...is Murphy overreacting to Stewart overreacting to Krugman overreacting to Stewart.
I am, of course not overreacting to Murphy overreacting to Stewart overreacting to Krugman overreacting to Stewart because I am posting this sans the hysteria that would qualify it as "overreacting".
[That last sentence is meant in jest. I don't actually think any of them were hysterical. Krugman's got a legitimate beef and it's unfortunate that the normally good analysis we get from Stewart didn't come through this time. But the fact of the matter is, Stewart's a comedian so while it's nice to enjoy his good analysis when he gives it to us, he told a good joke which is his job. And you all know I'm a fan of Bob's.]
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
I didn't see any "over-reaction" by Stewart: he just made Krugman look like a fool, as is his job.
ReplyDeleteRight - see my bracket. I don't think any of them overreacted. Just a funny way to point people to Bob's post on it.
DeleteI know that I didn't overreact, because all of my comments were steeped in f#@kery. It seemed appropriate given the matter.
DeleteBob’s analogy with the RNC chairman sketch is flawed (as Daniel points out in the paragraph that starts with “It would be” and ends with “terrible analysis”) because in that case Stewart was not (to my knowledge) making a point about an idea / policy proposal, but only mocking the Republicans for their hypocrisy, not (again, to my knowledge) for the beliefs they espouse, only for the fact that their own actions contradict these beliefs.
ReplyDeleteIn the trillion dollar coin example, however, Stewart *was* mocking an idea / policy proposal, and he was doing through a form of analysis (‘if we can create a trillion dollar coin to solve this problem, why stop there? why not create a 20 trilllion dollar coin to solve all of our problems?’). So if Daniel says that Stewart’s analysis here was lacking and if Bob then counters by saying that Stewart didn’t try to give some sort of analysis of Republican beliefs about families etc., then Bob misses the point that in the latter case Stewart was not mocking these beliefs (which *would* have required some form of analysis), only the fact that the Republicans’ own actions contradict their own beliefs.
Where Daniel goes wrong, in my opinion, is in stating or implying that the superficial, jokey kind of analysis that Stewart gave of the trillion dollar coin plan is somehow unusual for Stewart, that when Stewart does criticize an idea / policy proposal (and so not somebody’s hypocrisy or whatever), his analyses typically *are* more detailed or serious or well-thought out than his analysis of the trillion dollar coin proposal was.
I can’t think of an example right now, but I would bet quite a bit of money that in the Daily Show’s archives of just the past year one can find at least a dozen of such examples where Stewart criticizes an idea / policy proposal and does so through a funny but not well thought out analysis (so one that is similar to his trillion dollar coin analysis).
A very exhaustive comment - yes that is precisely my point.
DeleteI think you're wrong on where you think I'm wrong (i.e. - I maintain I'm right). He's usually pretty thoughtful when he puts actual positions (as opposed to jokes) out there. That's a big part of his appeal. How many times have you heard someone say that Stewart's analysis makes more sense than real TV pundits?
I've heard people say that (and have thought it myself) quite often, but that doesn't mean that he doesn't regularly do funny but superficial (and possibly baseless or misleading) analyses as well. How often exactly he does this (and how often he provide thoughtful analyses) is an open, empirical question. I'd bet at least $100 that he has provided the former kind of analyses at least a dozen times in the past year, but of course it would take a lot of work to find the relevant evidence for or against my position here.
Deletealso, Stewart’s criticism of the trillion dollar coin doesn’t seem that different from Daniel’s own criticism of it. Basically both criticisms come from a political economy kind of perspective, not from a purely technical economics one.
ReplyDeleteStewart is saying or can at least be sensibly be interpreted as saying that if the trillion dollar coin plan becomes reality, then what’s to stop politicians from going even further in the future and just creating coins worth 20 trillion dollars etc.
And Daniel’s criticism is that the trillion dollar coin plan is unprofessional and that going through with it undermines the relevant institutions:
“Kevin Drum puts it this way: “Fighting banana republic with more banana republic is far more dangerous than coin supporters think. It’s one thing for Republicans to go crazy. It’s another for craziness to essentially become institutionalized. When liberals stop fighting this kind of stuff, we really are on our way to banana republic-hood.”
Exactly”
These two kinds of criticism aren’t that different from each other, and so I’m also not sure I understand why Daniel criticizes Stewart’s criticism.
Right. I think the criticism of the coin is good. I think the assessment of the debt situation is bad. And I am guessing that is genuinely his assessment of the debt situation.
DeleteAs I pointed out on Bob's post, Bill Maher is an example of a guy that (at least on occasion) has demonstrated a much more sophisticated understanding of the debt issues we face, and of the relevance of macro-stabilization to the question of debt burdens, and of the difference between short and long term debt problems.
There are a lot of liberals out there that just like to assert that they are fiscally responsible and cite Clinton's surpluses if they are ever challenged on it. There's a place for talking about the relationship between debt, ideology, and the specific illustration of the Clinton administration. That does overthrow a lot of stupid conservative and libertarian talking points. But a lot of liberals don't go much farther than that. They just keep that formula in their back pocket to whip out any time their reasonableness is challenged.
A non-economist liberal that will make the long term/short term/business cycle distinctions is a whole lot rarer.
I did not know that about Maher. I am somewhat suspicious though, in the sense that he may have some talking points that are more detailed, seemingly more sensible than those of other comedians or even of non-economist liberals, but I don't know how deep his actual knowledge of these issues goes, whether there truly is much of anything underneath these talking points. Also, the familiar phrase of "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing" comes to mind.
