"Fireworks On Melissa Harris Perry As Ezra Klein And Nick Gillespie Clash"

|

I appeared earlier today on MSNBC's excellent though decidedly left-of-left-of-center Melissa Harris Perry, talking about a range of topics including the Euro-crisis. We'll have a full tape of the show eventually up at Reason, but in the meantime, here's a writeup of the show, which featured among others the Wash Post's Ezra Klein and The Nation's Katrina vanden Heuvel, by Mediaite's Frances Martel:

…in the business of chronicling cable news, a debate on austerity and inflation is a pretty hard sell. In a world of Jeremiah Wrights and Sandra Flukes, the Euro crisis is rather low on the personal drama scale. This morning's Melissa Harris-Perry shattered that conventional wisdom, with The Washington Post's Ezra Klein and Reason's Nick Gillespie going head-to-head on the woes of the Eurozone and whether the nations should continue to spend money, the sort of crosstalk-laden panel discussion host Melissa Harris-Perry had to interrupt to remind them to keep the audience in the loop….

"Europe is in a bank run," Klein began explaining, arguing that the central question in Europe is "if Greece goes down… does it spread?" Gillespie responded, noting particularly that "inflation is not a good thing," a point Klein disputed as not being always true. Gillespie disagreed, calling the idea an economists' dream that "just a little bit of inflation so our money is cheaper" will fix the economy, concluding "it never works out that way… inflation always goes out of control."

The Nation's Katrina Vanden Heuvel jumped in then to declare that "austerity has failed" in her mind, as the world is "witnessing Britain which controls its own currency, and faring worse than the Great Depression; debt is a greater ratio of GDP than it was before the austerity programs." This comment prompted some crosstalk on the matter, as Gillespie argued the problem with the UK was that they didn't cut spending, not that they implemented an austerity program. Harris-Perry then jumped in to remind her guests that not all their viewers were that well-acquainted with the nuances of European economics– "we start saying 'inflationary, margins' and people just tune."

The conversation continued, though, in the same vein: a debate on whether it was spending or taxing led Europe to the point it is today. Vanden Heuvel and Klein agreed almost completely that the problem with Europe is a lack of spending at a crucial time; Gillespie disagreed. "This is why Europe is in the toilet, because they have an unrealistic and unsustainable economic model where they're going to keep spending and keep taxing," he argued, a point Klein called "not quite right," arguing that more spending– which European countries had not done to the extent required in his view– would help. Despite being a fairly heated ten minutes over a topic that rarely gets a turn at being dramatic on cable news, it ended on a conciliatory note, with Victoria Defrancesco Soto concluding, "austerity is needed, but to a certain extent."

Here's a link the MHP site at MSNBC.com, where the show can be viewed in clips.

NEXT: Chester Arthur and the Original Birther Conspiracy

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Why does that condescending vacuous twat vanden Heuvel keep getting booked on half way serious shows?

    1. She’s rich and was at one time telegenic.

      1. I’ve always found rich, stupid, and telegenic, a marvelous combination. Alas, she has passed the sell by date. She was my favorite socialist last century.

        1. If I had a commie bitch girlfriend, she’d look like Katrina.

    2. Where does Ken Shultz stand on the word “twat”?

    1. Damn. I suck.

  2. I had this very debate with a stranger in a car last night. My response was if Europe was engaging in “failed austerity” why are they broke? And if spending worked, why isn’t Greece the richest nation on earth. The women got so mad she refused to talk. She had no response. I would even call this stuff religious belief anymore. Every religious person I know can argue until the cows come home giving reasons why they believe what they do. These people have nothing but “you can’t possibly believe that!!”

    1. The women got so mad she refused to talk. She had no response.

      John, do you realize how valuable this information is? This knowledge, in the proper hands…think of the possibilities! Would this work on KVDH?

      1. I think part of it is the delivery. I seem to have the ability to drive these kind of people out of their minds.

        1. Rather does have a point that libertarian men have a tendency to piss people off with our arguments.

          We are more interested in winning an argument then convincing people.

          1. And the endless “if you don’t want a global cradle-to-grave welfare state, you just want babies and old people to die in the street” is what, chopped liver?

            1. yeah rather was not the brightest. In fact she never actually said what i pointed out above.

              But he animus toward libertarians was obviously rooted in our style of argument.

              That is where she got garbage like “male societies have no art”

              1. Oh, I was speaking in generalities. I don’t give a fuck what rather thinks and I would heartily suggest that others do alike.

          2. Her alternative style of engaging in discourse, the spamming of threads, was just so convincing? What of the real world analog of her method, nagging someone in submission?

