Jon Stewart basically kills Jim Cramer

[Autumn]

That's a great writeup SportsDino. Creative destruction is hard to live through though. To my mind the weak spot in capitalism is that it doesn't necessarily work on and definitely doesn't care about human lifetimes. So, while it has forces that left to their own would rectify problems like this, it wouldn't necessarily do so in time for the human beings bearing the brunt of the change. That's only natural, but I think that's what encourages us human beings to constantly intervene. Not just out of oligarchal self-interest, but out of concern for each other. Nobody wants to hear that everything will settle out in 30 years when it's their retirement or their livelihood or their family on the line.

In other words, no easy answers.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by SportsDino

Thats why I called it mangled socialism, its socialism for the socialites! There is a real notion of entitlement and mutual backscratching in our nation's elite, they probably think it is the pinacle of capitalism, but anyone who has studied enough history can see it is the standard pooling of power at the top to keep alive one standard of living while assuming the great mass of people are some form of peasants. It starts to resemble fuedalism after a point if you ask me.

That's neither feudalism or socialism - it's good, old-fashioned oligarchy.

Let's not confuse things here. Socialism gets a bad rap because, historically, a number of regimes used a perversion of its economic model to obscure the fact that they were, in fact, concentrating wealth among the elites. If the "elites" you described above managed to keep up the fiction that the populace as a whole was sharing in the wealth I think you'd have a point, but given we're already operating in a "you can and should make it on your own" capitalist model, I think that's a stretch. It's just oligarchy - a concentration of wealth amongst society's elites without much regard for the well being of the rest of the populace.

It's also certainly not feudalism. The core of the feudal structure was the pledge of allegiance of the populace to military powers for their own well-being (personal and economic). Not to take away the fact that the serfs had a really rough life, but the idea of a contract there is pretty important to that model.

I do think, however, that a reversion to feudalism is one of the potential endgames for unfettered capitalism. As economic entities aggregate more and more wealth and power, the idea of the regular person accepting a contract trading their liberty and work for economic stability becomes, I think, more likely, especially if they live in a country/region/world where there's no other entity (i.e. a government) to provide (or provide well) basic services. For an example, see England in the Industrial Revolution. Whole families, even generations, pledges themselves to the "factory", giving up all their liberty (basically) for economic protection.

[flere-imsaho]

I wrote sometime in the past year in the Recession thread that it has been interesting to see the "emerging market" countries' response to playing in the world economic market. Instead of letting their home-grown companies/industries play unfettered in the market (and likely get taken to the cleaners by more experienced/resourced competitors), they've recognized the advantages gained by using their political power (negotiations on the world stage - playing competitor countries/multi-nationals against each other, better planning on the country level, intelligent incentives/supports at the country level, etc...) to give these home-grown companies/industries every advantage they can. It's my feeling that the countries that get this balance correct, and practice it the best, will be the world's economic powers by the end of the century. And no, that probably won't include the U.S.

[molson]

I finally got to watch the entire unedited version of this and I can't believed I missed the obvious irony and hypocrisy the first time around.

Kramer's trying tell Stewart that he just does an "entertainment show about business". Stewart's trying to tell him that he has greater responsibility than that, because of the influence of his show......

Yes, Stuart thinks the Daily Show is "just a comedy show", but thinks that Mad Money has a duty and responsibility to inform Americans, and make accurate predictions about the banking situation.

Is the difference that Mad Money directly impacts individuals' financial decisions? What if the Daily Show directly impacts voting decisions through misleading or false information?

[JPhillips]

But CNBC and Cramer make it clear that he is going to give good advice on financial decisions and that advice is the reason to listen to him and not others. It's not marketed as entertainment as much as information.

Your comparison would only work if Comedy Central and Stewart repeatedly told viewers that Stewart was the one to trust about political decisions and was going to give you better advice than anyone else. AT no point would Comedy Central run a serious ad saying "In Stewart We Trust."

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by molson

I finally got to watch the entire unedited version of this and I can't believed I missed the obvious irony and hypocrisy the first time around.

Kramer's trying tell Stewart that he just does an "entertainment show about business". Stewart's trying to tell him that he has greater responsibility than that, because of the influence of his show......

