Asymmetrical Information

We will pass the time profitably, reading Economics in One Lesson. Thanks for the pointer.

Well, that certainly helps us work out which is your article in that paper that doesn’t give bylines.

Well, that certainly helps us work out which is your article in that paper that doesn’t give bylines.

Here's a passing thought prompted by Jane's short post.

I know that reporters sometimes take a beating for mangling the facts. From my own limited experience, I know that reporters sometimes deserve a beating for mangling facts that aren't too tough to keep straight. So I'd guess that often enough they do worse with more complex issues.

However, aren't the 'absurd exaggerations of advocates on both sides' often generated by folks who, like them or not, are very slick, well-paid, cunning types who want to obscure the real facts (if it helps their cause), i.e. their exaggerations aren't necessarily so easy to unravel ? Some of the blame should surely fall there.

In any case, if there's anyone who can separate the wheat from the chaff, I'd bet on our gal Jane. Her command of economics / finance has always impressed me.

Good luck, Jane.

Cheers,

Rofe,

"However, aren't the 'absurd exaggerations of advocates on both sides' often generated by folks who, like them or not, are very slick, well-paid, cunning types who want to obscure the real facts (if it helps their cause), i.e. their exaggerations aren't necessarily so easy to unravel ? Some of the blame should surely fall there."

Absolutely. But I'm also told by a journalism-trained buddy (now working in a related field) that many media organizations -- especially the lower-tier ones -- have become glorified press services. Their budget for true reporting is extremely low; so if one of those well-paid, cunning folks hands them something slick and persuasive, they just run with it. He says they have air time to fill but not nearly enough fact-checking time.

And I don't know a good answer for that. The journalism side isn't a profit-maker for a lot of places, so the budget gets slashed. That makes those places easy targets for the well-paid, cunning folks.

What the major media seem to not understand is how many viewers/listeners/readers they are losing because they simply publish the PR of advocates. I quit watching most of the TV news magazines (60 Minutes, 20/20, etc.) when I realized most of their "consumer advocacy" stories were simply the regurgitation of things they'd received from some Ralph Nader organization or a plaintiff's attorney. I can't believe I am the only viewer they've lost for this reason.

When I was younger, many journalists/newsmen actually knew something about the subject of their reporting. Nowadays, the trend (X 2 decades) is for journalists/newsmen to pretend that they don't need to understand the basics of their topic, by gum, they just know what's news and report it, and if they get a few details wrong, that's okay, because nobody really reads that closely and minor mistakes in the details don't really hurt the story.

Which is why I don't rely on the news for factual details. (That's why I stopped watching TV news decades ago and why I don't rely on the print media anymore now that the Internet and blogs have come about. "We can fact-check your ass!"

If they're just going to parrot press releases, we might as well just read the press releases on the net.

Rex - The attitude you describe is not limited to journalists. When I was high school (some 5 years or so ago -- seems like), my German teacher did not know German! He was taking a German class at night at the local university and trying to stay one step ahead of his students. He'd taught Spanish and French for years at the school. When enough students expressed an interest in German, he decided to teach that, too. He explained that he was a professional teacher. Just as a good salesman can sell anything, a good teacher can teach anything -- they don't need to be an expert in the subject. My high school chemistry teacher (and football coach) must have felt the same way. He'd only had one class in chemistry in college.

I wonder how many other professions there are where this attitude, the mechanics of the profession (how to teach or how to report) is more important than the subject matter, is common. I've not seen many, if any, with this attitude in accounting or law.

All I need to know about bankruptcy reform is that credit cards are a wildly profitable business, and banks are seeking government protection to keep it that way, in perpetuity, regardless of how irresponsible their lending policy is.

Banks want people carrying balances, at high interest rates, forever. The bankruptcy reform bill is designed to make that possible.

That's really all there is to be said about it. The banks' claimed need for protection is a fraud.

The Economist? Does that explain all the Britishisms here?

All I need to know about bankruptcy reform is that credit cards are a wildly profitable business, and banks are seeking government protection to keep it that way, in perpetuity, regardless of how irresponsible their lending policy is.

