Imagine if all this time dedicated to basketball was allocated to Piketty's new book

[malaise]

We would change the economic debate.

[Motown_Johnny]

1. Maybe Piketty should tell some attractive young woman...

...to not hang around with rich people. To not post pictures of herself with them and to not bring any of them to the bookstore with her.









For the sarcasm impaired >>>>-------->

[CrispyQ]

5. LMAO

[malaise]

8. ROFL

Piketty is actually rather cute - he needs a groupie to stalk him - instant coverage

[m-lekktor]

11. LOL!

:O

[Cleita]

13. Ha..ha.

In my early twenties, because I worked in a business that catered to rich old farts, I got my share of propositions from would be sugar daddies. Many of my fellow workers (young and female) did. I think that POS taking advantage of young women got what he deserves.

Now, I know you were referring to the fact that Piketty would get more attention if he were attached to a scandal, however, he is really doing well without it.

[bluedigger]

2. I thought it was more about racism than basketball.

At least the energy expended on Sterling has had some positive results. Economic inequality may be a tougher problem. We'll keep working on that, too.

[malaise]

9. The discussion is important

and it is bigger than sport but in reality sport is sexy - and will always get ratings - not so much other important issues like the failure of the neo-liberal model

[bluedigger]

18. No argument there.

The average schmoe has no idea what the neo-liberal economic model is, but we all know the feeling of Schadenfreude, even if we've never heard of it.

[Cleita]

3. Imagine.

Bill Maher on Chris Hayes said the media should have banners every morning on climate change, a thing that will affect the children alive right now in the future. I agree with him as I sit baking from unseasonal hot weather and no air conditioning trying to water my poor garden a little (we are in drought conditions still) so my poor plants don't die that feed the poor little birds and other garden denizens who live on them.

[malaise]

10. He gave me the idea

He's 100% correct

[nadinbrzezinski]

23. Climate change? You commie or 'thing?

for those not getting it.

[Warpy]

4. I've just started reading it

and, while it's relatively easy reading for an economics book, it will take me time to go through 700 pages of it.

I think it's likely to take over the economics debate from the Austrians and the Randorrhoids and the other apologists for the already rich simply because it's readable, packed with facts, and comes to the irrefutable conclusion that none of the rich men's programs have ever worked, are not working and will never work because the inexorable outcome to all of them is concentration of wealth into fewer and fewer hands while most of humanity is in the misery of privation.

Since those are the conditions that lead to revolution and a lot of rich guys getting their heads chopped off or lined up against a wall and shot, you'd think rich guys, too, would take it to heart.

That's what remains to be seen.

[malaise]

12. It's my summer project

I'm letting hubby read it first.

[nadinbrzezinski]

25. It is on list.

Right now doing policy on minimum wage (in between fires it seems)

[DJ13]

6. Why do you think the old news of his racism is new news now?

The MSM has no intention of giving Piketty's book any serious airtime.

Tomorrow they'll find something else to distract us with.

[malaise]

14. As a man I know likes to say

Correct is right

[DJ13]

16. Thats right?

I thought I was a lefty!

[malaise]

17. Ha

I'm a lefty too

[socialist_n_TN]

43. DING! DING! DING! WE HAVE A WINNAH!!!!!!!!

Sports and sports "news" have always been a safety release valve for taking workers' minds off of their exploitation. And BTW, I actually DO like sports. Or at least some sports. But I can also keep my sense of outrage about economic injustice at the same time.

[drm604]

7. I just got the Kindle edition from Amazon.

I think it's the most expensive Kindle book I've ever purchased. Now I have something to read on the train tomorrow.

[malaise]

15. You must be heading on a very long trip

[drm604]

19. Lol, I don't plan on reading it all during one morning commute.

I have two 40 minute commutes 5 days a week. That gives me plenty of time to read it.