Yes, Stuart thinks the Daily Show is "just a comedy show", but thinks that Mad Money has a duty and responsibility to inform Americans, and make accurate predictions about the banking situation.

Is the difference that Mad Money directly impacts individuals' financial decisions? What if the Daily Show directly impacts voting decisions through misleading or false information?

Originally Posted by Subby

You could have saved yourself a ton of time and just typed "I don't get it" and then exited the thread.

.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by molson

I finally got to watch the entire unedited version of this and I can't believed I missed the obvious irony and hypocrisy the first time around.

Kramer's trying tell Stewart that he just does an "entertainment show about business". Stewart's trying to tell him that he has greater responsibility than that, because of the influence of his show......

Yes, Stuart thinks the Daily Show is "just a comedy show", but thinks that Mad Money has a duty and responsibility to inform Americans, and make accurate predictions about the banking situation.

Is the difference that Mad Money directly impacts individuals' financial decisions? What if the Daily Show directly impacts voting decisions through misleading or false information?

You must have missed my post a page or two ago about ethical responsibilities of different types of shows. I'm not sure how since it's about a mile long. But, as Jon Stewart said (and i'm paraphrasing): "We're both snake oil salesmen but we label ours as snake oil here and there are problems with labeling it vitamin tonic"

But, as a couple of others have said- you're being intentionally obtuse. You've decided to be the MBBF of the thread...

SI

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

I finally got to watch the entire unedited version of this and I can't believed I missed the obvious irony and hypocrisy the first time around.

Kramer's trying tell Stewart that he just does an "entertainment show about business". Stewart's trying to tell him that he has greater responsibility than that, because of the influence of his show......

Yes, Stuart thinks the Daily Show is "just a comedy show", but thinks that Mad Money has a duty and responsibility to inform Americans, and make accurate predictions about the banking situation.

Is the difference that Mad Money directly impacts individuals' financial decisions? What if the Daily Show directly impacts voting decisions through misleading or false information?

Did you not see the first part where Stewart shows a CNBC ad for Cramer? "Who to trust in these times", the "In Cramer we Trust" slogan. I think his point was that they are both entertainment shows, but Cramer allows his show to be presented by CNBC as something that will make you money. It's just disengenuous.

[ISiddiqui]

What's Cramer to do about CNBC marketing? I mean Cramer picks stocks with ridiculous sound effects. Most people should realize its entertainment with a bit of information (really, how many people really can predict stocks).

[molson]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

You must have missed my post a page or two ago about ethical responsibilities of different types of shows. I'm not sure how since it's about a mile long. But, as Jon Stewart said (and i'm paraphrasing): "We're both snake oil salesmen but we label ours as snake oil here and there are problems with labeling it vitamin tonic"

But, as a couple of others have said- you're being intentionally obtuse. You've decided to be the MBBF of the thread...

SI

That was an interesting post a few pages back, sorry I missed it.

I think I'm disagreeing more than being obtuse, but that's generally the reaction to a minority opinion here.

And to me, the disagreement is about how shows are characterized into the "types" that you layed out very well. I feel that The Daily Show is in a different "type" of show than most people here. What Jon Stuart says the show is, is meaningless to me. It's how he acts, what the content of the actual show is, and how other people see it. I watch that Cramer interview and see a harder-hitting version of Bill O'Reilly. I realize that's not standard fare on that show, but it's moving gradually in that direction for a decade, and we'll consider to see more of it.

Young people get their news from this show. They post clips of the Daily Show in political threads to support their points. No matter what Jon Stuart tells them. I don't see how people here can compare the show to the Onion and then say that I don't get it. The Onion? The Onion does almost straight parody. Stuart does legitimate straight news commentary! He hands Bill O'Reilly a Teddy Bear in the middle of an otherwise serious interview, and that makes the whole segment "comedy". That's the purpose of the teddy bear - to provide a distinction from news commentary shows and keep them in the soft place they want to be. (And so in future interviews about his role in the media, he can say, "I handed the guy a Teddy Bear! It's obviously not a serious show!")

