistics are dangerously out of date, we will put huge efforts into finding realtime proxies to tell us about our living standards. But is GDP too important? Contrary to Mr Kennedy'sassertions, the evidence suggests we still care about the environment, crime, and morality. In fact, when GDP goes head-to-head with these other issues, it tends to lose.
Allegations that GDP is a terrible measure that is too important to decision makers are trotted out so
often, they tend to get a free pass. But the evidence is flimsy, at best.
The Supreme Court unanimously upheld a regulatory rollback of federal limits on media ownership
in local markets, a decision that could open the door to further industry consolidation. The court, in an opinion by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, ruled Thursday that the Federal Communications Commission acted reasonably in 2017 when it loosened three longstanding media-ownership restrictions. Citing dramatic
changes to the media landscape, the commission, split along partisan lines, made it easier for one entity
to own multiple TV stations in the same market. It also removed prohibitions on common ownership of both a TV station and a newspaper in the same market, or a TV station and a radio station.
The FCC had been tied up in court on the rules for nearly 20 years. In the latest round of litigation,
a federal appeals court in 2019 agreed with critics who challenged the FCC rollback on the grounds that
the commission didn't adequately assess whether the changes would harm ownership of broadcast media
by women and minorities.
The Supreme Court reversed that ruling and sided with the FCC. "The FCC considered the record evidence on competition, localism, viewpoint diversity, and minority and female ownership, and reasonably concluded that the three ownership rules no longer serve the public interest," Justice Kavanaugh wrote for the court in FCC. The court said the FCC had only sparse evidence to work with on minority and female ownership and made a reasonable prediction that its rollback wouldn't harm minority and female ownership levels.
The FCC and a group ofmedia companies, including News Corp, owner of The Wall Street Journal,
had appealed the case to the high court. Other ownership restrictions remain in place, notably limits that
still generally prohibit ownership of multiple top stations in the same market, and more FCC action is
possible in the future.
"While I am disappointed by the court's decision, the values that have long upheld our media policies—competition, localism, and diversity—remain strong," said FCC Acting Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel, a Democrat who voted against the rollback. tuI am committed to ensuring that these principles guide this agency as we move forward,5, she said. Helgi Walker, a partner at law firm Gibson Dunn who argued the case for the National Association of Broadcasters and other industry challengers, said the decision "gives broadcasters the freedom to innovate and compete in today's highly competitive media marketplace.
13题 | 被引用0次