Jon Stewart basically kills Jim Cramer

[Autumn]

That's a great writeup SportsDino. Creative destruction is hard to live through though. To my mind the weak spot in capitalism is that it doesn't necessarily work on and definitely doesn't care about human lifetimes. So, while it has forces that left to their own would rectify problems like this, it wouldn't necessarily do so in time for the human beings bearing the brunt of the change. That's only natural, but I think that's what encourages us human beings to constantly intervene. Not just out of oligarchal self-interest, but out of concern for each other. Nobody wants to hear that everything will settle out in 30 years when it's their retirement or their livelihood or their family on the line.

In other words, no easy answers.

[flere-imsaho]

Thats why I called it mangled socialism, its socialism for the socialites! There is a real notion of entitlement and mutual backscratching in our nation's elite, they probably think it is the pinacle of capitalism, but anyone who has studied enough history can see it is the standard pooling of power at the top to keep alive one standard of living while assuming the great mass of people are some form of peasants. It starts to resemble fuedalism after a point if you ask me.

That's neither feudalism or socialism - it's good, old-fashioned oligarchy.

Let's not confuse things here. Socialism gets a bad rap because, historically, a number of regimes used a perversion of its economic model to obscure the fact that they were, in fact, concentrating wealth among the elites. If the "elites" you described above managed to keep up the fiction that the populace as a whole was sharing in the wealth I think you'd have a point, but given we're already operating in a "you can and should make it on your own" capitalist model, I think that's a stretch. It's just oligarchy - a concentration of wealth amongst society's elites without much regard for the well being of the rest of the populace.

It's also certainly not feudalism. The core of the feudal structure was the pledge of allegiance of the populace to military powers for their own well-being (personal and economic). Not to take away the fact that the serfs had a really rough life, but the idea of a contract there is pretty important to that model.

I do think, however, that a reversion to feudalism is one of the potential endgames for unfettered capitalism. As economic entities aggregate more and more wealth and power, the idea of the regular person accepting a contract trading their liberty and work for economic stability becomes, I think, more likely, especially if they live in a country/region/world where there's no other entity (i.e. a government) to provide (or provide well) basic services. For an example, see England in the Industrial Revolution. Whole families, even generations, pledges themselves to the "factory", giving up all their liberty (basically) for economic protection.

[flere-imsaho]

I wrote sometime in the past year in the Recession thread that it has been interesting to see the "emerging market" countries' response to playing in the world economic market. Instead of letting their home-grown companies/industries play unfettered in the market (and likely get taken to the cleaners by more experienced/resourced competitors), they've recognized the advantages gained by using their political power (negotiations on the world stage - playing competitor countries/multi-nationals against each other, better planning on the country level, intelligent incentives/supports at the country level, etc...) to give these home-grown companies/industries every advantage they can. It's my feeling that the countries that get this balance correct, and practice it the best, will be the world's economic powers by the end of the century. And no, that probably won't include the U.S.

[molson]

I finally got to watch the entire unedited version of this and I can't believed I missed the obvious irony and hypocrisy the first time around.

Kramer's trying tell Stewart that he just does an "entertainment show about business". Stewart's trying to tell him that he has greater responsibility than that, because of the influence of his show......

Yes, Stuart thinks the Daily Show is "just a comedy show", but thinks that Mad Money has a duty and responsibility to inform Americans, and make accurate predictions about the banking situation.

Is the difference that Mad Money directly impacts individuals' financial decisions? What if the Daily Show directly impacts voting decisions through misleading or false information?

[JPhillips]

But CNBC and Cramer make it clear that he is going to give good advice on financial decisions and that advice is the reason to listen to him and not others. It's not marketed as entertainment as much as information.

Your comparison would only work if Comedy Central and Stewart repeatedly told viewers that Stewart was the one to trust about political decisions and was going to give you better advice than anyone else. AT no point would Comedy Central run a serious ad saying "In Stewart We Trust."

[Honolulu_Blue]

I finally got to watch the entire unedited version of this and I can't believed I missed the obvious irony and hypocrisy the first time around.

Kramer's trying tell Stewart that he just does an "entertainment show about business". Stewart's trying to tell him that he has greater responsibility than that, because of the influence of his show......

Yes, Stuart thinks the Daily Show is "just a comedy show", but thinks that Mad Money has a duty and responsibility to inform Americans, and make accurate predictions about the banking situation.

Is the difference that Mad Money directly impacts individuals' financial decisions? What if the Daily Show directly impacts voting decisions through misleading or false information?

You could have saved yourself a ton of time and just typed "I don't get it" and then exited the thread.

.

[sterlingice]

I finally got to watch the entire unedited version of this and I can't believed I missed the obvious irony and hypocrisy the first time around.

Kramer's trying tell Stewart that he just does an "entertainment show about business". Stewart's trying to tell him that he has greater responsibility than that, because of the influence of his show......

Yes, Stuart thinks the Daily Show is "just a comedy show", but thinks that Mad Money has a duty and responsibility to inform Americans, and make accurate predictions about the banking situation.

Is the difference that Mad Money directly impacts individuals' financial decisions? What if the Daily Show directly impacts voting decisions through misleading or false information?

You must have missed my post a page or two ago about ethical responsibilities of different types of shows. I'm not sure how since it's about a mile long. But, as Jon Stewart said (and i'm paraphrasing): "We're both snake oil salesmen but we label ours as snake oil here and there are problems with labeling it vitamin tonic"

But, as a couple of others have said- you're being intentionally obtuse. You've decided to be the MBBF of the thread...

SI

[RainMaker]

I finally got to watch the entire unedited version of this and I can't believed I missed the obvious irony and hypocrisy the first time around.

Kramer's trying tell Stewart that he just does an "entertainment show about business". Stewart's trying to tell him that he has greater responsibility than that, because of the influence of his show......

Yes, Stuart thinks the Daily Show is "just a comedy show", but thinks that Mad Money has a duty and responsibility to inform Americans, and make accurate predictions about the banking situation.

Is the difference that Mad Money directly impacts individuals' financial decisions? What if the Daily Show directly impacts voting decisions through misleading or false information?

Did you not see the first part where Stewart shows a CNBC ad for Cramer? "Who to trust in these times", the "In Cramer we Trust" slogan. I think his point was that they are both entertainment shows, but Cramer allows his show to be presented by CNBC as something that will make you money. It's just disengenuous.

