Good diavlog. I liked the pleasant way in which Ann and Matt spoke to one another. I'm glad they debunked the 4 or 6 million jobs that are going to be created by the stimulus package. We have covered that one before. I guess I'm not the only one who thinks that many of the Obama speeches and rallies have a religious revival feel to them. Anyhow, I enjoyed this one. John

Hey! I enjoyed the twitter-chatter. Nothing wrong with a little this 'n that thrown in to leaven the mix. Oh, interesting discussion about Obama continuing on in campaign mode.

I didn't watch it, but I'm going to guess that part of the "saving" of jobs refers to government workers. In fact, from recovery.gov/?q=content/frequently-asked-questions#8, this is one of the goals: "Save public sector jobs and protect vital services" Translation: keep those who voted for and whose unions donated to Obama employed. Also, based on the past histories of both Welch and Wonkette, I'm going to guess that neither discussed the fact that billions of the stimulus will go to "save or create" jobs for illegal aliens. If anyone would like to do the job that almost no one who's ever been on Bloggingheads would dare to do, go to a public appearance by a supporter of the bill and ask them this question. If anyone's able to press a nationally-known supporter of the bill on that question, the video is going to get hundreds of times more views than anything here.

Like all the pols that were for or against the stimulus bill I haven't read it. From what I gather very little was earmarked for small businesses which employ at least half of the people in the country. Hopefully, it will stave off a worse recession than we are already experiencing. If it does that then I will be satisfied. John

Umm, I don't see why the newness or lack of it of spending in the stimulus is the issue--does Matt think that a policy should only be pursued if it somehow manages to be entirely different from the way government has implemented programs in the past? It seems unlikely that we could achieve such a standard. What it comes down to (beyond basic Keynesian theory and the fact that that's still our best understanding of how the governmnet can help a slackened economy get closer to its potential output and employment level, or keep employment from falling further through gov't cutbacks, etc., we all know the arguments and evidence, etc.) is what your values are and what you think is possible and at what cost given what you would like to see--if you think its a good idea for government to help people when they can't find a job, to try to improve the situation for finding a job or not being laid off, try to level the playing field somewhat in education, etc., to have progressive taxation so those who do very

Ana's comment about WWII being an example of successful stimulus is out of date. If she read Paul Krugman, she'd know that it's apparently "boneheaded" to bring up WWII as an example when discussing the stimulus.

Factoids for Ana: Bloggingheads diavlogs ARE available as audio only podcasts through iTunes. Also from the website itself you can choose to download either mp4 (video) or mp3 (audio) onto your iPhone. So people don't have to see the heads themselves to enjoy the discussions. Also - am I the only person who noticed that Ana's bedhead looks alarmingly similar to Matt's normal hairdo???

I always figured the New Yorker didn't fact check movie reviewers. There's hardly a review by Anthony Lane that doesn't contain at least one factual error. That guy is 90% snottiness and 10% insight.

To me, it seemed like a conversation between Conan O'Brien's Id and Ego.

I know it's trivial, but I can't resist pointing out that on the heels of their comments about fact checking, Ana Marie reversed the roles regarding the "snippy" exchange between Gore and Bush.
http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/178...3:20&out=13:30 It was Gore who said of Bush "You don't have to get snippy about it"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1015429.stm I think this is an example of how, over time, some people just attribute all things negative to Dubya. It's one of the manifestations of Bush Derangement Syndrome.

Quoting hankporter: To me, it seemed like a conversation between Conan O'Brien's Id and Ego.

Heheh.

Quoting Dr. Johnson: ...

It's one of the manifestations of Bush Derangement Syndrome.

That's a meme that needs to be stomped until it is dead. And then kicked a few more times, just for spite. The really deranged partisan behavior toward a president that occurred on a scale that could be called a "syndrome" occurred during the Clinton administration. Between Vince Foster murder conspiracy theories, multi-year investigations of investments in which the targets lost(!) money, evidence free rape accusations, impeachment over behavior not particularly different from that of the opposition ring-leaders... I could go on for pages about the lunatic behavior of Republicans - at all levels - regarding Clinton in the nineties. The audacity of labeling the comparatively tepid general reaction to Bush, in vastly different circumstances, (Bush's tenure as president will find support from what, less than 30%, and almost zero from anybody but rabid partisans) as "deranged" should get a blue ribbon for its blatant disreragard for truth and nears no relationship to reality, regardless of how often it's repeated. And yet, the characterization is casually tossed about, constantly, as if it's just conventional wisdom.