Stuart is certainly allowed to produce a news commentary show with a political bias. That's his right. I just find the way he plays down his relevance and then goes after CNBC and others (via serious interview, NOT parody) disingenuous. It feels like a scam to me. He's protected by critique by being on "Comedy Central", and by the nature of his lead-in shows, and he still gets to be revered as a "commentator" that gets to the bottom of serious issues. If there was a conservative version of this show, liberals would attack it, like they do Bill O'Reilly.

And the show itself is kind of the grand champion of the arroagant, liberal, smarminess that I blame for losing the elections in '00 and '04. But that's a whole other thread.

[jeff061]

Only hypocrisy I saw was Stewart playing a marathon of "Let's make Jim Cramer look like an ass" clips, then constantly telling Cramer it wasn't about him whenever he defended himself.

Other than that, yeahm there's a pretty big god damn difference between The Daily Show and Mad Money. "In Cramer We Trust!"

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

What's Cramer to do about CNBC marketing? I mean Cramer picks stocks with ridiculous sound effects. Most people should realize its entertainment with a bit of information (really, how many people really can predict stocks).

It would be a strange world if a niche network's biggest star had any influence over how his show was marketed.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

That was an interesting post a few pages back, sorry I missed it.

I think I'm disagreeing more than being obtuse, but that's generally the reaction to a minority opinion here.

And to me, the disagreement is about how shows are characterized into the "types" that you layed out very well. I feel that The Daily Show is in a different "type" of show than most people here. What Jon Stuart says the show is, is meaningless to me. It's how he acts, what the content of the actual show is, and how other people see it. I watch that Cramer interview and see a harder-hitting version of Bill O'Reilly. I realize that's not standard fare on that show, but it's moving gradually in that direction for a decade, and we'll consider to see more of it.

Young people get their news from this show. They post clips of the Daily Show in political threads to support their points. No matter what Jon Stuart tells them. I don't see how people here can compare the show to the Onion and then say that I don't get it. The Onion?

Stuart is certainly allowed to produce a news commentary show with a political bias. That's his right. I just find the way he plays down his relevance and then goes after CNBC and others (via serious interview, NOT parody) disingenuous. It feels like a scam to me. He's protected by critique by being on "Comedy Central", and by the nature of his lead-in shows, and he still gets to be revered as a "commentator" that gets to the bottom of serious issues. If there was a conservative version of this show, liberals would attack it, like they do Bill O'Reilly.

And the show itself is kind of the grand champion of the arroagant, liberal, smarminess that I blame for losing the elections in '00 and '04. But that's a whole other thread.

The serious interviews are extremely rare. He has maybe a couple a year.
And I don't see how he's protected by anything. People are free to bash his show and him personally. A lot of people do. The fact you keep comparing him to guys like O'Reilly makes me wonder if you've ever really seen his show before.

And young people don't get their news from the show. They get it from the internet. From blogs, news hubs, and social networking sites. No college kid is sitting around waiting for the Daily Show so that he can figure out what's going on in the world. He heads over to Drudge, CNN, or Digg to find it.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

What's Cramer to do about CNBC marketing? I mean Cramer picks stocks with ridiculous sound effects. Most people should realize its entertainment with a bit of information (really, how many people really can predict stocks).

His books are titled "Watch TV, Get Rich" and "Get Rich, Stay Rich". Does he not have power over that either? Cramer is CNBC's biggest name and I'm sure has a lot of creative control over how his show is marketed.

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The serious interviews are extremely rare. He has maybe a couple a year.
And I don't see how he's protected by anything. People are free to bash his show and him personally. A lot of people do. The fact you keep comparing him to guys like O'Reilly makes me wonder if you've ever really seen his show before.

And young people don't get their news from the show. They get it from the internet. From blogs, news hubs, and social networking sites. No college kid is sitting around waiting for the Daily Show so that he can figure out what's going on in the world. He heads over to Drudge, CNN, or Digg to find it.

True, anybody is free to bash him, which is really all my points come down to anyway, just thinking he's slimey and a con-man.

