How Lies Spread Online – Sinan Aral

From The New York Times

The spread of misinformation on social media is an alarming phenomenon that scientists have yet to fully understand. While the data show that false claims are increasing online, most studies have analyzed only small samples or the spread of individual fake stories.

My colleagues Soroush Vosoughi, Deb Roy and I set out to change that. We recently analyzed the diffusion of all of the major true and false stories that spread on Twitter from its inception in 2006 to 2017. Our data included approximately 126,000 Twitter “cascades” (unbroken chains of retweets with a common, singular origin) involving stories spread by three million people more than four and a half million times.

Disturbingly, we found that false stories spread significantly more than did true ones. Our findings were published on Thursday in the journal Science.

We started by identifying thousands of true and false stories, using information from six independent fact-checking organizations, including Snopes, PolitiFact and Factcheck.org. These organizations exhibited considerable agreement — between 95 percent and 98 percent — on the truth or falsity of these stories. Read More »

How this MIT Sloan MBA is harnessing the new dominant force in politics—Millennials – Dan Kessler

Dan Jordan Kessler, MBA ’19.

From BusinessBecause 

America has been to the polls for the first time since Donald Trump was elected in 2016. And more than anything, the races were a testing ground for the 2018-midterm elections and the presidential race to follow in 2020.

In that election in 2020, for the first time ever, Millennials will make up the largest segment of the American electorate with 91 million Millennials composing roughly 35 percent of the voting population.

As a result, in just two years, Millennials will be poised to become a dominant force in politics—a force that can be harnessed effectively and decisively. Therefore, the time has come for campaigns to redirect their focus away from their long-standing focus on baby boomers and engage Millennials in a meaningful and lasting way.

Right now, Millennials are fairly likely to be disengaged with the political process. With the average age of members of Congress at 58-years-old and Congressional leadership in their late 60s and 70s, Millennials, who seek social impact, simply feel as if they cannot relate to government across this generational divide.

Only 32 percent of millennials report that they feel that “people like them” have a legitimate voice in the election,” according to the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement at Tufts University. Read More »

A year for leadership in America – Deborah Ancona

MIT Sloan Prof. Deborah Ancona

From The Hill

Let’s face it: 2017 was truly frightening despite being a banner year for the economy. So as we approach the one-year anniversary of President Trump’s inaugural it is worth pausing to reflect. His first year in office has been a difficult one for those seeking leadership role models. It is not just Trump’s inappropriate tweets, the rollback of environmental regulations, and the foreign policy gaffes that have posed a problem.

As a professor of leadership and a news junkie, I have been disappointed in the performances of our most visible leaders throughout the woebegone 2017. Given a never-ending array of unsettling headlines, including sometimes terrifying stories about Donald Trump, Rodrigo Duterte, Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un, we have been witness to corruption and toxic leadership that distorts truth and intimidates followers and critics alike.

But let us focus on the United States, where leaders on both sides of the aisle have noted this dysfunction. Worse still the negativity cascades from the top throughout the government, business and society at large. Toxicity is catching.

The narcissistic tendencies and fear-mongering tactics of our leaders, plus a series of revelations of noted sexual misconduct in many fields, made the events of 2017 read like a leadership Greek tragedy. In the past year, our political and business leaders have been exposed as both out of touch, unable to act on major issues like global warming and drug addiction, and, too often, acting badly if not outright bizarrely in support of their own self interests.

Yet surprisingly, psychologists and political scientists alike have shown that in uncertain times we often gravitate toward these Trump-like authoritarian leaders who promise a better future. When the promise is not forthcoming, however, or the pain worse than we feared, we flip-flop between two states: paralysis and over-reactivity. In doing so, we become ineffective in solving problems where real solutions might be available. Read More »

The GOP plan to turn students into Trump voters – Michael Whinston

MIT Sloan Fellows Professor of Management  Michael Whinston

From Boston Review

Much has been written about who the likely “winners” and “losers” are if the Republican-controlled Congress is able to pass a version of its tax bill. The middle class: losers; the wealthy, who own nearly all of the stock in U.S. corporations that isn’t owned by foreigners: winners. Those whose income comes from wage earnings: losers; those whose income comes from “passive” ownership of businesses: winners.

It has even been suggested that several geographic distinctions in the legislation may be “payback” for how California, New York, and other coastal blue states voted in the 2016 election. Taxpayers in high local and property tax states such as California and New York, for example, are losers in the GOP plans while Texans and others in low-tax “Red” states are winners.

If that seems like an overly sensitive reading, consider this: under the GOP plans, the ability to deduct personal casualty losses from wildfires and earthquakes would be phased out. The deduction for damage from hurricanes and floods, however, would be kept. As California State Senator Mike McGuire, a Democrat whose district includes areas ravaged by wildfires, told the New York Times, “. . .it’s hard not to think that Congress has their sights set on the Golden State.”

But the aims of this legislation are more politically ambitious than mere retribution, and nowhere is this more evident than in the House bill’s assault on higher education. If enacted, three provisions promise to have a devastating effect on college students, graduate students, and higher-education institutions. First, the House bill eliminates the deductibility of interest payments on student loans—a deduction that more than 12 million people used in 2015, according to the New York Times. Next, it taxes the tuition grants given to graduate students, grants that enable them to forego entering the workforce and instead pursue a Masters degree or PhD. As a result, a typical graduate student on a $20,000 stipend and a tuition waiver could end up owing nearly $10,000 in additional tax. And finally, it taxes the endowment investment income of roughly seventy universities and liberal arts colleges, reducing the funds available for undergraduate and graduate scholarships.

While these changes will help offset the massive tax reductions for the rich, they are a pretty small drop in the bucket towards that goal. And it is strange that pro-growth and pro-investment Republicans would sign off on something that so harms those who want to invest in human capital. So why then did the House pass this bill? The answer can be found by looking at the 2016 election results. Read More »

Why the Trump tax plan’s fuzzy math​ doesn’t add up – Robert Pozen

MIT Sloan Senior Lecturer Robert Pozen

MIT Sloan Senior Lecturer Robert Pozen

From MarketWatch

Senate Republicans last week agreed on a budget resolution allowing a $1.5 trillion increase in the federal deficit over the next 10 years from tax legislation. This resolution paves the way for 51 Republican Senators to enact mammoth tax cuts by September 30, 2018.

Let’s be clear: these are tax cuts, despite their tax reform rhetoric.

As the centerpiece of these tax cuts, President Donald Trump has proposed to lower the corporate tax rate to 15% from 35%. However, despite the deficit cushion of $1.5 trillion allowed by last week’s budget resolution, a 15% rate is totally unrealistic.

Cutting the corporate tax rate to 15% would cost the U.S. Treasury $3.7 trillion over 10 years. But that cost cannot come close to being offset by repealing existing tax preferences, which all will be fiercely defended by special interests. A realistic legislative target would be a corporate tax rate of 25%. And under Senate rules this rate would have to expire after 10 years because it creates future budget deficits.

Let’s do the math on corporate and individual rates, together with optimistic assumptions about limiting existing tax preferences. The numbers are based on dynamic estimates from the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, unless noted otherwise.

Read More »