[malaise]

20. Cool

Enjoy - I have my hard copy

[Sarah Ibarruri]

21. ACTUALLY what happened in basketball involves someone whose life portray Piketty's explanations nt

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

22. Americans don't need no Frog telling us how to run our economy. We just turn to super

wealthy Americans for that.

[Vashta Nerada]

24. Imagine if all this time dedicated to all sports was allocated to the issues that affect all of us.

We would change everything.

[nadinbrzezinski]

26. I have had that argument with my sports entranced relatives

Like sports affects their lives...

[Vashta Nerada]

27. I don't understand why people get so emotionally attached to sports teams.

If a team wins or loses, it doesn't affect our lives. It only affects the lives of the players, and they don't care. They still get their millions, win or lose.

[nadinbrzezinski]

29. I don't either.

I watch a soccer World Cup game. I find it entertaining, getting attached, no, not really. I think it is personality related.

[merrily]

30. Not only sports. Celebrities of all kinds.

I know far, far more from mass media about teen singing sensations du jour than I know from mass media about TPP.

[Vashta Nerada]

31. +infinity

[malaise]

32. Sports has its place

but this is over the top. When something as frightening as a botched execution is not the dominant story, we've lost it.

[merrily]

28. Our mainstream media is too complicit, corrupt and lazy to laser in on economic issues.

Or, for that matter, even to laser in on race issues in a meaningful way.

Is what Sterling said important? Yes, to the extent that is one example of a much larger issue. But, it's easier to point fingers at Sterling, as though he is an isolated example, and let the discussion go dormant again when Sterling's 15 minutes end. Until the next example hits the fan.

But, our national conversation did change, thanks to Occupy.

Look at the national conversation during the first three years of the Obama administration. "We can no longer afford entitlements. We have to make the hard choices now. Cuts to fuel subsidies for the poor. Cat Food Commission. Grand Bargain Committee. Chained CPI is not a cut to Social Security" Etc.

After Occupy, the conversation went to 99% v. 1%. Sure, we can argue about the exact percentage. Some say 10%. Some say .01%. And Congress and the President have cut food stamps several times.

But Occupy did change the national conversation dramatically, no matter how much conservatives of both of the largest political parties want to say otherwise. (Also, part of the change: It's not about Democrats v. Republicans, but about the plutocrats v. the rest of us.)

[malaise]

33. Good post

[merrily]

34. Thanks!

I try.

[BainsBane]

36. It has gotten a fair bit of coverage in the media

I suppose it depends what you call mainstream, but in my book that includes NPR, PBS, and major print sources.

http://onpoint.wbur.org/2014/04/29/thomas-piketty-inequality-gregory-mankiw

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/27/fashion/Thomas-Piketty-the-Economist-Behind-Capital-in-the-Twenty-First-Century-sensation.html?_r=0

http://www.npr.org/2014/04/04/299182849/mystery-of-mounting-inequality-might-find-answer-in-brand-new-tome

http://www.npr.org/2014/04/30/308220349/why-is-a-french-economists-700-page-book-so-popular

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/24/upshot/pikettys-book-on-wealth-and-inequality-is-more-popular-in-richer-states.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/24/upshot/pikettys-book-on-wealth-and-inequality-is-more-popular-in-richer-states.html

As well as mainstream internet sites like Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/19/thomas-piketty-on-capital_n_5179355.html

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gl=us&tbm=nws&authuser=0&q=piketty&oq=piketty&gs_l=news-cc.3..43j0l2j43i53.3120.4543.0.4915.7.3.0.4.4.0.113.264.2j1.3.0...0.0...1ac.1.Wsd-xhYgqXY

If you mean cable, I don't consider that news at all. It's entertainment. While the network news programs only devote a couple of minutes to each story, so they have time to go into nothing in substance.

[merrily]

38. Thanks, but I am confident in the general accuracy of my prior post.

I don't really count public TV or radio as mainstream.

Moyers, for one, is a national treasure, but is far from typical, even at PBS. Perhaps I should have used another word, like commercial?