And I would disagree about your second paragraph - I think there's a huge segment of young people who don't seek out news AT ALL unless its disguised at entertainment. (the people that vaguely realize that George W. Bush is "stupid", but couldn't actually tell you anything he's done except maybe declare war on Iraq "for oil"). Of course, these aren't the future leaders of our country or anything, it's just unfortunate.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Are they on your lawn too?

I'm sure there are willingly undereducated people in all walks of life, I'm not sure the young are any more than those who get all their news from Rush.

EDIT: Point being, I think those that "get their news" from the Daily Show are a very small subset, just like those who only "get their news" from Rush.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by molson

True, anybody is free to bash him, which is really all my points come down to anyway, just thinking he's slimey and a con-man.

And I would disagree about your second paragraph - I think there's a huge segment of young people who don't seek out news AT ALL unless its disguised at entertainment. (the people that vaguely realize that George W. Bush is "stupid", but couldn't actually tell you anything he's done except maybe declare war on Iraq "for oil"). Of course, these aren't the future leaders of our country or anything, it's just unfortunate.

I reckon that given the internet, the multiple 24 hours news channels, and all of that there are more "young people" aware of what's going on in the "news" today and more interested in it than there ever has been.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Are they on your lawn too?

[molson]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Are they on your lawn too?

I'm sure there are willingly undereducated people in all walks of life, I'm not sure the young are any more than those who get all their news from Rush.

You're making my point by comparing the Daily Show to Rush

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

His books are titled "Watch TV, Get Rich" and "Get Rich, Stay Rich". Does he not have power over that either? Cramer is CNBC's biggest name and I'm sure has a lot of creative control over how his show is marketed.

Uh... how does anyone read those book titles and not realize that they aren't serious journalism.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Originally Posted by molson

You're making my point by comparing the Daily Show to Rush

No, you're ignoring my point about where young people get their news. Rush is entertainment masquerading as news. Despite your protests, I have yet to be convinced that The Daily Show is masquerading as anything. The show very rarely takes itself seriously.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

I reckon that given the internet, the multiple 24 hours news channels, and all of that there are more "young people" aware of what's going on in the "news" today and more interested in it than there ever has been.

That's true, but we still perform pretty horribly as a country on those "news/word knowledge" quizes....

[Neon_Chaos]

Remember when Jon Stewart destroyed Crossfire and essentially shoved them off the air with his appearance?

[molson]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

The show very rarely takes itself seriously.

That's what they claim, but I don't believe it, and the content of the show doesn't support it. Did you watch the Cramer interivew? You don't think Stuart is taking himself seriously? He wants a noble prize.

And besides that, OTHER people clearly take it seriously. Look at this thread (even before I entered it). Stuart "killing" Cremer is newsworthy. I know that you don't consider how other people look at the show as relevant to the equation, that it's all about (claimed) self-identification, but I disagree. How other people view the show is relevant to the impact.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Neon_Chaos

Remember when Jon Stewart destroyed Crossfire and essentially shoved them off the air with his appearance?

That's a pretty amazing feat for a comedian who follows puppets making prank calls.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

True, anybody is free to bash him, which is really all my points come down to anyway, just thinking he's slimey and a con-man.

And I would disagree about your second paragraph - I think there's a huge segment of young people who don't seek out news AT ALL unless its disguised at entertainment. (the people that vaguely realize that George W. Bush is "stupid", but couldn't actually tell you anything he's done except maybe declare war on Iraq "for oil"). Of course, these aren't the future leaders of our country or anything, it's just unfortunate.

You don't like him because he makes fun of your team. If he was making fun of Democrats, you'd love the guy. You're just caught up in the "anyone who says something bad about my team is a dirty liberal hippie con-man". God forbid someone make fun of those morons without being labeled as part of some political movement.

The Bush dislike went well beyond some silly war slogans. Most people turned on him when they realized the war was a huge mistake and Iraq was no threat. It got compounded by blunders with Katrina, economy, the DOJ, and other political scandals. I really think Katrina was what sent most people over the edge in this country. It was sad watching a major city in our country turn into a 3rd world city overnight because of sheer incompetence.