            We piss people off with our arguments because the arguments dig at an invincible ignorance. It has nothing to do with the style of delivery.

            1. For example, I can’t think of any author whose rhetoric was ruder or more frank than Ayn Rand, and not many can match her in the number of people she convinced. A libertarian with a soft delivery who was also convincing? Hard to think of even one. Maybe Timothy Leary.

              1. Rand beats up cartoon bureaucrats in fictional books.

                Beating up a real person rhetorically does not convince that person.

                1. That cartoon bureaucrat is not her target audience.

                  1. Yes but John’s “stranger in a car” was his audience.

                    Rand knew how to pick her audience and she did not beat them up.

                    Should the lesson from Rand be that we argue like her fictional heroes or that we convince like her?

                    1. Ayn’s audience was anyone in the habit of picking up a book in the forties and fifties. You have to remember she did not have much of one ready made to agree with her at the time. It was an equal opportunity smack down for anyone who cared to approach her novels and essays. She dealt body blows to both the ego and the intellect. It was a transformative process where congeniality had no relevant place.

                      Effective libertarians have more in common with witch doctors than Greek philosophers.

              2. Milton Friedman

                1. His delivery isn’t soft. Check out the Donahue videos.

              3. A libertarian with a soft delivery who was also convincing?

                Ron Paul

                And Ayn Rand is your example? There are a lot of nonlibertarian Objectivists, and she drove away a lot of people too.

            2. It has nothing to do with the style of delivery.

              I disagree. I have beaten people in the dirt and they do not change their mind. They are instead motivated to prove I am wrong in the future….John’s story of the women in the car seems like this is the case as well.

              If you do not think style of delivery matters then why do libertarians only get less then 1% while republicans and democrats control both houses of congress and the presidency?

              1. Because both parties give people free shit, and both parties were entrenched before the libertarian party ever came along.

              2. Because people love to believe the great fiction that everyone can endeavor to live at the expense of everyone else?

                Free shit sells, yo.

                1. Because people love to believe the great fiction that everyone can endeavor to live at the expense of everyone else?

                  libertarians believe the same thing…free markets create wealth and innovation that everyone benefits from.

                  It was not my labor that gives me refrigerators, anti-lock breaks, Google search and PS3 games and it was not my labor that made it cheap enough for me to afford. It was free markets.

                  I will admit that telling that story is harder to sell then say government pays for your healthcare…still it is easier to sell then the story that spending money you do not have will get you out of debt.

            3. Her alternative style of engaging in discourse, the spamming of threads, was just so convincing? What of the real world analog of her method, nagging someone in submission?

              Rather hated our style of argument…i never said she was good at convincing either.

              The only credit i am giving rather is that she identified what she did not like.

              It is me who is making the leap that perhaps a change in style instead of a change in substance is what is needed to be better at convincing.

              Note: I probably won’t be changing my style anytime soon…still knowing is half the battle.

              1. I would suggest though that even if an initial reaction is negative like in John’s example, it’s going to leave a scar given she was impotent in responding to it. There is no renewal without the shedding of dead skin first.

                1. John admits it was partly his delivery.

                  I think part of it is the delivery. I seem to have the ability to drive these kind of people out of their minds.

                  I really did not think when I responded to his comment that it was all that controversial….mostly just backing him up.

                  1. That women has been made to feel like a fool. She make think twice before opening her whore mouth in future, so John did well.

                    We do not (and cannot) argue in the same coordinated tone. Some need to be forceful assholes and others need to be the soft-spoken ‘expert’ voice of reason that reassures and condescends. For the latter, we need people in charge of universities. We need to take over the culture and that starts with the universities. The Ayn Rand Institute has been at that forever.

              2. I agree, but my style of argument is unlikely to change. As a libertarian woman, I know I’m an oddity, but the libertarian style seems to be gender neutral. Lefties often try to appeal to my emotions in arguments, apparently because we gals are supposed to be creatures of a soft-hearted disposition, and life is just too short to respond to that crap. So, yeah, I can come off as abrasive, because I state my position clearly and rarely bother to engage in any follow-up discussion. I really don’t have the patience to keep repeating myself when I know that I’m right, and also know that tribal loyalty among the cool kids means that it’s pointless to imagine they’re even thinking through what I’ve said, never mind admitting that I might have a point. Also, the libertarian position seems so inherently self-evident to me that I simply don’t get people to whom it isn’t obviously the only honest choice for anyone who values freedom. So, no, not making many converts, except the occasional pothead friend of my pothead daughter. That fact, however, seems to point out which issues are most likely to appeal to non-libertarians for anyone seriously interested in increasing our numbers.

