What I Said On Larry King Live
Ever since Generation Debt came out in 2006 I have been very lucky to be able to occasionally comment on TV and radio on generational and economic issues. I respect what broadcasters do. Broadcast communication requires special skills of confidence, improvisation, and wit -- it's a tough job.
Yet it has to be said that TV is generally a low-information medium. There's nothing like it when there's true breaking news -- election results are coming in or there's a big natural disaster. But if you watch for an hour on a slow news day you might learn that a bus crashed somewhere in Venezuela, and that bacon is bad for you. I haven't owned a television for three years, and I get most of my information from print, sometimes radio. So I'm ambivalent about appearing on TV, and I hardly ever watch my clips, as the pros do. I hate the feeling that that I'm essentially a spokesmodel for the various businesses with which I'm professionally associated.
But last week I found out why TV is really worth it. I was invited to appear on Larry King Live, with Wolf Blitzer as host. I would be part of a panel of four "personal finance experts" giving practical advice about what to do given the recession and Bear Sterns bailout. I'm not an economist nor a certified financial planner. But then again, neither were the other three people on the panel.
I was the youngest guest that night by about 10 years. Somebody in the green room asked me if I was Arianna Huffington's assistant (she was there to talk about politics).
Our brief was simply to talk about stocks vs. real estate. But as readers of my blog and book know, I'm extremely worried about what's going on with the economy. I think the recession may be very grave and destabilizing. Americans have to change their behavior, especially around debt. But average Americans have been spending beyond their means simply to afford middle-class basics like housing, health care, and education. If they can't borrow any more, our quality of life is truly going to suffer.
Meanwhile, rising energy costs and climate change demand that the energy industry, which is the largest single concentration of capital in our economy, must move away from the importation of fossil fuels. This is going to cause huge economic upheaval all by itself.
One important part of the solution is democratic government action. We, the people, must rewrite the rules of the market, to limit environmental degradation, the unregulated speculation that has brought our financial system to the brink of ruin, and the concentration of wealth. The market and the corporation are not people -- they are not born free. They are instruments that serve at the pleasure of the people, by the rules we set, for the benefit of everyone.
We also need to strengthen the social safety net and transform our infrastructure. Historically, these are tasks that only government can accomplish, whether on the local or national levels.
I didn't get to say all of this on TV, of course. But the wonderfully kind Wolf Blitzer did give me an opening to say a piece of it.
After devoting most of the segment to the three other panelists, he tossed me the last question. "Are you optimistic, Anya?"
I took a deep breath. "I think I'm going to optimistic when I vote in November, that there's going to be a different set of policies out there that change what happens to the economy for ordinary people.
BLITZER: You think whoever's elected can make a difference?KAMENETZ: I think we're at the end of market fundamentalism and that we're in the beginning of people who believe in government solutions to some of these problems.
BLITZER: You don't trust the private sector, the markets?
KAMENETZ: Did you see the news today?
BLITZER: You obviously don't.
KAMENETZ: I think that there's a much larger role that the federal government can take on behalf of ordinary people's incomes.
Thanks, Wolf! I had a great time. I hope you didn't regret it.
Follow Anya Kamenetz on Twitter: www.twitter.com/Anya1anya
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
You are absolutely right; there is a lot more the government can do that the private sector wouldn't really be willing to do--and after all, what is the purpose of government? This isn't a monarchy.
Anya,
I agree with your comments that "American's have to change their behavior, especially around debt". And "Americans have been spending beyond their means". In my lifetime, I have seen a devolution whereby a family cannot be supported financially by one-working parent, to both working and doing fine, to both working and barely treading water, to borrowing or pulling out home-equity, to now going without things we have come to almost expect. We need to rethink our needs. We can be happy in smaller well-designed energy-efficient homes. We can drive safe economy cars. We can use better judgement in food purchases and improve our diets AND save money. We can decide wearing this years 'trends' is not worth it. I think America has been disinclined to 'belt-tighten'. Maybe now we will learn because we will soon HAVE to!
Ms. Kamenetz,
Just start near the top of that economic food chain.
http://pacificgatepost.blogspot.com/2008/03/letter-to-ceos-of-fortune-1000-cos.html
...fix the boardroom. It's broken.
I saw you on LKL. And, sorry, I wasn't paying much attention to what you said. All I kept thinking was "what a cutie!"
Continued...
Clothing? Historically people who had more that 7 outfits were wealthy. A lot of clothing choices were made to allow you to change just the item you soiled so you could do laundry less. Today we have to have 14 full outfits or more just to be "middle class." Why? I'm lucky to be in the military, I get issued 3 outfits and wear them over and over again. You do laundry twice a week and if you go into the field you smell a little, but you get used to it.
Keep your receipts for a month and look at what you buy, then ask yourself if you still want that purchase a month later... I could keep providing these examples for days.
Seriously, we are blowing money on stupid things to be "middle class," and if you used any sense you could live on half as much twice as well.
Anya,
Generally I agree with you, but...
"But average Americans have been spending beyond their means simply to afford middle-class basics like housing, health care, and education. If they can't borrow any more, our quality of life is truly going to suffer.."
I have to ask what we are getting in quality of life? Where are we spending the extra money?
