Like Brad Delong's site, but with more liberal use of the F-word and less about the New York Times.
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Noted
Can there be a less appealing headline than Thomas Friedman : It's Different This Time. What would readers regard as the likelihood of gaining information of positive value from such an article?
I don't necessarily think there's a single value for a Friedman column. On one hand, taking the column as a source of information on the underlying issue, it's worth nob all, but taking the second order view that it's telling us (as Cian points out) what liberal-leaning rich folk are thinking, it is of some value.
The third analysis, of course, is that by subtracting from the clarity of the discourse on a topic, it actually reduces value...
Cian - normally, PR agencies' work is judged by subtracting "it is their fault" from "it isn't their fault". The number of pieces saying the latter re BP is statistical noise, it's just that there are lots of them because if something's the biggest news story going then every angle will be covered.
...which is precisely why you shouldn't put an engineering PhD with a career background in oil drilling in charge of a global company: a random, personally-useless corporate generic chap with PR skillz would've done a better job than someone who actually knew what they were trying to do and how unprecedentedly difficult it was...
Friedman lost 99% of his net worth once already. If he lost 99% of his remaining net worth, he'd still be worth more than the average American (somewhere around $100,000.)
It tells us that it is now OK (in "liberal" elite circles) to talk about peak oil and our dependence for our energy on risky environments (as long as we also say that it's everybody's fault and don't mention who took the decisions, who did the lobbying, and who asked for weak regulation)
To be fair to Friedman, he was one of the first in liberal elite circles to talk about the energy problem. Much as I hate to admit it, he's probably been moderately influential in making it a political issue.
John B: Its more who's saying that it wasn't their fault, rather than the number.
He's quite useful if you want to know what the received wisdom of business friendly liberals will be. Otherwise zero.
ReplyDeleteIncidentally people diss BP's PR effort, but given the number of people arguing that it's not their fault, they must be doing something right.
"zero" is actually toward the top of the range of my guesses for the value of an Airmile column.
ReplyDeleteI don't necessarily think there's a single value for a Friedman column. On one hand, taking the column as a source of information on the underlying issue, it's worth nob all, but taking the second order view that it's telling us (as Cian points out) what liberal-leaning rich folk are thinking, it is of some value.
ReplyDeleteThe third analysis, of course, is that by subtracting from the clarity of the discourse on a topic, it actually reduces value...
The fourth case, finally, is that obfuscating the debate has value in of itself for interested parties favouring inaction.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteActually, the article may help determine the maximum time after which Tom Friedman must immediately be pied in the face.
ReplyDeleteThing is, he's actually one of the better American columnists who gets serious syndication in the US.
ReplyDeleteCian - normally, PR agencies' work is judged by subtracting "it is their fault" from "it isn't their fault". The number of pieces saying the latter re BP is statistical noise, it's just that there are lots of them because if something's the biggest news story going then every angle will be covered.
ReplyDelete...which is precisely why you shouldn't put an engineering PhD with a career background in oil drilling in charge of a global company: a random, personally-useless corporate generic chap with PR skillz would've done a better job than someone who actually knew what they were trying to do and how unprecedentedly difficult it was...
Friedman lost 99% of his net worth once already. If he lost 99% of his remaining net worth, he'd still be worth more than the average American (somewhere around $100,000.)
ReplyDeleteSomething to hope for.
It tells us that it is now OK (in "liberal" elite circles) to talk about peak oil and our dependence for our energy on risky environments (as long as we also say that it's everybody's fault and don't mention who took the decisions, who did the lobbying, and who asked for weak regulation)
ReplyDeleteTo be fair to Friedman, he was one of the first in liberal elite circles to talk about the energy problem. Much as I hate to admit it, he's probably been moderately influential in making it a political issue.
ReplyDeleteJohn B: Its more who's saying that it wasn't their fault, rather than the number.
John B,
ReplyDeleteHe wasnt smart enough to say 'We're running a cement bond log, right ?'.
I'll forgive Bob From Marketing for missing that. But an engineering PhD with a career in drilling ?
Macondo was a Big Cat. It was important for BP - it was their next Thunder Horse.
They didnt run a cement bond log, and the cement job was crap, and it blew out.
He's not only toast, but he should be toast.
@ian, oh, 100% agreed on the pre-blow-out events - I mean on the post-disaster side.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous -- average americans are going for $100K now?
ReplyDeleteThat's not bad, and what with the Euro exchange rate I'm tempted to buy a few...