Also, my prior post was not limited to the book at all. Comparing how much oxygen is taken up by stories about the latest tween idol or that ilk v. thoughtful discussion of important subjects, I am confident that the former category gets more air time And by "that ilk," I mean not only celebrity stories, but also superficial stories about politicians (e.g., some gaffe or other) and superficial coverage of important issues.

[BainsBane]

40. Seems to me you're expecting news coverage and thoughtful analysis

from entertainment programming. That can only lead to frustration.

[merrily]

42. Not at all. Bieber and his like are covered on so-called news programs as well as on

entertainment shows.

Did you really think I am expecting a show like Entertainment Tonight to provide thoughtful discussion of the economy? If so, can you point to a post of mine that led you to believe that I am that unfamiliar with thought?

Do you really think that, as a general matter, dynamite journalists are on the job in mass media?

If not, what is this discussion actually about?

[BainsBane]

45. No, I mean MSNBC, CNN and Fox

Those are cable channels that generate entertainment programming in order to turn a profit. That they call it news is simply a ruse. The only programs I can imagine doing a half decent job with a book like that is Charlie Rose, Diane Rehm, or Bill Moyers. Wolf Blitzer probably couldn't even read the thing, whereas Matthews, Sharpton, O'Donnell or Schultz couldn't put their egos in check long enough for any meaningful discussion.

[merrily]

46. I was not speaking about them.

You eliminated them from consideration in your first post to me.

But, you didn't answer my question: Do you think that msm journalism in this time in this country is what it should be?

If not, what have we been going back and forth about since my first post?

[BainsBane]

49. No, of course not

Last edited Wed Apr 30, 2014, 10:28 AM - Edit history (1)

and it's clearly gotten worse. What irks me is the suggestion in the OP that racism is less worthy of attention that this book. I simply pointed out that the book has gotten a lot of attention and gave links to some of it.

However, you exclude from MSM virtually all news outlets in the country. If we exclude public broadcasting, print journalism, online magazines, and cable news, all that is left is the half hour evening news programs. I don't know why you threw Entertainment Tonight into the discussion.

There are a few reasons that news coverage has deteriorated. Print journalism is dying out and no longer covers much of once it once did. On television, the networks now seek to turn a profit from news programming rather than providing it as a public responsibility, but I also blame viewers, including liberals. People here seem to want MSNBC to only saw things that they agree with, essentially to make them feel good about themselves. That so many only want to be exposed to information they already agree with is, I think, a serious problem and a good part of the reason why the public is poorly informed.

[merrily]

55. Actually, I did not exclude anything but public television.

I simply honored your exclusion of cable.

I don't know why you threw Entertainment Tonight into the discussion.

I threw entertainment tonight into the discussion because you claimed, with no reason so to do, that I was looking for thoughtful discussion on entertainment shows. And you did not specify you were still talking about channels like MSNBC, which I had eliminated from consideration as soon as you mentioned them. Shows like Entertainment Tonight were, as far as I know, the only kind of entertainment shows left.

Some of the news shows that like to portray themselves as more credible don't say things like "Molly Cyrus twerked in a skimpy outfit." They say things about the reaction to her twerking making news or causing controversy. But they still do cover it.

What irks me is the suggestion in the OP that racism is less worthy of attention that this book.

The OP says, in its entirety:

Imagine if all this time dedicated to basketball was allocated to Piketty's new book
We would change the economic debate.

I did not read the OP as you did, or even as the thread parent later described it.

I read it very literally and commented that we don't get much quality discussion about anything, including race. But I did not write the OP. I am talking about the exchanges between you and me abut my post. My entire post was about the paucity of quality discussion of any subject, including about race. I never said there was zero quality discussion of any subject and I never even mentioned the book, per se. I certainly never said or implied that racism should not be covered.

So, I did wonder about all the trouble you went to to link to discussions about the book.

But, it seems we agree after all and have been talking at cross purposes.