[ISiddiqui]

What's Cramer to do about CNBC marketing? I mean Cramer picks stocks with ridiculous sound effects. Most people should realize its entertainment with a bit of information (really, how many people really can predict stocks).

[molson]

You must have missed my post a page or two ago about ethical responsibilities of different types of shows. I'm not sure how since it's about a mile long. But, as Jon Stewart said (and i'm paraphrasing): "We're both snake oil salesmen but we label ours as snake oil here and there are problems with labeling it vitamin tonic"

But, as a couple of others have said- you're being intentionally obtuse. You've decided to be the MBBF of the thread...

SI

That was an interesting post a few pages back, sorry I missed it.

I think I'm disagreeing more than being obtuse, but that's generally the reaction to a minority opinion here.

And to me, the disagreement is about how shows are characterized into the "types" that you layed out very well. I feel that The Daily Show is in a different "type" of show than most people here. What Jon Stuart says the show is, is meaningless to me. It's how he acts, what the content of the actual show is, and how other people see it. I watch that Cramer interview and see a harder-hitting version of Bill O'Reilly. I realize that's not standard fare on that show, but it's moving gradually in that direction for a decade, and we'll consider to see more of it.

Young people get their news from this show. They post clips of the Daily Show in political threads to support their points. No matter what Jon Stuart tells them. I don't see how people here can compare the show to the Onion and then say that I don't get it. The Onion? The Onion does almost straight parody. Stuart does legitimate straight news commentary! He hands Bill O'Reilly a Teddy Bear in the middle of an otherwise serious interview, and that makes the whole segment "comedy". That's the purpose of the teddy bear - to provide a distinction from news commentary shows and keep them in the soft place they want to be. (And so in future interviews about his role in the media, he can say, "I handed the guy a Teddy Bear! It's obviously not a serious show!")

Stuart is certainly allowed to produce a news commentary show with a political bias. That's his right. I just find the way he plays down his relevance and then goes after CNBC and others (via serious interview, NOT parody) disingenuous. It feels like a scam to me. He's protected by critique by being on "Comedy Central", and by the nature of his lead-in shows, and he still gets to be revered as a "commentator" that gets to the bottom of serious issues. If there was a conservative version of this show, liberals would attack it, like they do Bill O'Reilly.

And the show itself is kind of the grand champion of the arroagant, liberal, smarminess that I blame for losing the elections in '00 and '04. But that's a whole other thread.

[jeff061]

Only hypocrisy I saw was Stewart playing a marathon of "Let's make Jim Cramer look like an ass" clips, then constantly telling Cramer it wasn't about him whenever he defended himself.

Other than that, yeahm there's a pretty big god damn difference between The Daily Show and Mad Money. "In Cramer We Trust!"

[JPhillips]

What's Cramer to do about CNBC marketing? I mean Cramer picks stocks with ridiculous sound effects. Most people should realize its entertainment with a bit of information (really, how many people really can predict stocks).

It would be a strange world if a niche network's biggest star had any influence over how his show was marketed.

[RainMaker]

That was an interesting post a few pages back, sorry I missed it.

I think I'm disagreeing more than being obtuse, but that's generally the reaction to a minority opinion here.

And to me, the disagreement is about how shows are characterized into the "types" that you layed out very well. I feel that The Daily Show is in a different "type" of show than most people here. What Jon Stuart says the show is, is meaningless to me. It's how he acts, what the content of the actual show is, and how other people see it. I watch that Cramer interview and see a harder-hitting version of Bill O'Reilly. I realize that's not standard fare on that show, but it's moving gradually in that direction for a decade, and we'll consider to see more of it.

Young people get their news from this show. They post clips of the Daily Show in political threads to support their points. No matter what Jon Stuart tells them. I don't see how people here can compare the show to the Onion and then say that I don't get it. The Onion?

Stuart is certainly allowed to produce a news commentary show with a political bias. That's his right. I just find the way he plays down his relevance and then goes after CNBC and others (via serious interview, NOT parody) disingenuous. It feels like a scam to me. He's protected by critique by being on "Comedy Central", and by the nature of his lead-in shows, and he still gets to be revered as a "commentator" that gets to the bottom of serious issues. If there was a conservative version of this show, liberals would attack it, like they do Bill O'Reilly.

And the show itself is kind of the grand champion of the arroagant, liberal, smarminess that I blame for losing the elections in '00 and '04. But that's a whole other thread.

The serious interviews are extremely rare. He has maybe a couple a year.
And I don't see how he's protected by anything. People are free to bash his show and him personally. A lot of people do. The fact you keep comparing him to guys like O'Reilly makes me wonder if you've ever really seen his show before.

And young people don't get their news from the show. They get it from the internet. From blogs, news hubs, and social networking sites. No college kid is sitting around waiting for the Daily Show so that he can figure out what's going on in the world. He heads over to Drudge, CNN, or Digg to find it.

[RainMaker]

What's Cramer to do about CNBC marketing? I mean Cramer picks stocks with ridiculous sound effects. Most people should realize its entertainment with a bit of information (really, how many people really can predict stocks).

His books are titled "Watch TV, Get Rich" and "Get Rich, Stay Rich". Does he not have power over that either? Cramer is CNBC's biggest name and I'm sure has a lot of creative control over how his show is marketed.

[molson]

The serious interviews are extremely rare. He has maybe a couple a year.
And I don't see how he's protected by anything. People are free to bash his show and him personally. A lot of people do. The fact you keep comparing him to guys like O'Reilly makes me wonder if you've ever really seen his show before.

And young people don't get their news from the show. They get it from the internet. From blogs, news hubs, and social networking sites. No college kid is sitting around waiting for the Daily Show so that he can figure out what's going on in the world. He heads over to Drudge, CNN, or Digg to find it.

True, anybody is free to bash him, which is really all my points come down to anyway, just thinking he's slimey and a con-man.

And I would disagree about your second paragraph - I think there's a huge segment of young people who don't seek out news AT ALL unless its disguised at entertainment. (the people that vaguely realize that George W. Bush is "stupid", but couldn't actually tell you anything he's done except maybe declare war on Iraq "for oil"). Of course, these aren't the future leaders of our country or anything, it's just unfortunate.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Are they on your lawn too?

I'm sure there are willingly undereducated people in all walks of life, I'm not sure the young are any more than those who get all their news from Rush.