          3. We are more interested in winning an argument then convincing people.

            How are these two concepts mutually exclusive? Also, when the odds are stacked against you with other groups preaching the virtue of “free” stuff (almost always somebody else’s), it’s kind of hard not to default to that type of root cause argumentation.

            It also does not help that, overall, women skew more economically progressive and more easily justify wealth redistribution. Women also love to spend money, either their own or somebody else’s (and this is not limited to just the fairer sex).

            1. Winning an argument requires that someone else loses it.

              Convincing someone is more likely if you let them win the argument with a changed viewpoint.

              And no, I don’t do this very well either, because it’s seriously hard to do. It’s much easier to bury and humiliate your opponents.

              1. That’s my anecdotal experience too (#2).

                Sneak in the truth without letting their insta-ignore function kick in by blatantly contradicting their core beliefs.

  3. not all their viewers were that well-acquainted with the nuances of European economics? “we start saying ‘inflationary, margins’ and people just tune.”

    And right there is your problem.

  4. which European countries had not done to the extent required in his view?

    Of course that magical land of proper spending is always just over the horizon. OF course Europe spends 50% of its GDP on government. But that is still not enough in Klein’s view.

  5. Gillespie disagreed. “This is why Europe is in the toilet, because they have an unrealistic and unsustainable economic model where they’re going to keep spending and keep taxing,” he argued, a point Klein called “not quite right,” arguing that more spending ? which European countries had not done to the extent required in his view – would help.

    Nick Gillespie, I commend your restraint; Ezra has such a magnificently, uniquely smug punchable face. How you managed to keep from kicking his ass and giving him a swirly and atomic wedgie is beyond me. You should have planted a kiss on KVDH just to shut her up. She’s tiresome. I nominate Kristen or Banjos to give her some serious taint kicking.

    1. Who is Klein and why does anyone listen to him? Seriously, he doesn’t have a PHD. He has never held an important job of any kind. Why is there any reason to think Klein knows anymore than the guy who waxes my car?

      1. Does the guy that waxes your think that the constitution is like a hundred years old and really hard to understand?

        1. Never asked him. But I doubt he is that stupid. He does seem to be able to feed himself.

      2. speaking of PHDs where is your old boyfriend John? Seriously, I haven’t seen him since the “Great Registration Coup of ’12”.

        1. He was around for a bit. And then he vanished. Don’t know.

        2. He was around for a bit. And then he vanished. Don’t know.

        3. Some others were saying that apparently he was incapable of understanding how to register to comment without using his .edu address.

          I’ll think of that the next time I hear somebody telling me that a liberal arts education “teaches them how to learn”.

          1. I don’t think that’s it; he used to post under an email address that wasn’t .edu back when Reason didn’t allow you to comment without sharing your email address.

            1. when Reason didn’t allow you to comment without sharing your email address

              When was that, like pre-2000?

      3. Because he’s one of the “kewl kidz”, John. Remember, Ratfuck would have sucked the sweat from this twerp’s jock strap just to be in the same clique as Ezra. I have no idea why people invite him on shows; maybe he sucks a mean dick or is on certain social registers. I think he has the same disease as Matthew Yglesias, another noted winner of social ridicule.

        1. I always figured people just felt sorry for Yglesias because he is so obviously retarded.

          1. I think it’s because he sweats so much. But you’re right: It’s obviously the equivalent of an Inside-the-Beltway pity fuck.

            1. He is definitely somewhere on the Autism or Aspy scale. The guy is just not right.

        2. What about these people is cool? I have been to one of the Reason get togethers. And none of them struck me as particularly cool. They were nice people. But it is not like I walked in and went “wow I want to hang out with these people”. And that is the Reason staff. They might as well be the Rat Pack compared to professional douche bags like Klein.

          1. I don’t know; perhaps it’s an Ivy League thing or maybe being on teevee. Matt Welch makes lots of teevee appearances and doesn’t take himself so damn seriously, and you never see him whine and bitch like a pansy. Maybe it’s because they know, deep down, their policies are proven failures and renouncing them would cost them their place on the hip crowd social scene. Maybe Megan McCain said, “If you keep saying what you do on teevee, I’ll let you kiss ’em!”

            KMW could beat up Ezra, for heaven’s sake.

            1. Maybe it is the TV thing. It is not like they make any money. I bet the average GS 14 drone in Washington makes more money than Klein and Yglesias put together.

              1. Do they get payed to be on TV?

                Did Nick get payed to be on Melissa Harris Perry?