People didn't get that from the Daily Show. They got that from blogs and picture accounts showing the devestation. YouTube videos that showed what was going on. And most importantly the 24 hour news networks that were constantly streaming live from New Orleans. Jon Stewart has an audience of just over a million viewers every night. That's relatively small in the grand scheme of things.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by molson

That's a pretty amazing feat for a comedian who follows puppets making prank calls.

Yep. He's a pretty amazing guy. I'm glad he's around.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

That's what they claim, but I don't believe it, and the content of the show doesn't support it. Did you watch the Cramer interivew? You don't think Stuart is taking himself seriously? He wants a noble prize.

And besides that, OTHER people clearly take it seriously. Look at this thread (even before I entered it). Stuart "killing" Cremer is newsworthy. I know that you don't consider how other people look at the show as relevant to the equation, that it's all about (claimed) self-identification, but I disagree. How other people view the show is relevant to the impact.

It's also newsworthy when Letterman gets serious with a guest. I'd hardly call the Late Show "news".

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Originally Posted by molson

That's what they claim, but I don't believe it, and the content of the show doesn't support it. Did you watch the Cramer interivew? You don't think Stuart is taking himself seriously? He wants a noble prize.

Personally, outside of the Carlson and Cramer imbroglios which penetrated the MSM, I really can't think of times when Stewart wasn't out for a laugh.

I get the feeling you really haven't watched the show very much, making your soapboxing a little odd.

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

You don't like him because he makes fun of your team. If he was making fun of Democrats, you'd love the guy. You're just caught up in the "anyone who says something bad about my team is a dirty liberal hippie con-man". God forbid someone make fun of those morons without being labeled as part of some political movement.

The Bush dislike went well beyond some silly war slogans. Most people turned on him when they realized the war was a huge mistake and Iraq was no threat. It got compounded by blunders with Katrina, economy, the DOJ, and other political scandals. I really think Katrina was what sent most people over the edge in this country. It was sad watching a major city in our country turn into a 3rd world city overnight because of sheer incompetence.

People didn't get that from the Daily Show. They got that from blogs and picture accounts showing the devestation. YouTube videos that showed what was going on. And most importantly the 24 hour news networks that were constantly streaming live from New Orleans. Jon Stewart has an audience of just over a million viewers every night. That's relatively small in the grand scheme of things.

You misunderstood what I said entirely, I wish the world could have been saved from Bush's incompetence also. Unfortunately, the only people who could have done that was Democrats, and they weren't up to it.

There's certainly many reasons to turn against Bush, you've named just some of them.

I look at things the oppositte - you like the Daily Show strictly because he's on your team. If there was a conservative news commentary show that called itself "entertainment" and had a rabid following of people with like-minded political views who constantly quoted the show in political discussions, mocked any different perspective, you'd be annoyed by it.

In my small anecdotal experiences - the Daily Show is a HUGE influence on political views, and the way people make points.

I really want the liberals to win (and ultamitely, the liberals always do win, because we're always moving forward). I just don't want to do it with robots and arrogance and lies and circle-jerks and outright dismissal and mocking of others' opinions. The Daily Show Shenianigans are about all of those things. THOSE liberals LOSE TO GEORGE W. BUSH!! I don't think people have grasped that. Democrats of course blame American voters and Republicans for those loses, but they have only themselves to blame.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

You misunderstood what I said entirely, I wish the world could have been saved from Bush's incompetence also. Unfortunately, the only people who could have done that was Democrats, and they weren't up to it.

All the Democrats fault. God forbid a Republican vote against the dumbest fucking war we've ever fought.

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

All the Democrats fault. God forbid a Republican vote against the dumbest fucking war we've ever fought.

Exactly - the Democrats' priority is self-rightousness first, winning elections second.

If they win - it's a great day in America!
If they lose - Americans are idiots!

Obama is a brilliant guy, who ran a nearly flawless campaign, and he still needed the comical disaster of an Alaskan hockey mom to win an election against a man from the party who got George W. Bush elected twice.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by molson

I look at things the oppositte - you like the Daily Show strictly because he's on your team. If there was a conservative news commentary show that called itself "entertainment" and had a rabid following of people with like-minded political views who constantly quoted the show in political discussions, mocked any different perspective, you'd be annoyed by it.

