BuzzMachine

The media pundit's pundit. Written by NYC insider Jeff Jarvis, BuzzMachine covers news, media, journalism, and politics.

A fine mess

11 comments on A fine mess

A fine mess

: Yesterday, I went to 21 to attend the latest lunch thrown by The Week magazine, this time — appropriate to the venue — a debate about the economy with former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin and rich smart guy PEter G. Peterson and then with CNBC’s Lawrence Kudlow, Yale’s Michael Graetz, and the irritating tax nudge with the Sesame Street name, Grover Norquist.

Peterson stole the show. He argued convincingly (not that sane souls need much convincing) that we are in a budget crisis that is being handed to our children with an $11 trillion shortfall in Social Security (“one of the oxymorons of our time — the trust fund; it shouldn’t be trusted and it’s not funded”) and a coming Medicare crisis that’s “three to four times more difficult than Social Security and harder to solve.” He also said we’re in a savings crisis with the U.S. savings rate falling from 8 percent of GDP 12 years ago to .2 percent today.

Peterson proposed mandated savings (a la Chile, Singapore, and now Australia) in global index funds and fixed income bonds. He didn’t get much disagreement from Rubin or even from Kudlow.

Rubin and Petersen also agreed that our real problem is that we don’t sense the crisis. Witness Kudlow, who goes on about how peachy things are in the economy now; no need to worry; no need to upset anything.

“What we need is a massive dose of truth-telling,” Petersen said. He suggested following the example of the 9/11 Commission to get high-level brains (e.g., Rubin, Voelker, Nunn) to come up with the tough solutions the pols are unwilling or afraid to propose. Added Rubin: “The fundamental problem is our political system is no longer for the most part willing to make decisions that are difficult.”

Amen. And I, too, have wanted to see 9/11-Commission-like groups tackling health care and insurance. But isn’t that what our legislatures are supposed to do? Isn’t that why we elect them? Isn’t it a bit frightening that we need to set up shadow legislatures — which is what these commissions really are — to separate themselves from politics and get real work done? Whatever it takes….

Rubin added that media holds a lot of the responsibility for the problem and the solution and I agree. We need to be part of that massive truth-telling. We need to find the ways to raise the alarms. Said Rubin: “Public officials need to feel as if they are going to be held accountable by an informed electorate.”

11 responses to “A fine mess”

  1. Dubya Avatar
    Dubya

    No truth allowed for the next 4 years. I fire truth-tellers.
    I will, however, try to convince you that it’s a good idea to borrow 2 TRILLION dollars to fund the process of allowing you to put $1000 in a personal savings account.

  2. Steve Avatar
    Steve

    Hey Jeff,
    You should check out some of Larry Kotlikoff’s stuff on Social Security and Medicare. He says pretty much the same thing. Phase out Social Security and replace it with forced savings in a global weighted index fund. For Medicare he suggests vouchers that the person can use to shop around for the best deal. This would bring market forces to bear and introduce positive incentives.

  3. MWB Avatar
    MWB

    Jeff,
    Interesting to see you using “media” and “responsibility” in the same sentence. How can media be responsible for our lack of a sense of crisis on this if media doesn’t shape markets/culture/debates, as you’ve claimed in responding to comments in the FCC debate?
    No, media repsonsibility stems from media’s power. Here you agree media is at fault for catering to the market’s “hear no evil” preferences on economic and political matters. But in your anti-FCC diatribes, you disingenuously claim the market offers all the check necessary on media’s cultural pandering.
    What’s on TV can shape the national conversation-whether “raising the alarms” politically or lowering our standards culturally. Thus it has unique responsibilities that go beyond responding to markets. It would be nice if you at least acknowledge this while you’re slinging mud at “prigs, prudes and religious nutjobs.”
    And I’m with you on not wanting a “national nanny”, whether it’s a government official dictating entertainment content or mandating a personal savings rate. But such interference is invited when responsible parties don’t act responsibly.
    You’re right, we “need to find ways” for media to do better, journalistically and culturally.