You're right. There's no such thing as Bush Derangement Syndrome. What could I have been thinking? http://images.google.com/images?hl=e...-8&sa=N&tab=wi http://images.google.com/images?gbv=...smirking+chimp http://michellemalkin.com/2007/09/21...t-of-the-week/

Quoting Dr. Johnson: You're right. There's no such thing as Bush Derangement Syndrome.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Negative reaction to Bush is a mark of mental health. Not to be infuriated with him is to be deranged. BDS should be the label applied to people who run around saying things like "he kept us safe."

Jim Newell's Wonkette piece responding to Denby's book is a must-read. This should really be a sidebar link. [Added: It was mentioned in the diavlog, so it checks that box, at least.] Also, that Denby continued to repeat his errors while out pimping his book, after they were pointed out to him, is nothing short of a disgrace.

I know Ana Marie would respond by claiming that she also does reporting, but still, for someone who has made a living, basically, by shooting her mouth off about events as they come within her notice, this was more than a little ironic. I'd also say it comes off as a hipper-than-thou attitude that isn't much different from being sophomoric. Ana Marie may not have wanted to pay for TimesSelect specifically, which is a perfectly reasonable evaluation of a specific product's worth, but in general, everyone who has even borderline intellectual curiosity wants to hear what those who have expertise and spend time thinking about specific things have to say about them. To just flippantly and sarcastically dismiss as "authoritative," when carried not much further, is to fall into the mindset characterized by the worst aspects of stereotypical postmodernist relativism and Joe-the-Plumber know-nothingness. That anyone could make a long personal list of pundits who offer nothing of worth does not negate this. Besides, even if one does not fork over explicit dollars, there is always something paid to hear someone else opining -- time, at the very least. For someone who

At the beginning, they both mention bhtv as a podcast. They do realize that there is an audio only (mp3) available for download right there below the video, and the audio only is available as a (free) podcast via iTunes as well, right?

No need to rehash the Goldfarb CNN flub, as I am sure regular bhtv viewers know that Goldfarb himself explained the entire incident right here on Bloggingheads.

Quoting kidneystones: The Moonies have convinced themselves that world markets and the press are being manipulated by a cabal of GOP hardliners controlled by Rush Limbaugh's tiny brain.

Yes, conspiracy theories are a terrible thing, aren't they? By the way, I'm not sure what you hope to accomplish by using Moonies as a pejorative for the left. Far as I know, the only Moonie of prominence these days is this dude, who is much more aligned with your side; i.e., those of the hand-tightenable threaded fastener persuasion. Moonies and moonbats are different creatures. Please make a note of it.

Quoting AemJeff: The really deranged partisan behavior toward a president that occurred on a scale that could be called a "syndrome" occurred during the Clinton administration.

Would that we could speak of this in the past tense. Unfortunately, there's Teh Politico. (h/t: Scott Lemieux/LGM)

RE: Bush Derangement Syndrome

Quoting AemJeff: That's a meme that needs to be stomped until it is dead. And then kicked a few more times, just for spite.

Acceptance is the first step to recovery. I thought Clinton was a pretty good President (who should have resigned and put Gore in charge when he was caught obstructing justice, but that's a minor blemish on an otherwise impressive record). I also thought Bush was a rather lousy President who utterly betrayed those who supported him in the name of small government, as was the first President Bush. But even I can spot seething, frothing BDS when I see it. The people who rail against the term most loudly, especially if they attempt a "but the Clinton haters..." argument to rationalize their behavior, are usually the most chronic cases.

Quoting Tara Davis: But even I can spot seething, frothing BDS when I see it. The people who rail against the term most loudly, especially if they attempt a "but the Clinton haters..." argument to rationalize their behavior, are usually the most chronic cases.