Thanks for the insight! I had no idea why I liked "The Daily Show", but now I know!

As for a "conservative news commentary show that called itself 'entertainment'", you're right, I am deeply annoyed by Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and the rest of those douchebags and their legions of little myrmidons. So, you've got me there!

Also, remember, there are a LOT more people who takes their ques from these shows than "The Daily Show". A LOT more. It's not even close.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by molson

Obama is a brilliant guy, who ran a nearly flawless campaign, and he still needed the comical disaster of an Alaskan hockey mom to win an election against a man from the party who got George W. Bush elected twice.

I think that's more a comment on the sad state of affairs in our country than any indictment of liberals. Don't you think?

[Big Fo]

In addition to taking Begala and Carlson's scalps above I love this Daily Show interview with Chris Matthews: here

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Originally Posted by molson

I look at things the oppositte - you like the Daily Show strictly because he's on your team. If there was a conservative news commentary show that called itself "entertainment" and had a rabid following of people with like-minded political views who constantly quoted the show in political discussions, mocked any different perspective, you'd be annoyed by it.

I like the Daily Show (and felt a lot like you until I actually, you know, started to watch it) and Obama was the first D for President I've ever voted for. *shurg*

[molson]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

I think that's more a comment on the sad state of affairs in our country than any indictment of liberals. Don't you think?

Who knows, but it's tough to win national elections when you look down on half of the electorate and tell them how stupid they are. They don't like that. The Republicans have been better, historically, at bringing in the other side, making them feel they belong and are wanted - usually under a message of patriotism (a message which Bush of course abused, and perhaps even permantly destroyed as a tactic...it's a shame now that when people hear "patrotism", they think of Bush trying to get away with stuff).

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by molson

Exactly - the Democrats' priority is self-rightousness first, winning elections second.

If they win - it's a great day in America!
If they lose - Americans are idiots!

Obama is a brilliant guy, who ran a nearly flawless campaign, and he still needed the comical disaster of an Alaskan hockey mom to win an election against a man from the party who got George W. Bush elected twice.

I'm going to take two points and disagree but carry on with the rest of the conversation. I also want to give you credit because the MBBF comment was a little harsh. At least you're stepping up to debate different points, not just parroting the same thing over and over (tho you have repeated yourself quite a few times). I disagree with a lot of what you've posted but at least you're making a couple of different coherent arguments

1) Obama's campaign was nothing near flawless. Seriously, Rev Wright took up how much time?

2) Yeah, Palin started to turn the tide in the election, first up towards the GOP and then back down once she started fumbling. But the bottom falling out of the economy got the Dems elected. Period. End of story. A lot less people care about gay marriage or abortion or even the slim chance of a terrorist attack or silly wars when you can't put a roof over your head or food on your plate as that hits so much closer to home.

SI

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by molson

That's what they claim, but I don't believe it, and the content of the show doesn't support it. Did you watch the Cramer interivew? You don't think Stuart is taking himself seriously? He wants a noble prize.

And besides that, OTHER people clearly take it seriously. Look at this thread (even before I entered it). Stuart "killing" Cremer is newsworthy. I know that you don't consider how other people look at the show as relevant to the equation, that it's all about (claimed) self-identification, but I disagree. How other people view the show is relevant to the impact.

To this I would merely say: Look at the other threads here. Just because we discuss it for page after page, that doesn't mean it is newsworthy.

[SportsDino]

I think a book called the 'Road to Serfdom' makes a pretty good case for why socialism inevitably tends towards elites corrupting it in self interest. I think it ultimately leads to an oppressive elitist regime as well, since those are the tools that most closely fit the needs of the rulers.

Capitalism is nice in that its mechanisms support freedom and individual success, in fact it works best in cases with both, but is not so nice in that it has no guarantees of social kindness either. I personally am for a sub-branch of economics called by varying terms, but generally social capital, where you value things that are traditionally not quantified by a pure 'goods in, goods out' model of economics. I think ultimately that will be the missing factor in the equations, that there is an inherit value in goodwill towards one another and stability of the social system... so some portion of income should be invested there as well as in traditional goods production.