EDIT: Point being, I think those that "get their news" from the Daily Show are a very small subset, just like those who only "get their news" from Rush.

[Honolulu_Blue]

True, anybody is free to bash him, which is really all my points come down to anyway, just thinking he's slimey and a con-man.

And I would disagree about your second paragraph - I think there's a huge segment of young people who don't seek out news AT ALL unless its disguised at entertainment. (the people that vaguely realize that George W. Bush is "stupid", but couldn't actually tell you anything he's done except maybe declare war on Iraq "for oil"). Of course, these aren't the future leaders of our country or anything, it's just unfortunate.

I reckon that given the internet, the multiple 24 hours news channels, and all of that there are more "young people" aware of what's going on in the "news" today and more interested in it than there ever has been.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Are they on your lawn too?

:D

[molson]

Are they on your lawn too?

I'm sure there are willingly undereducated people in all walks of life, I'm not sure the young are any more than those who get all their news from Rush.

You're making my point by comparing the Daily Show to Rush

[ISiddiqui]

His books are titled "Watch TV, Get Rich" and "Get Rich, Stay Rich". Does he not have power over that either? Cramer is CNBC's biggest name and I'm sure has a lot of creative control over how his show is marketed.

Uh... how does anyone read those book titles and not realize that they aren't serious journalism.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

You're making my point by comparing the Daily Show to Rush

No, you're ignoring my point about where young people get their news. Rush is entertainment masquerading as news. Despite your protests, I have yet to be convinced that The Daily Show is masquerading as anything. The show very rarely takes itself seriously.

[molson]

I reckon that given the internet, the multiple 24 hours news channels, and all of that there are more "young people" aware of what's going on in the "news" today and more interested in it than there ever has been.

That's true, but we still perform pretty horribly as a country on those "news/word knowledge" quizes....

[Neon_Chaos]

Remember when Jon Stewart destroyed Crossfire and essentially shoved them off the air with his appearance?

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/aFQFB5YpDZE&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/aFQFB5YpDZE&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[molson]

The show very rarely takes itself seriously.

That's what they claim, but I don't believe it, and the content of the show doesn't support it. Did you watch the Cramer interivew? You don't think Stuart is taking himself seriously? He wants a noble prize.

And besides that, OTHER people clearly take it seriously. Look at this thread (even before I entered it). Stuart "killing" Cremer is newsworthy. I know that you don't consider how other people look at the show as relevant to the equation, that it's all about (claimed) self-identification, but I disagree. How other people view the show is relevant to the impact.

[molson]

Remember when Jon Stewart destroyed Crossfire and essentially shoved them off the air with his appearance?

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/aFQFB5YpDZE&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/aFQFB5YpDZE&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

That's a pretty amazing feat for a comedian who follows puppets making prank calls.

[RainMaker]

True, anybody is free to bash him, which is really all my points come down to anyway, just thinking he's slimey and a con-man.

And I would disagree about your second paragraph - I think there's a huge segment of young people who don't seek out news AT ALL unless its disguised at entertainment. (the people that vaguely realize that George W. Bush is "stupid", but couldn't actually tell you anything he's done except maybe declare war on Iraq "for oil"). Of course, these aren't the future leaders of our country or anything, it's just unfortunate.

You don't like him because he makes fun of your team. If he was making fun of Democrats, you'd love the guy. You're just caught up in the "anyone who says something bad about my team is a dirty liberal hippie con-man". God forbid someone make fun of those morons without being labeled as part of some political movement.

The Bush dislike went well beyond some silly war slogans. Most people turned on him when they realized the war was a huge mistake and Iraq was no threat. It got compounded by blunders with Katrina, economy, the DOJ, and other political scandals. I really think Katrina was what sent most people over the edge in this country. It was sad watching a major city in our country turn into a 3rd world city overnight because of sheer incompetence.

People didn't get that from the Daily Show. They got that from blogs and picture accounts showing the devestation. YouTube videos that showed what was going on. And most importantly the 24 hour news networks that were constantly streaming live from New Orleans. Jon Stewart has an audience of just over a million viewers every night. That's relatively small in the grand scheme of things.

[Honolulu_Blue]

That's a pretty amazing feat for a comedian who follows puppets making prank calls.

Yep. He's a pretty amazing guy. I'm glad he's around.

[RainMaker]

That's what they claim, but I don't believe it, and the content of the show doesn't support it. Did you watch the Cramer interivew? You don't think Stuart is taking himself seriously? He wants a noble prize.

And besides that, OTHER people clearly take it seriously. Look at this thread (even before I entered it). Stuart "killing" Cremer is newsworthy. I know that you don't consider how other people look at the show as relevant to the equation, that it's all about (claimed) self-identification, but I disagree. How other people view the show is relevant to the impact.
It's also newsworthy when Letterman gets serious with a guest. I'd hardly call the Late Show "news".

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

That's what they claim, but I don't believe it, and the content of the show doesn't support it. Did you watch the Cramer interivew? You don't think Stuart is taking himself seriously? He wants a noble prize.


Personally, outside of the Carlson and Cramer imbroglios which penetrated the MSM, I really can't think of times when Stewart wasn't out for a laugh.

I get the feeling you really haven't watched the show very much, making your soapboxing a little odd.

[molson]

You don't like him because he makes fun of your team. If he was making fun of Democrats, you'd love the guy. You're just caught up in the "anyone who says something bad about my team is a dirty liberal hippie con-man". God forbid someone make fun of those morons without being labeled as part of some political movement.

The Bush dislike went well beyond some silly war slogans. Most people turned on him when they realized the war was a huge mistake and Iraq was no threat. It got compounded by blunders with Katrina, economy, the DOJ, and other political scandals. I really think Katrina was what sent most people over the edge in this country. It was sad watching a major city in our country turn into a 3rd world city overnight because of sheer incompetence.

People didn't get that from the Daily Show. They got that from blogs and picture accounts showing the devestation. YouTube videos that showed what was going on. And most importantly the 24 hour news networks that were constantly streaming live from New Orleans. Jon Stewart has an audience of just over a million viewers every night. That's relatively small in the grand scheme of things.

You misunderstood what I said entirely, I wish the world could have been saved from Bush's incompetence also. Unfortunately, the only people who could have done that was Democrats, and they weren't up to it.

There's certainly many reasons to turn against Bush, you've named just some of them.