  4. MWB Avatar
    MWB

    One more thing: You may think the FCC stuff is off-topic here, but there’s a relationship. If people with media responsibilities (including bloggers) want to maximize their attentive audience when there’s a need to “raise the alarms” it will help if you don’t call folks who disagree with you names when debating other issues. Respect engenders respect, even when there’s disagreement.

  5. Stupid Country Avatar
    Stupid Country

    Nah. Jeff’s dead on. Have you actually listened to the prigs, prudes and religious nutjobs? These are people who need to learn to recognize and laugh at their own excesses. Sometimes, namecalling has affirmative power and purpose.

  6. blue voter in a red state Avatar
    blue voter in a red state

    nobody seems concerned by this budget crisis, the few that raise the issue are ignored….where is the republican outrage, i thought they were the pay their own way party…..if the conservatives get any more compassionate people are gonna end up in ovens.

  7. MWB Avatar
    MWB

    SC,
    I have no problem with Jeff or anyone attacking the arguments and methods of folks they think of as prigs, prudes, etc. And indeed, there are some who need to lighten up.
    But namecalling has affirmative power and purpose mainly for the one calling names, and suggests he knows his argument is weak on the merits.

  8. MWB Avatar
    MWB

    Case in point: blue voter wants allies in addressing “this budget crisis” and then suggests conservatives are not far from Nazis. If you’re willing to cast folks you disagree with in such exaggerated terms, why should they not believe you are exaggerating the “crisis” as well?
    If you want to be able to “sound the alarms” and build consensus on issues, you have to restrain the self-indulgent impulse toward demonizing those with differing opinions. You may despise their position on one issue today, but need them to stand with you on another tomorrow.

  9. Stupid Country Avatar
    Stupid Country

    Well…point taken, MWB, but…
    The whole problem with public discourse (and this is 1000% more so in the blogosphere than in conventional media) is the density of context. There is so much being said by so many about so many different things that the impulse to choose words that jump off the screen JUST TO BE NOTICED is sometimes irresistable and not always wrong. I don’t know whether that’s why Jeff chose those words, but it’s a tendency I freely admit to. (Stupid Country is not the name my mom chose for me.)
    If we’re going to have empire-of-one media, we’re all going to have to accept the fact that people expressing themselves spontaneously are sometimes going to let their emotions be visible. That’s not a bug, it’s a feature.
    Having said all that, M, you have a valid point.

  10. doug Avatar
    doug

    We don’t hold politicians accountable. Why should politicians feel that they are accountable to voters? After all they can tell the voters what the meaning of “is” is. After failing to hold Clinton accountable for his actions, why would any politician expect to be held responsible for anything. Removing Clinton would have been the best thing possible for our republic. All the politicians would have been put on notice.

  11. MWB Avatar
    MWB

    SC,
    Thanks for your reply to my comments, and for the segue into another point in my argument with Jeff’s position.
    Yes, sensationalism is often what it takes to attract eyeballs in a media-saturated market. It’s not that most people consciously “demand” it–we just gravitate toward the unusual, the shocking, the outrageous. So for large swaths of the entertainment industry, the news media, and the blogosphere, that’s where the currency (dollars, influence, affirmation) is.
    Human nature. No surprise.
    But what is the nature of media? By commanding an audience (real or perceived), media exposure confers legitimacy. Jeff was recently complaining that Brent Bozell got where he is just by “printing some letterhead.” If stationery can give someone such standing, imagine what a national TV appearance does.
    So put human nature and the legitimizing power of media together and you have a recipe for gradual cultural degradation. Folks are drawn to the outrageous, but after a while it begins to seem normal. It gets absorbed, and emulated (particularly by youth-too old for adult supervision, to young to know better). It leaves the realm of “change the channel” and finds its way into the supermarket checkout line, conversation, billboards, bumper stickers, t-shirts, magazines, etc.