...which is too bad, because if you had any idea what "anti-redlining laws" are, you would understand that said irresponsible lending policies are partially an artifact of factors that are not entirely within the control of said banks.

Thorley,
It’s been my minor game on Friday nights (Over here in Portugal I get The E just in time for the first quiet pint of the weekend) skimming the American section to see just which is Jane’s piece. Don’t always get it either.

UML Guy - i think we're all participating in a good answer to that

"And I don't know a good answer for that. The journalism side isn't a profit-maker for a lot of places, so the budget gets slashed. That makes those places easy targets for the well-paid, cunning folks."

the economist, huh? i used to subscribe, but then cancelled - too much politics vs. economics for my tastes

Jon: For any problem there is a simple, clear, emotionally compelling explanation.

This explanation is almost always, as yours is in this case, wrong, as anony-mouse has already started to explain.

Just like "gas prices are high because Big Oil is keeping us down"; simple, clear, compelling, wrong.

From our local paper today:

--In response to Sid Eighmey's letter of March 30: Having worked for a lawyer that specialized in bankruptcy cases, I can tell you firsthand that over 75 percent of the individuals filing have first (in the 90 days prior to filing) miraculously managed to max out every credit card they owned. Hmmm ... I don't know about anyone else, but that seems mighty suspicious to me. Also, the majority of bankruptcy clients are second and sometimes even third offenders. And who do you think picks up the tab for all of these bankruptcy cases? The taxpayer and consumer, of course. I do think that it's a shame that a few rotten apples have managed to spoil the bunch, but unfortunately, there is no law against being inconsiderate.

As to the food stamp comments made, tell me, have you ever been on food stamps? I have, and I can tell you, again from firsthand experience, that the amount allotted per individual is much too high. And you have to "use it or lose it." I wound up eating things like steak and shrimp with cheese cake for desert just to spend it all. Keep in mind, people, that food stamps are for just that; food. Not toiletries, cleansers or tissues. That's right, you cannot purchase so much as a roll of toilet paper with food stamps.

I suggest to all of those bleeding heart liberals out there that cry for the less fortunate, look at your grocery bill the next time you go to the store. Take a look at how much you actually spent on food versus how much you spent on non-edibles. I'm sure the amount will come as a shock to you.

Wake up and smell the coffee out there. It's time New York State stopped being referred to as "The Welfare State." Why do you people think your taxes are so high? Public assistance is meant to be temporary, not permanent. I was grateful that it was there when I needed it, but I also worked like a dog for it by doing manual labor at Titus Towers to repay what I used.

This letter is not meant to be anti-poverty in any way. It is simply to make everyone aware that it's time to start giving a "hand up" not a "hand out." --

Rex here again. I deleted the author's name from this letter. But it sure looks like credit cards have been abused by people who know they are going into bankruptcy.

I think a single person recieving food stamps recieves less then $200 a month. Maybe thats enough to throw some salad shrimp in the hamburger helper on a special occasion, but your not going to get fat on food stamps. Unless you buy them at fifty cents on the dollar, but I think they went to a credit card that replaced the stamps.

The funny thing is the banks may have shot themselves in the foot by pushing this through Congress. People that declare bankruptcy make a deal to pay off a percentage of their debt, so their creditors recieve something. With this bill, a person with very bad debt has no motivation to pay any of it back. Perhaps this bill will help banks collect more from those who have bad debt and assets that can be repo'ed, but your typical person with large credit card debt isnt likely to have much that can be seized.

In response to Sid Eighmey's letter of March 30: Having worked for a lawyer that specialized in bankruptcy cases, I can tell you firsthand that over 75 percent of the individuals filing have first (in the 90 days prior to filing) miraculously managed to max out every credit card they owned. Hmmm ... I don't know about anyone else, but that seems mighty suspicious to me.

In tandem with other factors, yes. By itself, no. When someone is living near the brink, all it takes is one $500 car repair or a child's chipped tooth to "domino" a person's remaining credit.

lake powell

Comments are Closed.