Simplest example is food welfare for women and children. Bunch of freeloading slackmonkeys who need to get a job!!! Drain on society!!! Food stamp trading for crack money junkie jerks!!!

Well having had my share of crappy welfare cheese (no more disgusting a foodstuff do I think possible), in a family that jumped from poverty to struggling middle class back and forth during the 'good years'... my perspective is a bit different. You invest to what is essentially charity in order to either stabilize the rabble, smooth out hardships, or preserve potential growth opportunities or social standards. The harsh economies of the third world would chew up people like me, on the other hand a slightly sappier country like the USA picks up an unlikely money machine (at least I hope to create jobs and cool products in my lifetime).

So I disagree that being capitalist is being anti-social spending, and that socialism is the best system for raising average standard of living. Although it does seem to be the common mold, so I guess it is true until we truly understand more about economics.

I liken it to fuedalism, which is not so much the populace pledged to militaries, rather the people were property tied to the land (serfs). Kings mostly dealt with a class of nobility that provided military power (knights and levies of commoner troops). The people really had no say or use, they played along because it offered a certain measure of security and certainty, in exchange for pretty bleak prospects of advancement.

To me this is similar to how many corporations are becoming structured. CEOs need only assemble the pledges of a few compliant board members and executives that wield the modern military power of the day (lots of money and influence). They view workers as essentially commodities, there to suck up debt and goods, provide cheap labor, but they again do not really look for the masses to have any real input to decision making, we see this with increasing distasteful politicians and non-voting of public shares in companies.

Favor trading seems to have a lot more sway than democracy or even money really, so I'm reminded of fuedal lords pledging loyalty to a king (i.e. boards handing over their oversight powers to the executives and loading them with sweetheart deals in exchange for reciprocal behavior at their company). It is an oligarchy more accurately in that it involves co-rule of a class, rather than a top down pyramid... but I like to think of little barons of industry charging around on a horse and making great shows of their greatness and bravery, and spending like they were pampered kings while their companies rot from the exploitation. Also within some companies it seems you have a whole collection of sycophants and such like an old medieval court.

People are fearful, so the natural tendency would be to give in and become a serf, any job better than no job sort of thinking... but the net result is a decline in standard of living for everyone, especially the mega-rich because they would enjoy prosperity and technology and increases in wealth if they were not so concerned with iron grips on what they have (or playing zero sum games against each other or the populace). I think it is very easy to forget that you can get wealthier by a shrinking share of a faster growing pie, as well as a growing share of a stagnant or declining pie.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by molson

Who knows, but it's tough to win national elections when you look down on half of the electorate and tell them how stupid they are. They don't like that. The Republicans have been better, historically, at bringing in the other side, making them feel they belong and are wanted - usually under a message of patriotism (a message which Bush of course abused, and perhaps even permantly destroyed as a tactic...it's a shame now that when people hear "patrotism", they think of Bush trying to get away with stuff).

Your remembrance of history is a bit off. If you start with 1980 you may have a point, although Congressional and state level elections would tell a different story. If you start at 1992 it looks very different at the Presidential level.

What I think this really boils down to is that the Republicans have a better history of attracting you. That's fine, but it isn't indicative of national trends. Generally more people self-identify as Democrats and vote that way a majority of the time. That gap evened up during Bush, but by the last election there was a significant Dem advantage.

Even if you only look at Presidential candidates from 1980, I think it's wrong to assume the problem is an indictment of the entire party. The sample size is so small that the problem is much more likely to be about the individual presidential candidates as opposed to the party.

Finally, Obama didn't barely win. He got a significantly higher percentage of the vote than did Kennedy in 1960, Nixon in 1968, Carter in 1976, Reagan in 1980, Clinton in 1992, and Bush in 2000. By any historical measure he did quite well for a first term non-incumbent party candidate.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

I look at things the oppositte - you like the Daily Show strictly because he's on your team. If there was a conservative news commentary show that called itself "entertainment" and had a rabid following of people with like-minded political views who constantly quoted the show in political discussions, mocked any different perspective, you'd be annoyed by it.

