“ unbundle journalism/reporting from analysis/op-eds”
Yes! The vast majority of people don’t even know the difference. As an amusing example, the NYTimes ran an op-ed by a guy who doesn’t believe in air conditioning. Most people think he’s speaking for the Times.
Though I'm willing to hear Noah's arguments it feels like a death knell for news because nobody is willing to pay for news but lots and lots of people are willing to pay for op-eds.
I'd guess there is a fair amount of cross subsidisation going on that is net positive for society.
Great chat, thank you both! I also appreciate this accurate summary, Noah. Please plan on doing this regularly (once a month, at least?) and a bit more focused on an issue or two?
I don't see the US trade deficit as all that big a mystery: floating exchange rates ensure that the balance of payments is, well, continually balanced. So when the rest-of-the-world wants to park a lot of wealth in US Treasury bonds (as the safest way to store it), that forces the US balance of trade to be negative. I think that it's just that simple. What am I missing?
Loved it! Please do this every month. Great to see Noah drop an innocuous line like “lots of ruin in America” which elicited a big smile from Paul who kmmediately recognized it as adam smith. anyway, this is a winning format so more please.
What drives the current account deficit in the UK then? If I am not mistaken, Krugman attributes the CA deficit in the US due to hits strong (productivity) growth making it an attractive target for foreign investors. But this seems harder to argue for the fairly stagnant UK economy. Is it down to the British financial sector sucking in captal from abroad? If yes, what are the mechanics in play?
Unbundling reporting from analysis / opinion in the media is a very interesting idea. Anything that reduces bias confirmation (i.e. 'facts' being driven by opinion) is to be welcomed. The problem may be that bundling often works from a commercial and marketing point of view - inclusivity of content reduces costs and maximises sales so if A doesn't appeal, there's B, if B doesn't appeal there's C . . . etc.
In the past, I would have been completely against both subsidies and tariffs. You have changed my mind on that, and/or times have changed. Now because of, as you say, strategic/military/geopolitical concerns, I think subsidies and/or tariffs might be important with regard to China and its allies. However, there's one huge difference. Subsidies, unless they are somehow performance-based, involve picking winners. Tariffs address overly-cheap or otherwise unfairly competitive things that already exist and can be easily and correctly targeted.
“ unbundle journalism/reporting from analysis/op-eds”
Yes! The vast majority of people don’t even know the difference. As an amusing example, the NYTimes ran an op-ed by a guy who doesn’t believe in air conditioning. Most people think he’s speaking for the Times.
Though I'm willing to hear Noah's arguments it feels like a death knell for news because nobody is willing to pay for news but lots and lots of people are willing to pay for op-eds.
I'd guess there is a fair amount of cross subsidisation going on that is net positive for society.
Great chat, thank you both! I also appreciate this accurate summary, Noah. Please plan on doing this regularly (once a month, at least?) and a bit more focused on an issue or two?
This was fantastic. It should be regular.
>Paul isn’t quite sure why we seem to have structurally unbalanced trade
This isn't what I heard - at 41:29 he makes it clear he believes the trade balance is due to America being such an attractive place to invest.
VT vs VTI
I don't see the US trade deficit as all that big a mystery: floating exchange rates ensure that the balance of payments is, well, continually balanced. So when the rest-of-the-world wants to park a lot of wealth in US Treasury bonds (as the safest way to store it), that forces the US balance of trade to be negative. I think that it's just that simple. What am I missing?
This was fantastic. I have to admit, I still find Michael Pettis persuasive and it would be great if you could interview him as well.
Super chat. A must do it again. We need your and Paul's counter voices against the Conservative Economists.
My take for you and Paul re Defense focused manufacturing as complimentary to service world:
"You can't toss hamburgers at missles."
Rubio may not be an alcoholic or a sex fiend. But he did struggle with his personal finances: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/10/us/politics/marco-rubio-finances-debt-loans-credit.html?smid=url-share
Loved it! Please do this every month. Great to see Noah drop an innocuous line like “lots of ruin in America” which elicited a big smile from Paul who kmmediately recognized it as adam smith. anyway, this is a winning format so more please.
This chat was great. Hope the two of you can do it monthly.
What drives the current account deficit in the UK then? If I am not mistaken, Krugman attributes the CA deficit in the US due to hits strong (productivity) growth making it an attractive target for foreign investors. But this seems harder to argue for the fairly stagnant UK economy. Is it down to the British financial sector sucking in captal from abroad? If yes, what are the mechanics in play?
Very interesting! Very useful summary too.
Unbundling reporting from analysis / opinion in the media is a very interesting idea. Anything that reduces bias confirmation (i.e. 'facts' being driven by opinion) is to be welcomed. The problem may be that bundling often works from a commercial and marketing point of view - inclusivity of content reduces costs and maximises sales so if A doesn't appeal, there's B, if B doesn't appeal there's C . . . etc.
Loved it. The amateurish video was part of the charm, so authentic
Thanks to both of you. I hope you do this again soon
922125 This was terrific. I listened twice. More please.
In the past, I would have been completely against both subsidies and tariffs. You have changed my mind on that, and/or times have changed. Now because of, as you say, strategic/military/geopolitical concerns, I think subsidies and/or tariffs might be important with regard to China and its allies. However, there's one huge difference. Subsidies, unless they are somehow performance-based, involve picking winners. Tariffs address overly-cheap or otherwise unfairly competitive things that already exist and can be easily and correctly targeted.