How is it that two, presumably knowledgeable people can read the same article and have such dramatically different reactions? Bryan Kaplan characterizes a post by Ezra Klein as his “best ever”:
Here’s the best Ezra Klein post ever. And here’s the best sentence of the best Ezra Klein post ever…
while Yves Smith moans “Ezra Klein should stick to being wrong about health care”:
A recent post by Ezra Klein, “What ‘Inside Job’ got wrong,†manages the impressive feat of being spectacularly off base, rhetorically dishonest, and embarrassingly revealing of the lack of a moral compass all at once.
Since being off base is a major part of Klein’s brand, I suppose one should not be surprised; those who’ve had the good fortune to have limited contact with his output can read Jon Walker’s “Ezra Klein: Insurance Exchanges Don’t Work and Must be Expanded Dramatically,†or Physicians for a National Health Care Program’s “Does Ezra Klein really think ‘managed care didn’t kill anyone’?†for two of many examples.
I’m going to shred this piece in some detail, first, because it will be entertaining, and second, I hope that it will encourage readers to take a cold, bloodyminded look at the excuses made for malfeasance in our elites.
Now those two takes aren’t necessarily in conflict (depending on what you think of Ezra Klein’s work), rather like the wisecrack about the guy who moved from Missouri to Arkansas and raised the average IQ of both states. Howev er, I think the sense of the two observations is that Bryan thinks the post is good while Yves thinks it’s horrible.
I’m more on Yves’s side on this than Bryan’s both in substance and in my view of Ezra Klein’s work. I this his posts are characteristic of a cadre of young, prominent bloggers (whom journalist/blogger Mickey Kaus mocks as “juiceboxers”) whose every written output looks more than anything else like a writing sample produced for a job interview with the current or a future Democratic administration.
Note, too, that this is a main criticism of the two links cited by Yves: positions taken are more kowtows to prevailing Democratic wisdom or brickbats hurled at Republicans than closely-held beliefs or defensible policy positions.
It certainly seems to be a formula for success, whether in the blogosphere or mainstream journalism.
Oversimplification and extrapolation are endemic afflictions for the pundit class like Klein. I think he’s got a point, but of course there is much more to the story. Some people were truly ignorant, some simply drank the kool-aid, some engaged in wishful thinking, and some were corrupt and/or venal.
I would guess that one could find almost all manner of human sins and deficits in the financial crisis. You can’t make people better and we shouldn’t try. What we can do is create a system with incentives for people to act in accordance with the common good and provide systemic resilience against the inevitable future crises.
An alternate explanation is that a 20-something with no medical or business training whose understanding of the healthcare system comes from partisan briefings and Google is unqualified to write as an expert on the subject.
Liked this line.
“As Keynes said, “A sound banker, alas, is not one who foresees danger and avoids it, but one who, when he is ruined, is ruined in a conventional way along with his fellows, so that no one can really blame himâ€
I think Yves is correct, that there was a lot more criminal behavior than has been prosecuted. Bill Black’s work on the amount of accounting fraud that went on is very persuasive. Still, even among those not engaged in corruption, few really foresaw how severe this crisis would be. I think a lot of people were aware of individual parts of the puzzle, but few were in a position to put it all together.
A lot of people were also in a position to stop things, but nearly everyone in a position to do so suffered from deep capture. They all believed that banks knew best, that they would not act against their own self interest. When the state attorneys general tried to stop things, they were overruled.
As to Klein in general, he is ok, though I prefer to read actual economists, and health care economists in particular. Cowen and Sumner frequently cite his work, and neither fit into the liberal or economically illiterate grouping. Klein does write for a broad audience.
Steve
James,
That’s an ad hom argument, don’t you think? So-called “experts,” by training or whatever qualification, don’t and shouldn’t have a lock on being qualified to render an argument. People’s arguments should stand on their own merits and an “expert’s” opinion is, absent supporting evidence, no more valuable than anyone elses.
Andy,
To say someone is not an expert isn’t an ad hominem. Indeed, I’m offering it an alternative explanation to the ad hominem that he’s being “rhetorically dishonest” in order to serve an ideological cause. Further, I’d say the same of myself with regard to the two issues in play here; a political science PhD with a specialization in national security policy doesn’t translate into expertise in health care policy or macroeconomics.
Klein is quite bright and good at what he does. But, lacking a solid grasp of finance or the workings of the healthcare system, he’s unlikely to understand when he’s being logically inconsistent–he’s mostly parroting back what he’s heard experts or shills say. But being more familiar with the arguments than his readers, he seems to them to be something of an expert.
James,
Ok, but I was simply pointing out that what you said isn’t about the validity (or lack of) of anything Klein said but was all about him as a person. It may be an alternative explanation, but it’s still an ad hom because you are suggesting he’s wrong because, variously, he’s a 20-something, not an expert, etc. Just sayin’….
Wow, did you read that Dave? It pretty much points out the uselessness of Dodd-Frank, why all attempts at reform are doomed to failure.
But hey, I’m sure there is a magic pony somewhere in government.