I look at things the oppositte - you like the Daily Show strictly because he's on your team. If there was a conservative news commentary show that called itself "entertainment" and had a rabid following of people with like-minded political views who constantly quoted the show in political discussions, mocked any different perspective, you'd be annoyed by it.

In my small anecdotal experiences - the Daily Show is a HUGE influence on political views, and the way people make points.

I really want the liberals to win (and ultamitely, the liberals always do win, because we're always moving forward). I just don't want to do it with robots and arrogance and lies and circle-jerks and outright dismissal and mocking of others' opinions. The Daily Show Shenianigans are about all of those things. THOSE liberals LOSE TO GEORGE W. BUSH!! I don't think people have grasped that. Democrats of course blame American voters and Republicans for those loses, but they have only themselves to blame.

[RainMaker]

You misunderstood what I said entirely, I wish the world could have been saved from Bush's incompetence also. Unfortunately, the only people who could have done that was Democrats, and they weren't up to it.

All the Democrats fault. God forbid a Republican vote against the dumbest fucking war we've ever fought.

[molson]

All the Democrats fault. God forbid a Republican vote against the dumbest fucking war we've ever fought.

Exactly - the Democrats' priority is self-rightousness first, winning elections second.

If they win - it's a great day in America!
If they lose - Americans are idiots!

Obama is a brilliant guy, who ran a nearly flawless campaign, and he still needed the comical disaster of an Alaskan hockey mom to win an election against a man from the party who got George W. Bush elected twice.

[Honolulu_Blue]

I look at things the oppositte - you like the Daily Show strictly because he's on your team. If there was a conservative news commentary show that called itself "entertainment" and had a rabid following of people with like-minded political views who constantly quoted the show in political discussions, mocked any different perspective, you'd be annoyed by it.

Thanks for the insight! I had no idea why I liked "The Daily Show", but now I know!

As for a "conservative news commentary show that called itself 'entertainment'", you're right, I am deeply annoyed by Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and the rest of those douchebags and their legions of little myrmidons. So, you've got me there!

Also, remember, there are a LOT more people who takes their ques from these shows than "The Daily Show". A LOT more. It's not even close.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Obama is a brilliant guy, who ran a nearly flawless campaign, and he still needed the comical disaster of an Alaskan hockey mom to win an election against a man from the party who got George W. Bush elected twice.

I think that's more a comment on the sad state of affairs in our country than any indictment of liberals. Don't you think?

[Big Fo]

In addition to taking Begala and Carlson's scalps above I love this Daily Show interview with Chris Matthews: here (http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=104548&title=chris-matthews)

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

I look at things the oppositte - you like the Daily Show strictly because he's on your team. If there was a conservative news commentary show that called itself "entertainment" and had a rabid following of people with like-minded political views who constantly quoted the show in political discussions, mocked any different perspective, you'd be annoyed by it.

I like the Daily Show (and felt a lot like you until I actually, you know, started to watch it) and Obama was the first D for President I've ever voted for. *shurg*

[molson]

I think that's more a comment on the sad state of affairs in our country than any indictment of liberals. Don't you think?

Who knows, but it's tough to win national elections when you look down on half of the electorate and tell them how stupid they are. They don't like that. The Republicans have been better, historically, at bringing in the other side, making them feel they belong and are wanted - usually under a message of patriotism (a message which Bush of course abused, and perhaps even permantly destroyed as a tactic...it's a shame now that when people hear "patrotism", they think of Bush trying to get away with stuff).

[sterlingice]

Exactly - the Democrats' priority is self-rightousness first, winning elections second.

If they win - it's a great day in America!
If they lose - Americans are idiots!

Obama is a brilliant guy, who ran a nearly flawless campaign, and he still needed the comical disaster of an Alaskan hockey mom to win an election against a man from the party who got George W. Bush elected twice.

I'm going to take two points and disagree but carry on with the rest of the conversation. I also want to give you credit because the MBBF comment was a little harsh. At least you're stepping up to debate different points, not just parroting the same thing over and over (tho you have repeated yourself quite a few times). I disagree with a lot of what you've posted but at least you're making a couple of different coherent arguments

1) Obama's campaign was nothing near flawless. Seriously, Rev Wright took up how much time?

2) Yeah, Palin started to turn the tide in the election, first up towards the GOP and then back down once she started fumbling. But the bottom falling out of the economy got the Dems elected. Period. End of story. A lot less people care about gay marriage or abortion or even the slim chance of a terrorist attack or silly wars when you can't put a roof over your head or food on your plate as that hits so much closer to home.

SI

[lordscarlet]

That's what they claim, but I don't believe it, and the content of the show doesn't support it. Did you watch the Cramer interivew? You don't think Stuart is taking himself seriously? He wants a noble prize.

And besides that, OTHER people clearly take it seriously. Look at this thread (even before I entered it). Stuart "killing" Cremer is newsworthy. I know that you don't consider how other people look at the show as relevant to the equation, that it's all about (claimed) self-identification, but I disagree. How other people view the show is relevant to the impact.

To this I would merely say: Look at the other threads here. Just because we discuss it for page after page, that doesn't mean it is newsworthy. :)

[SportsDino]

I think a book called the 'Road to Serfdom' makes a pretty good case for why socialism inevitably tends towards elites corrupting it in self interest. I think it ultimately leads to an oppressive elitist regime as well, since those are the tools that most closely fit the needs of the rulers.

Capitalism is nice in that its mechanisms support freedom and individual success, in fact it works best in cases with both, but is not so nice in that it has no guarantees of social kindness either. I personally am for a sub-branch of economics called by varying terms, but generally social capital, where you value things that are traditionally not quantified by a pure 'goods in, goods out' model of economics. I think ultimately that will be the missing factor in the equations, that there is an inherit value in goodwill towards one another and stability of the social system... so some portion of income should be invested there as well as in traditional goods production.

Simplest example is food welfare for women and children. Bunch of freeloading slackmonkeys who need to get a job!!! Drain on society!!! Food stamp trading for crack money junkie jerks!!!

Well having had my share of crappy welfare cheese (no more disgusting a foodstuff do I think possible), in a family that jumped from poverty to struggling middle class back and forth during the 'good years'... my perspective is a bit different. You invest to what is essentially charity in order to either stabilize the rabble, smooth out hardships, or preserve potential growth opportunities or social standards. The harsh economies of the third world would chew up people like me, on the other hand a slightly sappier country like the USA picks up an unlikely money machine (at least I hope to create jobs and cool products in my lifetime).

