On my daily commute to and from the office, I try to find some intelligent discussion of contemporary issues on the radio. There’s talk radio, that certainly qualifies as “discussion of contemporary issues”. But it fails the “intelligent” test. I’ve found there to be only two good sources: NPR and Bloomberg Radio. So, throughout my 30 to 40 minute drive each way, I find myself constantly pushing the channel button on the radio, trying to dodge the commercials on Bloomberg and the fundraising and “progressive music” breaks on NPR.
Thus, by the time I get to work or get home, I’ve heard a blend of two different views on what is important in this country. On Bloomberg, the important things are economics, investing, finance and business management. On NPR, by contrast, you hear a lot about injustice. You hear stories about exploited workers, both in the USA and around the world. You hear about people struggling without health care. You hear about migrant workers and community activists angry with utility companies. NPR certainly does not ignore the current economic crisis; but their stories and interviews generally have a different slant than on Bloomberg. NPR likes to focus on the injustice of an economic downturn that is punishing working class families who live within their humble means, comparing them to the extravagantly compensated corporate leaders whose unreasonable financial risks helped to cause the crisis, yet whose firms are being “bailed out” by the public (while those leaders continue to demand compensation over a hundred times greater than what the working class family gets by on). The commentators on Bloomberg generally acknowledge such sentiments, but in the context of dangerous populist over-reaction to necessary government stabilization measures.
My heart is with all the NPR reporters and commentators who believe that they are helping to bring about a more just world by streaming a constant parade of woe stories (with the regular Obama accolade slotted in). But the Bloomberg people know the nuts and bolts of the world better. NPR and its clients make a meritorious effort to appreciate the nitty-gritty; but I don’t think they could run a container ship port or a distribution warehouse or replace a sewer system or design a mini-steel mill or finance a computer software start-up firm.
For better and for worse, our economy is directed by a mix of greed and politics; and it’s generally good that NPR questions this, and it’s not always good that Bloomberg doesn’t. But our (partially) market-driven economy must ultimately shape itself around millions of people like you and me who try to spend and save our money wisely and try to earn enough to get by on. The Bloomberg people focus on the stuff that will affect these millions of people in their everyday lives. The Bloomberg people better know the forces and mechanisms of world commerce that have brought millions of Chinese and Indians out of poverty (and which now might cast a lot of them back into poverty, along with too many Americans). The Bloomberg people tell you how the world works (in case you’d like to make some money off of it); the NPR people tell you about the injustices of those workings (in case you’d like to stage a protest or change the government — or go down trying, anyway). But unless the rabid NPR fans arrange a return of the Bolsheviks, or Obama manages to nationalize the major corporations, Bloomberg’s topics will affect more of the masses in more ways than NPR ever can.
It’s a complex and confusing world, and if you want to fully experience that complexity and confusion, flip back and forth between Bloomberg and NPR some morning. You will arrive at your destination more enlightened about both the wonders and pitfalls of the crazy-quilt economic and political systems that somehow keep our world turning.
Jim,
I have to say that I long ago stopped listening to what might be called the “regular” radio. This occurred when I chanced to tune in to a program where the principals were discussing some current issue involving a mother and a son, something the son had done, and how terrible the mother was that she had not prevented the son from doing what he did. (At least I think that was the discussion; however, I don’t remember any of the particulars regarding the issue as such.)
What I distinctly remember, however, was one woman who called in to give her comments on the situation. She started by saying: “Well, I don’t know anything at all about this, but….” She then was allowed to spend at least FIVE MINUTES expounding on her “opinion” of a situation about which she herself said she knew nothing.
I could not believe it–particularly two thing: First, that the woman had the nerve to say she knew nothing at all about the situation and then purported to spend what seemed to me an unbelievable amount of time expounding on a subject of which she herself said she knew nothing. It seems to me that if one admits to knowing nothing about a subject, the most one can say is just that: I know nothing about this topic. Further, she seemed to think that her “opinion” was valuable to the hearers.
It seems what I was taught so many years ago has long since been thrown out: That one’s “opinion” must be INFORMED or it has no value.