[BainsBane]

35. Racism is hardly a petty issue

Last edited Wed Apr 30, 2014, 07:34 AM - Edit history (2)

I find it annoying that you suggest there is something inconsequential about an employer behaving as though he's running a plantation. The players, largely African American, stood up and said enough, forcing the NBA to take action.

Of all things to single out as an example of media excess, this is a particularly shitty one. CNN has spent months on the plane, but you object to coverage of a racist team owner and a successful labor action.

[ProfessorGAC]

39. ^^^^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Exactly what i was going to say.

[merrily]

47. That is not what the OP says at all.

[malaise]

41. Where did I suggest that it was inconsequential?

Where did I object to coverage of a racist team owner and successful labor action.
Read my posts on the importance of the basketball moment that goes way beyond basketball.

That said there are other issues that deserve way more coverage and Piketty's book is one of them.

[BainsBane]

44. Your OP presents the Sterling matter as undeserving of attention

in comparison to the Piketty book. That book has gotten far more coverage than the other thousands of academic books published every year. The fact you even know about it speaks to its wide coverage, examples of which I supplied in a post above.

Since it has been covered extensively on public broadcasting and in the press, I can only presume by coverage you mean cable news. I don't know why people here insist on watching that crap and worse yet mistaking it for news. It is entertainment programming designed to turn a profit. The medium of cable has developed in a way that it simply does not undertake substantive analysis of anything, let alone an academic publication. When was the last time you saw an academic publication become a hot topic on cable? I can't remember it's ever happening. This is not some little memoir or campaign account from a popular press, the sort written by the very "journalists" who appear on cable TV day in and day out. It's an academic monograph published by Harvard University Press. Few people outside of academics in their fields ever read such publications. This is clearly an exception.

As for your proclamation of what deserves more attention: If your goal was to add yet another voice to those seeking to marginalize issues about race and gender, you succeeded. If that wasn't your intent, I suggest you rethink your approach.

[merrily]

48. Actually, tthat is not how I took your OP.

This is your OP.

Imagine if all this time dedicated to basketball was allocated to Piketty's new book
We would change the economic debate.

The OP does not say that the Sterling story is unimportant or less important than Piketty's book or vice versa. It does not say that either less time or more time should be devoted to Piketty's book than to Sterling's bigotry.

[malaise]

54. Thanks merrily

You got it.

[mmonk]

37. It's up to us to use it to change debate.

Entrenched power doesn't give up it's position. You have to figure out how to take it.

[The2ndWheel]

50. I'm thinking it would be a bit more complicated

What we're talking about with the NBA involves 29 other owners, and a player's association that has quite a bit of pull(and money), especially in this particular instance.

To change the overall, big picture economic debate would be, and is, far more difficult. All this time dedicated to this specific basketball issue has been going on for about 4 days. Good luck with your imaginations.

[frazzled]

51. It was time dedicated to racism, not basketball

I hope you understand the difference.

The issue at stake was racism—and the breadth of its reach into American society. It happened to arise in the context of a basketball team and its owner. And it was a striking teachable moment: if even these highly paid, valuable players could be thought of in this way by their employer (not their master, not their benefactor, but their employer), think what the average citizen of color faces.

We can't have a sensible discussion of economics in this country if it doesn't include issues of race as well.

And finally: we can walk and chew gum at the same time. It's possible to have a discussion about race AND economics. It shouldn't surprise you, however, that a semi-academic book on economic theory is not going to draw all that much widespread attention. And it doesn't even have to: it needs to draw the attention of the policy makers. Like it or not, the subject of rate of return on investments is going to be pretty dull to the average American struggling to earn a paycheck. That's just how it rolls. All things considered, Piketty's book is receiving an incredible amount of (deserved) attention, given its subject matter.

[Brickbat]

52. Fortunately, it's not a zero-sum game.

[kelliekat44]

53. Not to worry. Rachel or Ed will get it back in the news. nt

[kwassa]

56. Piketty's book is a huge best-seller. Amazon sold out of the hardcover version.

This was a news item a couple of days ago. More copies are being rushed into print.