So I disagree that being capitalist is being anti-social spending, and that socialism is the best system for raising average standard of living. Although it does seem to be the common mold, so I guess it is true until we truly understand more about economics.

I liken it to fuedalism, which is not so much the populace pledged to militaries, rather the people were property tied to the land (serfs). Kings mostly dealt with a class of nobility that provided military power (knights and levies of commoner troops). The people really had no say or use, they played along because it offered a certain measure of security and certainty, in exchange for pretty bleak prospects of advancement.

To me this is similar to how many corporations are becoming structured. CEOs need only assemble the pledges of a few compliant board members and executives that wield the modern military power of the day (lots of money and influence). They view workers as essentially commodities, there to suck up debt and goods, provide cheap labor, but they again do not really look for the masses to have any real input to decision making, we see this with increasing distasteful politicians and non-voting of public shares in companies.

Favor trading seems to have a lot more sway than democracy or even money really, so I'm reminded of fuedal lords pledging loyalty to a king (i.e. boards handing over their oversight powers to the executives and loading them with sweetheart deals in exchange for reciprocal behavior at their company). It is an oligarchy more accurately in that it involves co-rule of a class, rather than a top down pyramid... but I like to think of little barons of industry charging around on a horse and making great shows of their greatness and bravery, and spending like they were pampered kings while their companies rot from the exploitation. Also within some companies it seems you have a whole collection of sycophants and such like an old medieval court.

People are fearful, so the natural tendency would be to give in and become a serf, any job better than no job sort of thinking... but the net result is a decline in standard of living for everyone, especially the mega-rich because they would enjoy prosperity and technology and increases in wealth if they were not so concerned with iron grips on what they have (or playing zero sum games against each other or the populace). I think it is very easy to forget that you can get wealthier by a shrinking share of a faster growing pie, as well as a growing share of a stagnant or declining pie.

[JPhillips]

Who knows, but it's tough to win national elections when you look down on half of the electorate and tell them how stupid they are. They don't like that. The Republicans have been better, historically, at bringing in the other side, making them feel they belong and are wanted - usually under a message of patriotism (a message which Bush of course abused, and perhaps even permantly destroyed as a tactic...it's a shame now that when people hear "patrotism", they think of Bush trying to get away with stuff).

Your remembrance of history is a bit off. If you start with 1980 you may have a point, although Congressional and state level elections would tell a different story. If you start at 1992 it looks very different at the Presidential level.

What I think this really boils down to is that the Republicans have a better history of attracting you. That's fine, but it isn't indicative of national trends. Generally more people self-identify as Democrats and vote that way a majority of the time. That gap evened up during Bush, but by the last election there was a significant Dem advantage.

Even if you only look at Presidential candidates from 1980, I think it's wrong to assume the problem is an indictment of the entire party. The sample size is so small that the problem is much more likely to be about the individual presidential candidates as opposed to the party.

Finally, Obama didn't barely win. He got a significantly higher percentage of the vote than did Kennedy in 1960, Nixon in 1968, Carter in 1976, Reagan in 1980, Clinton in 1992, and Bush in 2000. By any historical measure he did quite well for a first term non-incumbent party candidate.

[RainMaker]

I look at things the oppositte - you like the Daily Show strictly because he's on your team. If there was a conservative news commentary show that called itself "entertainment" and had a rabid following of people with like-minded political views who constantly quoted the show in political discussions, mocked any different perspective, you'd be annoyed by it.
I don't have a team. I don't vote for one party and I don't have a side that I feel I must defend blindly. I watch the Daily Show on occasion because I think it's funny. I don't care if he makes fun of Democrats or Republicans. He usually isn't attacking political views either, he attacks hypocrisy. If there was a conservative news commentary that was funny and entertaining, I'd watch it.

In my small anecdotal experiences - the Daily Show is a HUGE influence on political views, and the way people make points.

He gets just over a million viewers a night. That's hardly a huge audience to influence.

[RainMaker]

In addition to taking Begala and Carlson's scalps above I love this Daily Show interview with Chris Matthews: here (http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=104548&title=chris-matthews)

That couldn't have happened. Stewart is a liberal I thought who just bashes conservatives?

[RainMaker]

I'm going to take two points and disagree but carry on with the rest of the conversation. I also want to give you credit because the MBBF comment was a little harsh. At least you're stepping up to debate different points, not just parroting the same thing over and over (tho you have repeated yourself quite a few times). I disagree with a lot of what you've posted but at least you're making a couple of different coherent arguments

1) Obama's campaign was nothing near flawless. Seriously, Rev Wright took up how much time?

2) Yeah, Palin started to turn the tide in the election, first up towards the GOP and then back down once she started fumbling. But the bottom falling out of the economy got the Dems elected. Period. End of story. A lot less people care about gay marriage or abortion or even the slim chance of a terrorist attack or silly wars when you can't put a roof over your head or food on your plate as that hits so much closer to home.

SI

I agree with the last part. The minute the economy plunged Obama took the lead in the polls. I think Palin hurt him, but it wasn't as big as some want to think. It was a matter of seeing our economy collapsing and McCain and Palin discussing the fact Obama had dinner with Bill Ayers that got people.

The funny thing is that I bet if McCain came out and opposed those bailouts and TARP, he'd have a shot at being President. People were really pissed off with that and I think he could have swayed a lot of votes by coming out and saying "we aren't giving these losers a dime of your money".

[remper]

I look at things the oppositte - you like the Daily Show strictly because he's on your team. If there was a conservative news commentary show that called itself "entertainment" and had a rabid following of people with like-minded political views who constantly quoted the show in political discussions, mocked any different perspective, you'd be annoyed by it.


I'd be annoyed because it wouldn't be funny. Ultimately, that's why the Daily Show remains popular. Because it's funny. You really think that if the show truly became the Jon Stewart soapbox you claim it is, people would watch? Rule number one for an entertainment show is... you know, be entertaining.

You would hope that people weren't tuning in to the Cramer show to be entertained. I'd rather think that the guy I might listen to about financial matters would be more interested in giving sound advice.

But what I got out of the interview like others have stated already is that news reporting, whether it be financial or otherwise, is abysmal in this country right now.