Second, I was amazed that the station gave this person unlimited time to speak. Why did not the person running the show say, if you know nothing, how can you have an opinion? Instead, he engaged this woman in conversation.
I stopped listening to radio (which nowadays is almost all “talk radio”) that day.
And I find myself saying, no wonder someone like GWB could hold office for 8 years when he himself seemed to want the most complex subject reduced to “3 pages” which itself amounts to “knowing nothing” when the subject is very complex.
Furthermore, I find myself even more somewhat dismayed by the new trend of “twittering” in which everything must be reduced to a few words. It is a wonder that anybody has any grasp whatsoever of any subject that takes longer than 40 seconds to state, study, or understand.
And why in the world people actually expect that other people would be interested in what he/she is doing at some particular moment? Please, give me a break!
As to the economic system: What fascinates me is the fact of how influenced it is by psychological factors. Economists can talk at length about what they believe or don’t believe about the system. Yet, nobody ever addresses the fact that a RUMOR of something can cause a plunge or an upward trend in the market, that a FEAR of something happening can send the market spinning wildly, that a HINT that maybe something “GOOD” will happen can likewise send the market spinning again.
As I see it, the market is almost worse than gambling. At least when a person gambles, one knows one is dealing with randomness (that is, unless the slot machines are programed a certain way). When one deals with the market, one is subject to psychological factors that no one yet seems to acknowledge influence the market and the economy.
MCS
Comment by MCS — April 19, 2009 @ 8:04 pm
Jim,
I have to say that I long ago stopped listening to what might be called the “regular” radio. This occurred when I chanced to tune in to a program where the principals were discussing some current issue involving a mother and a son, something the son had done, and how terrible the mother was that she had not prevented the son from doing what he did. (At least I think that was the discussion; however, I don’t remember any of the particulars regarding the issue as such.)
What I distinctly remember, however, was one woman who called in to give her comments on the situation. She started by saying: “Well, I don’t know anything at all about this, but….” She then was allowed to spend at least FIVE MINUTES expounding on her “opinion” of a situation about which she herself said she knew nothing.
I could not believe it–particularly two thing: First, that the woman had the nerve to say she knew nothing at all about the situation and then purported to spend what seemed to me an unbelievable amount of time expounding on a subject of which she herself said she knew nothing. It seems to me that if one admits to knowing nothing about a subject, the most one can say is just that: I know nothing about this topic. Further, she seemed to think that her “opinion” was valuable to the hearers.
It seems what I was taught so many years ago has long since been thrown out: That one’s “opinion” must be INFORMED or it has no value.
Second, I was amazed that the station gave this person unlimited time to speak. Why did not the person running the show say, if you know nothing, how can you have an opinion? Instead, he engaged this woman in conversation.
I stopped listening to radio (which nowadays is almost all “talk radio”) that day.
And I find myself saying, no wonder someone like GWB could hold office for 8 years when he himself seemed to want the most complex subject reduced to “3 pages” which itself amounts to “knowing nothing” when the subject is very complex.
Furthermore, I find myself even more somewhat dismayed by the new trend of “twittering” in which everything must be reduced to a few words. It is a wonder that anybody has any grasp whatsoever of any subject that takes longer than 40 seconds to state, study, or understand.
And why in the world people actually expect that other people would be interested in what he/she is doing at some particular moment? Please, give me a break!
As to the economic system: What fascinates me is the fact of how influenced it is by psychological factors. Economists can talk at length about what they believe or don’t believe about the system. Yet, nobody ever addresses the fact that a RUMOR of something can cause a plunge or an upward trend in the market, that a FEAR of something happening can send the market spinning wildly, that a HINT that maybe something “GOOD” will happen can likewise send the market spinning again.
As I see it, the market is almost worse than gambling. At least when a person gambles, one knows one is dealing with randomness (that is, unless the slot machines are programed a certain way). When one deals with the market, one is subject to psychological factors that no one yet seems to acknowledge influence the market and the economy.
MCS
Comment by MCS — April 19, 2009 @ 8:04 pm