I don't have a team. I don't vote for one party and I don't have a side that I feel I must defend blindly. I watch the Daily Show on occasion because I think it's funny. I don't care if he makes fun of Democrats or Republicans. He usually isn't attacking political views either, he attacks hypocrisy. If there was a conservative news commentary that was funny and entertaining, I'd watch it.

Originally Posted by molson

In my small anecdotal experiences - the Daily Show is a HUGE influence on political views, and the way people make points.

He gets just over a million viewers a night. That's hardly a huge audience to influence.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Big Fo

In addition to taking Begala and Carlson's scalps above I love this Daily Show interview with Chris Matthews: here

That couldn't have happened. Stewart is a liberal I thought who just bashes conservatives?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I'm going to take two points and disagree but carry on with the rest of the conversation. I also want to give you credit because the MBBF comment was a little harsh. At least you're stepping up to debate different points, not just parroting the same thing over and over (tho you have repeated yourself quite a few times). I disagree with a lot of what you've posted but at least you're making a couple of different coherent arguments

1) Obama's campaign was nothing near flawless. Seriously, Rev Wright took up how much time?

2) Yeah, Palin started to turn the tide in the election, first up towards the GOP and then back down once she started fumbling. But the bottom falling out of the economy got the Dems elected. Period. End of story. A lot less people care about gay marriage or abortion or even the slim chance of a terrorist attack or silly wars when you can't put a roof over your head or food on your plate as that hits so much closer to home.

SI

I agree with the last part. The minute the economy plunged Obama took the lead in the polls. I think Palin hurt him, but it wasn't as big as some want to think. It was a matter of seeing our economy collapsing and McCain and Palin discussing the fact Obama had dinner with Bill Ayers that got people.

The funny thing is that I bet if McCain came out and opposed those bailouts and TARP, he'd have a shot at being President. People were really pissed off with that and I think he could have swayed a lot of votes by coming out and saying "we aren't giving these losers a dime of your money".

[remper]

Originally Posted by molson

I look at things the oppositte - you like the Daily Show strictly because he's on your team. If there was a conservative news commentary show that called itself "entertainment" and had a rabid following of people with like-minded political views who constantly quoted the show in political discussions, mocked any different perspective, you'd be annoyed by it.

I'd be annoyed because it wouldn't be funny. Ultimately, that's why the Daily Show remains popular. Because it's funny. You really think that if the show truly became the Jon Stewart soapbox you claim it is, people would watch? Rule number one for an entertainment show is... you know, be entertaining.

You would hope that people weren't tuning in to the Cramer show to be entertained. I'd rather think that the guy I might listen to about financial matters would be more interested in giving sound advice.

But what I got out of the interview like others have stated already is that news reporting, whether it be financial or otherwise, is abysmal in this country right now.

[ISiddiqui]

And then one wonders about the attacks on Rush Limbaugh . Limbaugh is popular because... wait for it... his listeners consider him funny. I think few people on the left really understand that the appeal of Limbaugh is his humor and entertainment value. That's why he's the most listened to radio program in the country for almost a couple decades now.

I believe Limbaugh's radio audience is larger than the Daily Show's viewing audience as well.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

And then one wonders about the attacks on Rush Limbaugh . Limbaugh is popular because... wait for it... his listeners consider him funny. I think few people on the left really understand that the appeal of Limbaugh is his humor and entertainment value. That's why he's the most listened to radio program in the country for almost a couple decades now.

I believe Limbaugh's radio audience is larger than the Daily Show's viewing audience as well.

Originally Posted by wiki

As of 2006^[update], Arbitron ratings indicated that The Rush Limbaugh Show had a minimum weekly audience of 13.5 million listeners, making it the largest radio talk show audience in the United States.

...

By September 2008, the show averaged nearly 2 million viewers per night. (The Daily Show)

So, yeah, about 7x as much

SI

[sabotai]

Is weekly audience a daily average or the sum of all 5 days?

[Big Fo]

All five days.

[sterlingice]

Oh, my bad. That makes them fairly similar then. I just thought that meant the number of people who watched all 5 shows. JIMGA would know

SI