[ISiddiqui]

And then one wonders about the attacks on Rush Limbaugh ;). Limbaugh is popular because... wait for it... his listeners consider him funny. I think few people on the left really understand that the appeal of Limbaugh is his humor and entertainment value. That's why he's the most listened to radio program in the country for almost a couple decades now.

I believe Limbaugh's radio audience is larger than the Daily Show's viewing audience as well.

[sterlingice]

And then one wonders about the attacks on Rush Limbaugh ;). Limbaugh is popular because... wait for it... his listeners consider him funny. I think few people on the left really understand that the appeal of Limbaugh is his humor and entertainment value. That's why he's the most listened to radio program in the country for almost a couple decades now.

I believe Limbaugh's radio audience is larger than the Daily Show's viewing audience as well.

As of 2006<sup class="plainlinks noprint asof-tag update" style="display: none;">[update] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rush_Limbaugh&action=edit)</sup>, Arbitron (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbitron) ratings indicated that The Rush Limbaugh Show had a minimum weekly audience of 13.5 million listeners, making it the largest radio talk show audience in the United States.

...

By September 2008, the show averaged nearly 2 million viewers per night. (The Daily Show)

So, yeah, about 7x as much

SI

[sabotai]

Is weekly audience a daily average or the sum of all 5 days?

[Big Fo]

All five days.

[sterlingice]

Oh, my bad. That makes them fairly similar then. I just thought that meant the number of people who watched all 5 shows. JIMGA would know

SI

[DaddyTorgo]

so by those measures - Rush is reaching 2.7m per day and John Stewart is reaching about 1m per day

[ISiddiqui]

So, I guess the Daily Show in late 2008 had a viewership that was double of what is now (if you are using some updated numbers)?

(It would make sense for a drop off after a Presidential election)

[DaddyTorgo]

i haven't found viewership #'s for daily show. i was just using what rainmaker referred to in his post as "a million a day"

[flere-imsaho]

I think a book called the 'Road to Serfdom' makes a pretty good case for why socialism inevitably tends towards elites corrupting it in self interest. I think it ultimately leads to an oppressive elitist regime as well, since those are the tools that most closely fit the needs of the rulers.

You could say the same thing about capitalism, honestly, or in fact pretty much any economic model. After all, haven't we just seen a legion of examples whereby our "elites" have corrupted the system in their own self interest? In fact, as I posted a long time ago in the Recession thread, the Wall Street elites went so far as to pervert the system for their own short-term ends while wilfully ignoring the damage they were causing to that very system. Sowing the seeds of one's own demise to be sure! ;)

Capitalism is nice in that its mechanisms support freedom and individual success, in fact it works best in cases with both, but is not so nice in that it has no guarantees of social kindness either.

In a theoretical world, sure. But look, you can't critique Socialism based on how it's fared in the real world in one paragraph, and then promote Capitalism in the next paragraph based on how it should function in a theoretical world. This is why you're not seeing that a capitalist system can be used just as much to further the causes of an oppressive "regime" as a socialist system (or any system) can.

I personally am for a sub-branch of economics called by varying terms, but generally social capital, where you value things that are traditionally not quantified by a pure 'goods in, goods out' model of economics. I think ultimately that will be the missing factor in the equations, that there is an inherit value in goodwill towards one another and stability of the social system... so some portion of income should be invested there as well as in traditional goods production.

Are you perhaps suggesting a Social Contract? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Contract_(Rousseau)) Put in general terms, Socialism proceduralizes the Social Contract while Capitalism assumes (hopes) it'll happen as a matter of course.

To whit:

Well having had my share of crappy welfare cheese (no more disgusting a foodstuff do I think possible), in a family that jumped from poverty to struggling middle class back and forth during the 'good years'... my perspective is a bit different. You invest to what is essentially charity in order to either stabilize the rabble, smooth out hardships, or preserve potential growth opportunities or social standards. The harsh economies of the third world would chew up people like me, on the other hand a slightly sappier country like the USA picks up an unlikely money machine (at least I hope to create jobs and cool products in my lifetime).

So I disagree that being capitalist is being anti-social spending, and that socialism is the best system for raising average standard of living. Although it does seem to be the common mold, so I guess it is true until we truly understand more about economics.

Pure capitalism has very little to say about social spending, so one assumes it's anti as a matter of course. Pure socialism is very much a good system for raising the average standard of living, at the (likely) expense of great strides being made on the back of innovation. In theoretical applications (both), of course.

In real world applications the difference between these two models on the subject of "social spending" is, put simply, a difference on the implementation of a "Social Contract". If socialism is enshrined at the state level through the real collective will of the people (take, again, Scandanavian countries as examples), then the populace has effectively agreed to provide for their common men proactively and as a matter of course. They have, in effect, decided to trade some economic freedom for some economic security as (and this is the important bit) a group.

In real world capitalism the populace, as individuals, prefer economic freedom to economic security and view it as the individual's responsibility to use the former to procure the latter. Redistributing wealth to fulfill a "Social Contract" is generally either an act of pure altruism (ignore the tax-deductability of most charitable donations) or pure cynicism (making sure a deeply embittered and potentially violent underclass does not exist is crucial for maintaining one's economic freedom and security).

I liken it to fuedalism, which is not so much the populace pledged to militaries, rather the people were property tied to the land (serfs). Kings mostly dealt with a class of nobility that provided military power (knights and levies of commoner troops). The people really had no say or use, they played along because it offered a certain measure of security and certainty, in exchange for pretty bleak prospects of advancement.

Well, that's basically what I was saying. Bear in mind feudalism is largely a pyramid structure, with common people pledging to a local lord, who pledges to a regional lord, who pledges to a national lord, etc.... The point being that each is pledging to someone with the strength (and in medieval times, this was military strength) to protect them.

To me this is similar to how many corporations are becoming structured. CEOs need only assemble the pledges of a few compliant board members and executives that wield the modern military power of the day (lots of money and influence). They view workers as essentially commodities, there to suck up debt and goods, provide cheap labor, but they again do not really look for the masses to have any real input to decision making, we see this with increasing distasteful politicians and non-voting of public shares in companies.

Agreed 100%, which is why one of the outcomes I can see for the world over time is actually a reversion to some sort of feudal-capitalist hybrid, especially as resources dwindle and governments (especially big governments) fail.

