Riiight, that’s the problem with the media, too darn many conservatives! Mr. Baker uses his reporter acquaintances’ complaints as evidence for the need for external actors to counterweight the media’s distorted message—distorted due to undue conservative influence—but mightn’t it instead be evidence of the degree to which the complaining reporters are further to the left of the average person and/or their readership? If reporters think they’re being restrained from editors on the right, does that mean the reporters are correct and this trend must be fought, or does it mean that those reporters are even further to the left than the media as an institution, and that their center-left editors moderate the reporters’ relative extremism? Given the disparity in levels of self-identification of political liberalism between members of the media and the public at large, this seems a more plausible explanation than a powerful right-wing conspiracy of sleeper-agent editors.

Baker's assertion here that the conditions under which an insurance contract can be voided are "very very different" from other contract law provisions isn't true in a meaningful sense; misrepresentation, breach of warranty, and fraud in creating a contract can all be grounds for recission in non-insurance contracts. Insurance law recognizes the significant transaction-cost barrier (due to information asymmetricies between the parties) that would otherwise make insurance prohibitively expensive and is thus structured to encourage honest dealing--the law here reflects economic realities. The same is true for other types of contractual exchanges, however, and the fact that the law is designed to facilitate such transactions in other cases shows that this is not some unique characteristic of insurance law.

Excellent diavlog. Good to hear someone challenge the standard economic pap "Nafta good, four legs bad" we get in the MSM.

That was just awesome -- one of the best diavlogs ever. My head is spinning at the amount of new ideas and new ways of looking at things. Please, please, please, bring both of these guys back again. And again, and again, either together or paired with others. I'd love to hear Dean talk out some of his ideas with one of our libertarian regulars, for example -- his view of "letting the market decide" versus theirs, on matters like a national health care plan, funding research, and fixing copyright's problems. Aaron did a really nice job of staying out of the way. As an interviewer, he has a gentle hand on the tiller -- just enough to keep things on course for feeble minds like mine. But, remembering back to his first appearance, I want to hear a lot more from him on some of the new approaches discussed today. Again, just a fantastic diavlog. Major shoutout to both, and also, to Bob or whoever else booked them. This is BloggingHeads.tv at its best.

Quoting ohcomeon: 13...

You're right, ohc, and you're good to hold feet to the fire on this. Meanwhile, I hope you won't hold my fanboy rave about this particular diavlog against me.

No, I liked this one, too. I also really love Henry Farrell. I just wish BH didn't make it appear that there are no smart and interesting women.

Quoting Exeus99: Riiight, that’s the problem with the media, too darn many conservatives! [...] Given the disparity in levels of self-identification of political liberalism between members of the media and the public at large, this seems a more plausible explanation than a powerful right-wing conspiracy of sleeper-agent editors.

You make a good rebuttal, Exeus, if perhaps unfairly exaggerating Dean's argument at the end. I would say, however, that Dean is generally correct about this. I was raised by a career newspaperwoman, and I've read a fair number of reporter's and editor's autobiographies and a ton of media criticism. There is considerable evidence and reasoning to back up two points that are central to Dean's thesis. First, publishers, and the editors they hire to run their newspapers, tend to be quite conservative. By "conservative" I don't mean so much a stance on the latest hot-button issues, but more of a sense of wanting to preserve the status quo -- a desire to keep in power those who currently hold power, especially apart from the prominent political offices. They have an unwillingness to put up with a whole lot of guff from the rabble and a suspicion of anything too "radical." Along

Quoting ohcomeon: I just wish BH didn't make it appear that there are no smart and interesting women.

The comments section certainly puts the lie to that. Keep pushing. Make some more specific recommendations.

Excellent push back on this one, Exeus. I would only say that insurance companies do seem a little extreme in this, although what evidence I could offer is almost all anecdotal.

