History News Network puts current events into historical perspective. Subscribe to our newsletter for new perspectives on the ways history continues to resonate in the present. Explore our archive of thousands of original op-eds and curated stories from around the web. Join us to learn more about the past, now.
Some Personnel Recommendations to the New York Times ...
by Cliopatria
Barbara Ehrenreich has been substituting for Thomas Friedman as a columnist for the New York Times and, based on her firsttwo columns, Slate's Chatterbox, Timothy Noah, recommends that she be made a regular there. Noah's best line:"If keeping Ehrenreich on the Times op-ed page requires the jettisoning of Maureen Dowd or Bob Herbert, Chatterbox is prepared to make that, ahem, sacrifice." And, while he's thinning the lineup of columnists, Noah would send Dowd and Nicholas Kristoff back to the Times news staff, where their talents really lie. And, while the Times is doing that, they can fire Judith Miller to make some room on the news staff.
Thanks to Jacob Levy at The Volokh Conspiracy for calling attention to Timothy Noah's recommendations at Chatterbox.
Update: Ogged at Unfogged agrees that Ehrenreich's first two columns have been excellent, but holds that New York Times columnists should rotate regularly rather than holding tenure.
Let's not feel sorry for the rich -- let's just be happy for the wealth redistribution opportunities that come with the pursuit, by the rich, of conspicuous consumption. I just read John Stossel's latest book, and he describes a trip to a lipstick factory that provides the same lipstick to a whole range of companies, some of whom then sell it as "their exclusive formula" -- Lancome sells theirs for $45, what you can pick up for a couple of bucks at your local drugstore. Thank God the rich are so stupid. I wonder what the world would be like if they couldn't be persuaded to part with their cash on such a silly basis.
chris l pettit -
7/8/2004
Ah...economics...I love this conversation...
While I to lean towards David in his way of addressing the issue, the books that you suggest Richard are very good writing by a couple of solid economists. My better half's father is a top economist from U of Michigan by the way, so I bet he would side with the UM orchestra out of spite. By the way...I would speculate that we need to include all indicators across the board...not just those that you or I mentioned Richard.
By the way...can we please get some Cuban cigars in the US? Other than Bolivian tobacco dipped in Amaretto (yum), I have not found anything better. Suggestions are always welcome!
Also...when am I supposed to feel sorry for the rich? Not sure that will happen anytime soon...maybe right before I feel sorry for those who take advantage of welfare systems designed to help those who actually need it. What is wrong with all these people?
CP
Richard Henry Morgan -
7/7/2004
I think you're right about conspicuous consumption -- that's why I've had a weak spot for political economists who fashion critiques of the neoclassical paradigm (Veblen, Linder, etc.). Conspicuous consumption aside, you (and I) may not be the best candidate for this particular test situation, but there are those who can distinguish between a Cohiba and a lesser cigar, etc. And for them, full enjoyment of each of overlapping consumptions (to the extent that they are not garnering value by conspicuous consumption) requires full concentration on each. Each must be, as philosophers say, the intentional object or the object of consciousness, to be fully appreciated and garner full value.
That is not to suggest that there isn't some additive function, just not a straightforwardly arithmetic one. At least that's the theory, and it seems well-grounded, from my experience (which involves things much less expensive than a Cohiba). For instance, how does a very rich person with multiple residences capture the full value of those residences, when he can occupy only one at a time? We tend to capture whatever gustatory value we think a glass of wine has by sipping it alone at the time, not accompanied with a single malt scotch, and not with a mouthful of food (though there might still be a lesser value to consuming it in those ways). There seem to be, for lack of a better expression, "metaphysical limits" to the full enjoyment of what is accounted as consumption -- limits of time, place, and consciousness. One might ask whether there are correlative limits to the display of consumption -- I haven't thought about that much.
I also recommend Tibor Scitovsky's The Joyless Economy. A real eye-opener.
David Lion Salmanson -
7/7/2004
Richard,
The notion of full value of consumption is interesting. But quite frankly, if I can't tell the difference between the Berlin and the University of Michigan orchestra, or a Cohiba vs. a domestic, or good brandy vs. plonck, why am I not getting full value if I do all the things at once. Particularly if I am consuming them as status symbols. The wine market here is an interesting indicator. Most knowledgeable wine folks will tell you that there is no correlation between the quality of a wine and its price. Yet people pay insane amounts for wines of mediocre quality rather than drink really good wines that are priced under $10 dollars. So are they getting their full value of consumption if they are paying $20 a bottle for California chardonnay that tastes like wood chips while eating Kobe beef on a sweltering summer day rather than a nice French rose from say Languedoc for $9 with a simple chicken salad? I suspect that the full value of these things for many of these people is not the experience itself but the bragging rights and therefore they are getting full value. Which explains all those folks who can afford to sit behind home plate but then spend the whole game on the cell phone calling their friends telling them "Turn on the TV and check me out behind home plate!" grr.