For instance, I can't imagine the following scenario is too far-fetched: it's 50 years from now. Your local, state and federal government are essentially bankrupt and provide the bare minimum of services. GE offers you a job where you'll live with your family in housing on their enormous, and gated, corporate campus, your kids will go to school there, and you and your family's health care is completely covered, in return for you working for them virtually every day of the week, at a rate they set, in perpetuity. Do you take the offer?

[SportsDino]

We probably need a capitalism versus socialism thread.

Road to Serfdom tries to demonstrate that socialism inevitably corrupts due to the mechanism itself. Any mechanism of course can be corrupted (i.e. capitalism is vulnerable, I would argue it is not inevitable). It is a pretty complex argument, but I can easily see how socialism quickly degenerates into breaking individual freedom... not to mention how it has trouble raising standard of living due to a very weak incentive system. So my statement is that socialism ALWAYS breaks down once you get past the tribal (one big family) level.

Capitalism makes it harder to shut people out of the elite, whereas socialism/fuedalism makes it easy. Because the whole system of capitalism encourages the search for competitive idea makers, until the system is completely corrupted you could have someone come along and make so much money that other capitalist actors can join them for sake of money rather than power ties. In a socialist/fuedalist regime power becomes the only currency (again why socialism will fail, when all wealth is shared power to control how that wealth is shared becomes the only wealth, i.e. the forming of a party elite).

I disagree with the formulation of 'pure' or traditional capitalism, as an incomplete theory. So I disagree that only altruism/cynicism cause social spending, but rather there is some value that is being bought with social spending that has some impact on the efficiency of the economy. For instance, if you ask me the Scandanavian model is more a capitalism hybrid than socialism, it invests heavy social spending to provide a high value in economic security. Under a more complete theory of capitalism, this would probably not be called socialism, and it might be proven to be simply a highly efficient form of capitalism that takes into account social costs/values as I have described. Economic security certainly has a value even in capitalist societies, the more people feel 'safe' that the essential survival requirements are taken care of, the more they can pursue creative endeavours that can cause economic growth.

In the GE fiefdom scenario you described we would likely see the other results of fuedalism, much more isolationist trade, more resources devoted to subsistence living, and more economic and military warfare. More likely is a capitalist facist state that faces increasing civil unrest until a completely new democratic revolt takes place. In either case I'd be one of the rebels fighting to the death against either, I would consider it a great sadness if the most successful political and economic systems devised to date are decayed by apathy and stupidity on the part of the populace and the elite, and consider it something worth fighting for. I'm hoping things can be turned around from the inside of course, just have to get past the complete and foolish cynicism of modern culture.

[flere-imsaho]

Interesting stuff, SD. I still think you've spent too much time thinking about the weakness of socialism and strengths of capitalism (and too little time on the converses), but otherwise I agree (or at least follow) with much of what you say. In some cases I think all that separates our thinking is simply our individual lenses and definitions, which is fine.

Edit: As an example (or litmus test), what, to you, is a "managed economy"? Is it different from a "planned economy"? Is a "managed economy" something that's socialist in nature, or can it be a reasonable real-world evolution of capitalism on the state level?

[SportsDino]

A managed economy has a high tendency to become a planned economy. I would rather have a government as a neutral and fierce regulator, and a massive 'pooled' consumer for things best dealt with in aggregate (military, infrastructure, social welfare for disadvantaged).

The more areas we expect government management, the more likely the government will be used to take advantage of people rather than help them.

[RainMaker]

i haven't found viewership #'s for daily show. i was just using what rainmaker referred to in his post as "a million a day"
I just got it from here. It's a year old so I don't know if it's changed much since then.

Jon Stewart's Nielsen Ratings Down 15 Percent; Colbert's Up 11 Percent -- Vulture -- Entertainment & Culture Blog -- New York Magazine (http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2008/01/stewarts_ratings_down_15_colbe.html)

[flere-imsaho]

A managed economy has a high tendency to become a planned economy.

OK, but what is a "managed economy"? How would you define it? And a planned economy, for that matter? And then: what is Germany?

[molson]

Socialism would be great if we could have complete trust in the government. Maybe a future, more enlightened society can have that.

Private crime and breech of ethics are damaging enough. It's many times worse when those things are committed by entities that have the police and regulatory powers.

[SportsDino]

If I recall, a planned economy the government directly says 'you produce this in this quantity and sell at this price'. I.E. old school Russia.

A managed economy is where the government attempts to implement price controls and other regulations of the decisions of production, without necessarilly ordering specific production policies. I might be oversimplifying it. Technically, the U.S. is and has been a managed economy in various sectors off and on.

I'm a bit off in left and right field (but never center, haha), I pick and choose from a grab bag of hard-core conservative economists (note 'conservative' is not the common understanding of the term, I'm talking about within the field of economics a conservative) as well as some left-leaning economic theories (a little from what is currently the kumbuyah group, lets all be friends, a little from the government spending theorists, and on occaison some of the currently popular monetarist policy which I consider leftist on the scale of economics for the most part).

But anyway, in my somewhat warped world view as I've just described, it becomes certain that attempts to control prices at best create an indirect planned economy or most likely lead to significant gaming of the 'management' to extract money from government's price control efforts.

I'm not opposed to regulating abuses of prices, or even putting in some panic guards to prevent artificial price pressure from causing severe damage... but I consider the attempt to control prices an ultimately impossible and unnecessary endeavour.

I'm not sure if that is what you meant by managed/planned or not. To a large degree I would consider the US and Germany (and most of the first world) to be wandering amonst managed and 'free' economy based on the situation. To some extent there will always be government interference in markets, due to the unique entity that a government must be, but I am worried about government as a tool for bad companies to kill off good ones, or for government to redirect productive forces into stagnation.

If I were to summarize my stance towards managed economies... it would be a general 'no', I prefer to model the government as a unique customer of pooled concerns... it makes some of the differences between right and left economists drop out as factors and to me does a better job of modeling how government impacts the economy that is left unexplained by other theories. Unfortunately, that notion is not very popular as far as I know, and its incomplete and takes a lot of work to fill in the holes. In that model though, the assertion that government should be limited is valid, and that government should use massed bargaining power for public benefit is valid... so my methods would end up with things that would be classified as managed economies I am sure.