Hey, how did she get in here ;-) Keep up the pressure OHC. Hopefully we'll get a weeksload of Rosa, Jackie Shire, Heather Hurlburt, Megan, Garrance, etc. Incidentally some quality females from the right would be a nice change. The only ones I can think of was that older lady Bush apologist that Brendan hollered about, and that one that kept interrupting Mark Kleiman (neither of which I thought were particularly insightful.) There's got to be some out there. Happy Friday.

It seems bhTV has this policy of running topical news deonstructions with hacks and high-profile bloggers and a few features, like Free Will and the Bob and Mickey Show, to subsidize diavlogs like Aaron's and Dean's. I'll take UN Dispatch and other international stuff and surprises like this, and drop the push for a real "Bloggingheads". These loss leaders compensate for the horse race crap. But, I would like a schedule posted, so I can plan ahead. Sometimes I miss the pearls after days of crap. Concerning the candidates on health care, particularly Obama, I have this hypothesis that a "tail wags dog" situation is continuing in campaigns. I think both Obama and McCain have gut convictions, but the media, both MSM and alternatives, are developing strong currents of ideology and topicality. And, I think most laypeople view the race not as a bread and butter issue but as entertainment (or bad entertainment). I honestly tried to listen to Bill and Conn (as I do with all diavlogs with different degrees of success), but when Carroll says we can't affect how the race stays relevant until November, I wanted to stick needles in my voodoo doll. Campaigns aren't for the benefit of his career. Those people

I was impressed with Baker's "own to rent" proposal. To counteract the bad economics reporting of the WaPo, here's an excellent discussion of the current Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae crisis: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/busin...all_07-11.html

That GDP example blew my mind. It would be like a baseball reporter saying Barry Bonds hits 400 homers in a season. Unbelievable. Anyway, great diavlog. It's a lot better when you have two sane people talking than one sane person and one professional troll.

What a breath of fresh air. I'm sick to death of the left / right / libertarian professional partisanship BHTV arguments always side-stepping the rubber-meets-the-road realities of living a life in modern America. Left is dead, Right is dead, and, yes, Libertarian is dead, too. They're all soul-less and bereft of real answers. When BHTV allows that crap to be echoed and re-echoed in its DV's, it becomes complicit in the same media-entertainment distraction of the passive-drone electorate, forfeiting it's opportunity to participate in real change through educating the open minds who come here. Soooo nice when, as with this DV, we get sharp minds and fresh, creative ideas which point to a new direction transcendent of the same old horse-race BS we too-often see here. This made me go back and listen to the earlier Swartz appearance on "Free Will." These two were great. But there have to be many more who never receive the attention of great-potential venues like BHTV. Bob. Why can't we have more of this? Maybe ask both participants in this DV for three others with important and powerful ideas, and then start doing some more seriously imaginative idea-gardening in this barren media landscape? EW

Quoting bjkeefe: I'd love to hear Dean talk out some of his ideas with one of our libertarian regulars ...

For Megan McArdle's reaction to the Own-to-Rent plan you could see her post

hi5. I'm not sure you are being fair to the many diavologers (or is it diavloggers?) who have gone before. That said, this was very interesting. The only downside was an interrogator who was so keen to accept the views his prey. I think Will Wilkinson might have been a better foil here.

Quoting qwerty: For Megan McArdle's reaction to the Own-to-Rent plan you could see her post

Thanks for the link, qwerty. I hope it will not sound too ungrateful to continue by saying that the "Own-to-rent" plan wasn't one of Dean's ideas that grabbed me the most. It sounded plausible when Dean mentioned it, and Megan's post struck me as having some solid-sounding arguments against. My immediate impression is that it's probably neither a panacea or a horrible idea -- I suspect it would work well in some localities but not others, and I'd be interested in how many banks might investigate the approach voluntarily -- but I'm not up for a discussion of it. Just a matter of taste. What really vibrated my wonk-antennae were the items I listed previously and repeat here -- new ways of allocating funds for research, letting a national health care plan begin by proving its mettle in competition, and new approaches for balancing artists' concerns for their livelihood with copyright system abuses.