Observing that the utter loss of mind over all things Clinton (Bill or Hillary), that has lasted for more than fifteen years now, is far more deranged than a loathing for Bush based on his actual deeds, is anything but an "argument to rationalize." You've gone beyond false equivalence, Tara.

Quoting Dr. Johnson: You're right. There's no such thing as Bush Derangement Syndrome.

What could I have been thinking?

http://images.google.com/images?hl=e...-8&sa=N&tab=wi

http://images.google.com/images?gbv=...smirking+chimp

http://michellemalkin.com/2007/09/21...t-of-the-week/

Feh. Stupid, witless, common as dirt parodies and false comparisons are a dime a dozen during any administration. And you lose ten points for citing Malkin, the queen of fake outrage. The chimp cartoons have already been pulled for Obama, not to mention the "failure" meme, less than a month into his presidency. There's nothing unique or especially disturbing about your examples. What happened during the Clinton years was orders of magnitude worse. Try for example, a US Senator (Helms) issuing a veiled threat that Clinton "better not show up around here [Fort Bragg] without a bodyguard." That's what makes whinging about "BDS" such a feckless exercise.

Thanks BJ for typing out the silliness of Ana Marie's dismissal of authoritative analysis and opinion (although she did say she doesn't read comments, so she'll go on thinking what she thinks I guess) But obviously anyone who wants to learn about things will in fact want to read things by people who have, uh, actual expertise. And its also just division of labor--surprisingly, many people just don't have the time or inclination to follow all the inside the beltway wonking that Ana does, so they want to learn what they can with the time and effort they're willing to allot to it, which makes someone whose job is to summarize and analyze a useful service. You know, a non-zero sum game like all goods and services. Part of being smart and understanding things is getting good at knowing who to listen to and who to tune out, i.e., which experts are worth ones time...

Quoting Tara Davis: RE: Bush Derangement Syndrome

Acceptance is the first step to recovery.

I thought Clinton was a pretty good President (who should have resigned and put Gore in charge when he was caught obstructing justice, but that's a minor blemish on an otherwise impressive record).

I also thought Bush was a rather lousy President who utterly betrayed those who supported him in the name of small government, as was the first President Bush.

But even I can spot seething, frothing BDS when I see it. The people who rail against the term most loudly, especially if they attempt a "but the Clinton haters..." argument to rationalize their behavior, are usually the most chronic cases.

I thought Clinton was a middling president with a bad tendency to compromise what I thought were core principles. I was particularly outraged by his administration's attitude toward encryption technology and the idiotic "clipper chip" debate. I was neutral to moderately pro-bush during the first months of the campaign in Afghanistan. The unrelenting attacks on Clinton turned my sympathy significantly. Everything Bush did after that convinced me further, for a myriad of reasons, that he was not good for this country. Bush made existentially bad foreign policy

Free trade is so simple? Ha, Ha! In 25 words or less explain "factor-price equalization." What does it mean when a country's comparative advantage lies in a relative abundance of low-wage labor? I mean for the unskilled workers in the other country? And why does HO theory predict a redistribution of income away from them, a redistribution which is larger than the gains of trade? Or do those two even know that? Of course not!!!!! Arhhhhhhh!!! See Heckscher, Eli F., “The Effect of Foreign Trade on the Distribution of Income,” Ekonomisk Tidskrift 21: 497-512, (Upsala, 1920), English translation in Hoeckscher-Ohlin Trade Theory (MIT Press, 1991).

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/178...2:05&out=02:35

Via Jim Newell, here's a review of Denby's book by Walter Kirn.

Quoting BornAgainDemocrat: And why does HO theory predict a redistribution of income away from them, a redistribution which is larger than the gains of trade? Or do those two even know that? Of course not!!!!! Arhhhhhhh!!!

The HO model doesn't predict that. You might be confusing it with the fact that if the relative price of a traded good changes, the proportional change in the return to the more intensive factor used to produce the good will be larger than the proportional change in the price of the traded good, as a result of the Stolper-Samuelson theorem. Incidentally, factor-price equalization is perhaps the least empirically-supported aspect of the HO model.