DeleteHaving said that, I know way too little about what Maher does or doesn't know (hell, I know way too little about the whole debt issue myself).
Bonobos to the left of me, clowns to the right, here I am ...
ReplyDeleteFor me the best part was Krugman saying that Stewart was "ruining" his own brand, and then Stewart saying, "I'm pretty sure that is my brand." ;)
ReplyDeleteOK Daniel, I've parsed it down that you had 0 problem with anything Stewart said in his bit, *except* the way he initially framed the discussion--right? So, if you care to continue this argument, I would invite you to go back to the original platinum coin bit, count up how many words Stewart used in his intro (framing it as the vexing national debt crisis or whatever), and then--using the same number of words--you give an alternate intro that would have made you love Stewart and say Krugman was totally wrong for objecting. (Or, which you predict would have made Krugman say, "This is hilarious! Well done Jon!")
ReplyDeleteI tell ya what - give me the word limit and I'll do that.
DeleteI didn't transcribe it, but I'd say it was about 50 words. He said something like this:
Delete"Hey everybody you may be aware, America has a bit of a cashflow problem. With a $16 trillion debt, and the recent downgrade, it's time to show the world we're serious and restore the soundness of our currency."
But I think I am missing a sentence.
OK:
Delete"Hey everybody you may be aware, America has a bit of an unemployment problem. And even though nobody trusts Congress these days, people still consider the government such a safe bet they're actually paying them to borrow money. But people from the right to the left still seem convinced its fiscal doomsday and insist that we don't get paid to take other peoples' money. So to get around Congress..."
I think that adds another sentence or so that you thought you missed. I made it casual/understandable - Stewart's writers and his facial expressions can make it funny. Now I've just got to get this to him somehow...
I really don't think it's a big deal, but Krugman's definitely right that it's sad we don't have many people out there saying stuff like this. Right, left, and center - the lamestream media (<-- like that??) is convinced that deficits are a huge problem. They don't see it as a counter-cyclical problem (deficits will always go up in recessions), they don't differentiate between short-run and long-run, and they don't see it as something that helps the jobs problem. Krugman is right that it would be nice if public figures actually acknowledged this rather than just making the standard talking points.
something along the lines of:
DeleteDemocrats and Republicans voted for x amount of spending, but now Republicans refuse to actually make available the funds to do so (through increasing the debt ceiling).
[insert joke about Republican hypocrisy / stupidity]
This may cause instability and do a lot of unnecessary damage to the economy. Now some economists and other experts suggest to solve this problem by the president creating a trillion dollar coin that can be stored at the Federal Reserve so that the government gets the necessary funds without having to borrow more, thereby avoiding the unnecessary crisis.
[insert joke about the ramifications of actually carrying out the platinum coin plan]
---
I guess one problem is that Stewart's jokes about the trillion dollar coin flow less naturally from an introduction like that (and here Krugman has the right intuition, namely that Stewart's analysis and his joke are very much a package deal (although strictly speaking, they are logically and even economictheoretically and politicaleconomically independent of each other), while Daniel did not appreciate the analysis but did appreciate the joke. And Stewart *might* be able to pull off doing such an analysis but still making the trillion dollar coin joke without its feeling strained/odd).
Another problem is that the introduction / analysis is itself hardly an unbiased one.
whoops, I missed that you had both already offered suggestions
DeleteThis is good too - and probably more amenable to a lot of his audience. But that's sort of the whole problem - the audience, the public are on board with the idea that Republicans are a sorry lot. Great. They are also aware that politicians in general are a sorry lot. Great. That's a good stand-by for a joke.
DeleteBut the real story here is that there is no short-term debt problem, there's a short-term jobs problem - and Stewart's intro conceded the most important point.
Now - he's a comedian. It's not his job to make that point. But Krugman is right that this could have been a lot harder hitting and better on the analysis.
Daniel wrote: "I made it casual/understandable - Stewart's writers and his facial expressions can make it funny. "
DeleteThat's not how comedy works!
And what is my overreaction? That I linked to it and said I loved Jon Stewart?
ReplyDeleteIs nobody reading my bracketed thing?
DeleteNobody is overreacting. Daniel <3's Paul, Jon, and Bob. He is not getting into their disagreements on this case. He wants to highlight what he thinks Paul has a point on, what Jon is right to ridicule, and a post of Bob's that people should go to to see the video and enjoy a lively discussion.
DK wrote:
DeleteIs nobody reading my bracketed thing?
But but but your whole post was premised on the fact that we all overreacted! Usually your blog is so informed when it mocks me! You're ruining your brand.
:)
DeleteI thought uninformed posts WERE my brand!
I honestly just wanted to link to your post... but the long he-said-she-said chain was too tempting.
DeleteHey - while I got you online, what was the date and venue of your multiple rates paper? Like if I'm citing it. I can't find it in your CV. I do see it listed as a working paper - was that ever accepted at History of Economic Ideas?
DeleteNo I don't think that was formally published anywhere. The most official citation I guess would be to the paper I presented at the Liberty Fund deal; the multiple rates stuff was in there. So here's the link to that paper, and I presented it September 2010 I'm pretty sure.
DeleteYep - that's the paper I've been working from. OK - nothing special, just "presented at 2010 Liberty Fund Conference"?
Delete