The part about copyright being just another government program and not a gift from God blew my mind. It got me thinking. Then it occurred to me the all that libertarian stuff -- removing regulation and relying on suing people for harm done -- still relies on coercion from the state. I'd rather just have the government regulate food safety than to have go to court all the time.

Quoting claymisher: The part about copyright being just another government program and not a gift from God blew my mind. It got me thinking.

Then it occurred to me the all that libertarian stuff -- removing regulation and relying on suing people for harm done -- still relies on coercion from the state. I'd rather just have the government regulate food safety than to have go to court all the time.

That's a good point, and it's one of the areas that can make me wonder how much committed libertarians spend thinking through the implementation details. Presumably, we'd want something other than house-to-house feuds, vigilantism, and as you point out, endless lawsuits. It does seem more efficient in some circumstances just to have one regulating authority, doesn't it?

Where are the trademark police ® when we need them?

Quoting Wonderment: Where are the trademark police ® when we need them?

Nice catch. Pretty funny bit, that seems to happen every time someone who gets to write in a newspaper writes about blogs: cluelessness revealed. Sides and Lawrence attempt to drop a few names at the start to show how plugged in they are. Unfortunately for them, Captain's Quarters is defunct, and has been for months. Ed Morrissey closed up his shop and took a job with Hot Air in February. D'oh! So, who listens to bloviating heads? I say.

Quoting bjkeefe: That's a good point, and it's one of the areas that can make me wonder how much committed libertarians spend thinking through the implementation details. Presumably, we'd want something other than house-to-house feuds, vigilantism, and as you point out, endless lawsuits. It does seem more efficient in some circumstances just to have one regulating authority, doesn't it?

That's a very intellectually lazy argument. A very brief skimming of the Cato Institute's archives would quickly confirm that "committed libertarians" spend a great deal of time and energy thinking about exactly such implementation details, and stacks and stacks of books have been published which demonstrate how such issues can be handled both more fairly and more efficiently than if we rely on the sort of regulating authorities which big-government liberals tend to hold up as the only alternative to gunfights-in-the-streets anarchy.

Quoting Tara Davis: That's a very intellectually lazy argument. A very brief skimming of the Cato Institute's archives ...would quickly confirm that "committed libertarians" spend a great deal of time and energy thinking about exactly such implementation details, and stacks and stacks of books have been published which demonstrate how such issues can be handled both more fairly and more efficiently than if we rely on the sort of regulating authorities which big-government liberals tend to hold up as the only alternative to gunfights-in-the-streets anarchy.

A fair bust, Tara. I apologize. I did indulge in a bit of stereotyping there. I will also say that Will, along with others who have appeared on BH.tv, have convinced me that there are, in fact, some deep-thinking libertarians. I plead vestiges of previous experience elsewhere in life, in which most libertarians to which I was exposed showed why one is correct to pronounce their sort with a leading hard G. However, speaking of unwarranted stereotyping, would you like to retract your closing phrase? Even just a little bit? There really aren't that many liberals left who believe in government without bound. Certainly I don't. Such a belief, in fact, seems to be more in fashion among Republicans

I just wanted to mention that the goverment sponsored software plan wouldn't be all that different from the way most software companies work now anyway. Microsoft, etc. hire programmers and all of their work is owned by the company. That's just the way the contracts work so it's not this would be some radical departure. Even some arts use this model - comics famously, hence the Siegelman issue and the creation of Image and there have been music acts which sign away the rights to their first efforts to get funding in the hopes of getting big and creating more profitable things later. I have wondered if the government would be better off making money off of their patents. What kind of revenue stream would that produce? Would that restrict innovation in any meaningful way?

I finally got around to this one last night and I must agree with most of the commentors that it was above-average. I think a Dean Baker/Dan Drezner pairing would be great. (hint, hint...Bob)