New cars? Learn to take care of the ones you have, oil changes every 5000 miles people! Instead of buying or (shudder) leasing new cars every time, look for used cars. Buy with cash if you can, or keep the car loan term as short as possible, that way you minimize the time that your car loan is more than the value of your car.
Fast Food? Not only are you wasting gas on the extra trip, you are eating hundreds of dollers a month! I buy $100 of groceries per month per head in my household, which gets me fresh fruit, veggies, steaks, and canned spagetti to put in gladware for lunch. If I bought 3 fast food meals a day at $5 per person per meal, I would spend $450 per person. I save $350 per person by avoiding resteraunts.
Who is Anya Kamenetz and why was she on Larry King discussing financial matters?
If the left needed representation on the show to argue for a more Keynesian public policy, this was not the person to do it. And, for good reason, she didn't do it very well. Her commentary served to bring a bit of discredit to Democratic economic policy. Opportunity missed.
The column itself seems a bit self-serving and promotional. Otherwise, what was her point?
What is your point, Dan, other than rudeness?
As someone who saw that episode of Larry King Live, I thought you offered an important counterbalance to the two panel members who were little more than Wall Street cheerleaders. Thanks for the reality check.
(contuinued)
"Not by a darned sight--unless we're all children. Did you ever see a grown man when he's trying for a secret society--or a rising family whose name is up at some club? They'll jump when they hear the sound of the word. The idea that to make a man work you've got to hold gold in front of his eyes is a growth, not an axiom. We've done that for so long that we've forgotten there's any other way. We've made a world where that's necessary. Let me tell you"--Amory became emphatic--"if there were ten men insured against either wealth or starvation, and offered a green ribbon for five hours' work a day and a blue ribbon for ten hours' work a day, nine out of ten of them would be trying for the blue ribbon. That competitive instinct only wants a badge. If the size of their house is the badge they'll sweat their heads off for that. If it's only a blue ribbon, I damn near believe they'll work just as hard. They have in other ages."
End Quote: Part of what we need to 'fix' is the belief that money, rather than honor is the best result for the world in general.
A Quote from near the end of F. Scott Fitzgerald's "This Side of Paradise: Chapter 5 - The Egotist Becomes a Personage" (c1920)
"No," said Amory, shaking his head. "Money isn't the only stimulus that brings out the best that's in a man, even in America."
"You said a while ago that it was."
"It is, right now. But if it were made illegal to have more than a certain amount the best men would all flock for the one other reward which attracts humanity--honor."
"That's the silliest thing you've said yet."
"No, it isn't silly. It's quite plausible. If you'd gone to college you'd have been struck by the fact that the men there would work twice as hard for any one of a hundred petty honors as those other men did who were earning their way through."
"Kids--child's play!" scoffed his antagonist.
(to be continued)
There is no question that government can, and should, do more to regulate financial markets. Capitalism is the best economic system going, but it is far from perfect. Let's face it: the marketplace is driven by greed, the drive for profits, and too often the concerns of and for society as a whole fall by the wayside. Unbridled capitalism and power are siblings, and the expressions are interchangeable in the old axiom about "power corrupts." If business practices show signs of threatening the fabric of society - as with the mortgage crisis - then the Fed or some government agency should be in a position to step in and say, "stop." Nobody I know wants to move to North Korea or South Yemen or other similar place, but we can damn sure do a lot better here than we're doing now.
You really didn't have to mention that you are not an economist.
As for the ideal economy, I would suggest the DPRK is just what you are looking for.
Perry... sounds like you have a soft spot for Kim, eh?
We have plenty of coal. Enough to last us for literally hundreds of years. And we have huge swaths of oil shale. You complain that handing such resources over to oil companies is 'concentrating wealth', while at the same time you say we must wean ourselves from foreign oil. Well, until the government itself starts developing those domestic energy sources, we had better start signing some contracts. We can't afford to allow OPEC to continue dominating us. I'm all for green energy, but we need a bridge to get there. And this bridge should be built on the types of energy we have here. Nuclear, thermal, and coal for electricity, and oil shale and coal for oil. And we should develop ANWR while we're at it.
Yuppers! Great idea! Just as long as you keep the price of energy down lower than a snake's dink so that nobody who wants an SUV need ever go without. Who cares about the environment? Global warming and all that crap's just a myth anyway. George Bush says so, and when has HE ever been wrong.
People have been robbed by big business. They have been flim flammed. Government is elected to create laws to benefit the people. Gutting the Enironmental Act, allowing public land to be razed, air to be made toxic and water to be poisoned is not the role of government. It is the role of government to stop business from its predatory actions and charging the people to clean up after them. Americans need to be told they do not need McMansions and SUVs to be happy. They need to be vigilant against elected representatives who get into office on the money donated by big business and who repaybig business by giving away the health and happiness of the people.
What ever happened to the ANTI-TRUSTs laws? How did MICROSOFT buy its way out of conviction and breakup? Despite the breakup of the former AT&T, telecommunications and broadcast communications have RECONCENTRATED.....not to mention the concentrations in investment banking.....!
You are being far too generous to the media hacks. Wolf Blitzer is a tool. As are most of the members of the "best" political team on television. Not because they are biased, but because they live in a fact free environment that they push on the rest of us.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