After however many centuries, I still consider economics to be in its infantcy, so we'll be regularly creating and breaking definitions all the time. I notice this when I read papers from entirely different camps that have different definitions or interpretations on the same words... so I apologize if all this babble just makes things even more cloudy! I'm a terrible explainer.

[flere-imsaho]

That all makes sense - thanks for taking the time to write it out. I mostly wanted to get a better understanding of where you were coming from.

To me, the difference between planned and managed economies is that the former deal with regulating the end products (i.e. price controls, protectionism, output quotas, etc...) while the latter use targeted investment (government to private sector) and coordinated efforts amongst various sectors to place the production side of the economy in the best possible (i.e. competitive) place on the world stage.

The planned economy views the free market as an enemy and looks inward to provide for its citizens. The managed economy views the free market as a fact of life and looks outward, coordinating its efforts between government and private industry to the benefit of both.

[SportsDino]

In my view, that is what the stock market is 'supposed to do', assemble investment dollars for good ideas, and keep people involved in a somewhat democratic fashion with the means and profits of production. Obviously its a big epic fail for some time now... I'll try get back to realism for a moment and say it is very unlikely we'll get to that level of efficiency.

Government as a big investor is attractive, and may seem necessary... I can understand why it would be considered an important realistic option to consider. It is just so dangerous though, and i really hate to think we have to rely on the government to make investments. But ya, i'm well aware of the Germany and Japan subsidies... I'll be honest we probably need to follow that example to compete. Again a practical thing, not necessarilly the 'right' thing.

[flere-imsaho]

Bear in mind it's not just subsidies. Or protectionism. A practice Germany and Japan pioneered, and one you now see a number of "emerging market" countries taking, is to have the government work with home-grown private industry to help coordinate/facilitate work done that gave/gives advantages to these companies.

The German government, for instance, acted as a powerful broker between labor and business for decades, to great effect. The Japanese government did, and still does, organize things like infrastructure development in consultation with private industry to get the best bang for the buck, economically.

You see countries like Brazil and India taking a look at their emerging industries and saying "what can we do in these areas so that, in 5/10/20 years these industries will be in a great position to reap the benefits of what we do now, and compete well with their international competitors?"

Right now in the U.S. the great majority of this, I think, is ad hoc and purely lobbying-driven. There's no coordination or long-term planning. But I guess that's the difference. The capitalist position is to do what's best for right now, and assume what's needed later will sort itself out.

[sterlingice]

If I were to summarize my stance towards managed economies... it would be a general 'no', I prefer to model the government as a unique customer of pooled concerns... it makes some of the differences between right and left economists drop out as factors and to me does a better job of modeling how government impacts the economy that is left unexplained by other theories. Unfortunately, that notion is not very popular as far as I know, and its incomplete and takes a lot of work to fill in the holes. In that model though, the assertion that government should be limited is valid, and that government should use massed bargaining power for public benefit is valid... so my methods would end up with things that would be classified as managed economies I am sure.

My personal view is that government needs to basically be the referee for economies. There's no way they should be dictating prices (i.e. "corn should be produced in X quantity at Y price") but I don't have problems with them influencing things with moderation (i.e. "The British are killing us with their subsidized corn, we're going to subsidize ours to make it more fair" or "our car industry is important, time to put in some tariffs").

They also need to be able to create a system and place a dollar amount on things that don't have a monetary business value (or the number si ahrd to tease out). The PR from polluting is bad, but you can spend money to fix your image. The government needs to fine companies enough to deter that behavior. Create a cap-and-trade system to regulate carbon since as the government, you have to pay to clean it up so those responsible should have to pay for it.

The last major job is punishment. Ok with putting a dangerous product on the market since you determine a recall is more expensive than legal costs (ala the Pinto), you should feel the pain as a company. Ok with trying to make a lot of profit the wrong way- fine, break up, or nationalize the company. Introduce more moral hazard not less. And, for the love of pete, enforce the rules already on the books.

In these ways, the government should and *must* intervene. Otherwise, you have a lot of problems with the economic system going "unchecked", making their moves only on what is best for themselves and profit. The government needs to be a watchdog for the people.

SI

[SportsDino]

A lot of those things are possible without truly going to a managed economy though.

Subsidies, you implement with the government just buying the items for some purpose at a price they are willing to pay. Market price for steel is X, government wants to pay Y > X... that is their business. In general I'm anti-subsidy though, if there is a critical commodity, you buy it at whatever price will keep that production sustainable... and the government can easily execute its buying power by buying directly from American firms only. I prefer that over tariffs (I think some tariffs are good for the economy though, generate taxes on imports instead of income/payroll taxes).

Very few markets need to be propped up by the government. I would argue the best strategic move in many cases is to allow cheap commodities, and conserve our local natural resources, and allow the consumers of those cheap materials to boom. If we can get cheap steal from a bunch of other countries, buy the cheap steel instead of paying out subsidies, and build more tanks and junk to take over other countries! (okay too much Civ 4 playing, hehe) All you really need to maintain is a strategic steel production capacity and the ability to ramp it up quickly, not the actual produced quantities of steel.

My notion of the government as a pooled consumer is meant exactly to target "things that have no monetary business value". And some things that do. For instance, military security is something you can't really run private sector... or pollution controls (because pollution floats in the air and water pretty freely, easy to screw your neighbors with it). I have no problem with the government imposing costs for the public good, for instance, carbon credits end up having a health care and cleanup cost that is hard to evaluate. So go ahead government and establish a price meant to control those through various methods.

I think we need a more vicious carbon credit system, the current one actually is a mockery that is used to give polluters more tax payer money more often than not. For instance, it was setup so if you had a real smog machine you would be given government credits, you could cut back your production or close your plant, and then sell those credits for profit to others. So it failed at the real purpose, net pollution was equal, but it also managed to give some politically connected former polluters free cash.

Government as watchdog, enforcing laws about product safety, large punishments for committing crimes, and so on, none of those require managed economy. I would argue they are even very capitalist oriented goals, they just get ignored by modern economic theory too often. If the government got into the business of promoting the public good, instead of just getting elected each year, then I'm sure we would see some capitalist style efforts in the market to achieve those goals (in exchange for government not beating on them, or to get incentives provided by the government).

Everyone else can measure profit in dollars, the government in a democracy should at the very least measure profit in votes, and ideally measure profit in standard of living for its constituents (which in theory would lead to votes, yes I know it does not, advertising dollars and sheep herders like Rush Limbaugh do that).