Richard Henry Morgan -
7/7/2004
I'd add John McEnroe for tennis and Johnny Miller for golf. We could take the maudlin types out and have them shot. Ehrenreich would be a nice addition, and my only disagreement with your otherwise mass firing is your retention of Herbert -- a decent guy, but a one-trick pony. I'm not surprised you would fire them all, Chris, because I don't think you're a liberal.
I think Krugman uses GDP because, well, it's an economic measurement, not a welfare measurement, not a net welfare measurement, not a justice measurement, and he's an economist. His weaknesses as an economist are precisely the weaknesses of economics in the mainstream, and the weaknesses of data streams -- the value of goods and services produced is simply easier to compute in real time, whereas better measures (better from a justice standpoint, or from a welfare standpoint) typically are hard to compute, and involve imputing values in a controversial manner.
BTW, you might want to read Staffan Linder's The Harried Leisure Class. He points out that consumption requires time, and the rich still only get 24 hours a day. The only way they can consume according to their income or wealth is to have overlapping consumption, which deprives them of the full value of the consumption -- like listening to Von Karajan conducting the Berlin Philharmonic doing Beethoven, while smoking a Cohiba, while drinking a really good brandy, while getting a massage -- justice just can't be done to each act of consumption, as they interfere with each other. The rich truly are harried, while the poor get the full value of their consumption. I'm not suggesting that we pity the rich, but ... In any case, by national accounting standards, the rich get the full value of their consumption, when in reality they don't. I'm sure you intended to include that in your new system of accounting, right Chris?
chris l pettit -
7/7/2004
Richard...your partisanship is just disgusting sometimes....however...
Krugman is your classic arrogant Clintonian economist...a piece of garbage to be discarded...but still better than anyone you can come up with that is a Bushite. THe fact that he even still utilizes GDP to make an economic argument instead of being more nuanced and using alternative factors such as the Genuine Progress Indicator and other social and environmental indicators is an indication of his weaknesses as an economist. Mark Weisbrot of the CEPR and Joseph Stiglitz are much better reads and economists. I could go for Krugman to be jettisoned...as long as we dump Kristof and Safire on their heads as well.
Dowd is almost comedic reading...somewhat like Molly Ivins...problem is that she tries to be too serious about it and actually thinks she is useful for something other than comedic relief.
I am actually a fan of Herbert...decent writer...human rights oriented...a little pre-occupied at times...but on the whole a hell of a lot better than Friedman who needs to be shown the door and smacked with it on the way out.
Ehrenreich would be a decent addition...I am still confused about what I think about TImothy Noah...for every decent article he does, there is another that is simply not rooted in historical, legal, or sociological reality.
By the way...did I just fire the entire NYT editorial staff? I think I did...hmmm...guess that "liberal" label doesn't fit so well, eh Richard?
Here's an idea...how about we list the economic, legal, historical, religious, and sports columnists for a "quality" paper? We could even be fair about it and list one candidate from each side of the spectrum, which would challenge you more partisan folks. Any takers?...and am I allowed to have Bill Walton as a guest commentator solely for the basketball season (the man is hilarious...the Bill Simmons "Unintentional Comedy Scale" has no rating for him I am certain).
Ehrenreich would be a welcome addition. I'd like to propose another Times columnist for the trash heap -- Paul "Enron" Krugman.
I just loved this little line from his column on Michael Moore's latest film: "...it has yet to be caught in any major factual errors ..." Except for the fact that his conspiracy theory of the Carlyle Group founders on the fact that, contrary to Moore's assertion, Bush wasn't on the Carlyle Group board when the Saudis hired a defense think-tank subsidiary, BMD, to do work for them. And except for the fact that UNOCAL was a backer of Clinton, who went soft on the Taliban as a result, and that the UNOCAL deal was dead when Bush came to power. And ... well, you get the idea. You can pack a lot of factual errors into Krugman's CYA term "major".
And now, this week, another classic: "What about overall growth? After two and a half years of slow growth, real G.D.P. [love those periods -- so NY Times] surged in the third quarter of 2003, growing at an annual rate of more than 8 percent. But this surge appears to be another blip. In the first quarter of 2004, growth was down to 3.9 percent, only slightly above the Clinton era average."
That's right, the dip in the growth, from an unsustaninable and unhealthy 8 percent, is down to a level still above the Clinton average -- I can see catastrophe coming!!
Now let's examine the Clinton record. He inherited an economy with two straight quarters of positive growth, coming out of a recession, and he handed off an economy that was tanking. And the low point of this boom is still above the Clinton average. I say fire Krugman, and just print Terry McAulliffe's talking points -- cut out the middle man, save yourself a bundle, and let Krugman go back to collecting money from corporations like Enron, which he now claims, in his defense, he never really did anything for -- that's a hell of a defense there, Paul.
Jonathan Dresner -
7/6/2004
As a Zmag reader, I've been reading her stuff for years: it's quite remarkable to read her in something as mainstream as the NYT. I'm not sure the Times is about to replace either Herbert or Dowd, but that doesn't mean Ehrenreich couldn't be the person who replaces anyone who goes on vacation.