      4. Who is Klein and why does anyone listen to him? Seriously, he doesn’t have a PHD. He has never held an important job of any kind

        the same thing can be said about Nick….well i guess Dr Nick has a Phd but it is in literature.

        Klien speaks/writes well to a particular audience just like Nick does. That is why people listen to him.

        1. That and he is pretty.

          1. Yeah, well, Nick has the Jacket.

            1. Yeah, but did you notice he wasn’t wearing it?

              My hero let me down.

      5. What qualifications do Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh have?

        None, other than that people like to watch and hear them. Same goes for Klein. For every Ezra Klein there are 10 Ivy League aspiring pundits who never get an audience.

    2. I can add nothing of value to the above comment. Well done groov. I watched with the sound off at the gym, it still pissed me off.

    3. My taint kicking days have been put on hold for at least 7 months. I am afraid that my perpetually growing boobs made me lose my low center of gravity. I am as balanced as a two legged bar stool.

      1. What is it with you two sharing boob/gland growth information? Keep that stuff private like normal nonexhibitionist people.

        You don’t see me talking about the sties in my eye.

        1. hmmm, boobs and sties….yeah, in no way, shape, or form is that a rational comparison.

  6. This is a big part of why I give money to Reason.

    We need people like Gillespie, et. al., on camera. It’s almost like the libertarian version of culture jamming.

    This is what you want? This is what you get:

    Gillespie argued the problem with the UK was that they didn’t cut spending, not that they implemented an austerity program.

    People tune in to hear the standard argument, but what they get is Gillespie instead?

    Moar!

  7. Nick I think you should agree to appear on MHP’s show as only one on one with her. You could make your points much better. You would not have to talk over everyone and you could finish a thought. I was yelling at you (at the TV) to stop
    interrupting everyone and wait and make your point on its own merit.
    How did the show end? I went and did the dishes.

    1. I went and did the dishes.

      I’ll bet the dishes had a more informed take on the subject than the spend-your-way-out-of-debt guests.

  8. Paul just took 32 of 40 delegates to win Minnesota.

  9. I hope this video gets a million views totally destroy the concept that viewers are too dumb to understand the economic arguments.

    1. turns out that people actually understand economics when you don’t bastardize and warp the concepts into nonrecognition.

  10. damn i can’t find the clips from the link.

    Reason web squirrels need to HURRY THE FUCK UP with that youtube video!!

    1. oh cool at the bottom of this link is the video:

      http://www.mediaite.com/tv/fir…..pie-clash/

      1. The video only reinforces my complete and utter hatred of cable news channels. It also reinforces the idea that if I owned any projectile weapons, I’d be replacing my TV daily.

        “It’s about nominal inflation.” “Austerity is about macro flows.” HEY! LOOK OVER THERE!

        Fuck all of these lying taint-licking liars. May the fleas of a thousand camels infest their homes.

  11. The sad thing here is that this isn’t really a “debate”.

    If a nation or an individual is broke, it or they needs to stop spending more money than it takes in. This isn’t “debatable”. A credit card or an IMF loan isn’t “revenue”.

    I commend the Jacket for attempting to explain logic to the panel, but a “debate” this is not.

    Also, MSNBC, which should be commended for getting Nick on, still has BY FAR the worst line up of guests and hosts I’ve ever seen.

    Klein and Vandenscrunt? What, was Krugnuts not available?

  12. OH MY GOD I WANT TO STRANGLE KVH

    That woman has the most condescending tone I’ve ever heard.

  13. Anywho, we didn’t get enough money to bring us completely out of the depression we’re in, but it did improve things substantially, many jobs were saved although many refuse to believe the benefits. Major economist much smarter than I’d ever claim to be from Keynes to Krugman constantly harp on the fact that when there isn’t enough consumer spending to spin the economy – after all spending from SOMEONE is what makes it work, right? – without consumer spending – as when people are holding their money due to anxiety or because they aren’t working – then ONLY the government can step in and with MASSIVE spending at those times we can often remove ourselves from the bottom of a depression. Its worked everytime its been effectively used. But you folks can go on with slashing the budget all you want – I’m near retirement and you aren’t going to mess with my money any time soon.

    1. A solid A troll. Could have been more curt but then it would have lost some of its folksy charm.

    2. People love spending money on stuff that is cheaper…you won’t buy a retirement house for 250k…but you might if that same house was 150k.

      One way to make stuff cheaper is a market correction (price drop)…inflation is just way to keep that market correction from happening…and ultimately discourages people from spending.

    3. I’m near retirement and you aren’t going to mess with my money any time soon.

      Well “we” aren’t, but the inflationary policies of government will. Putz.

    4. Cool story bro!

    5. Creating artificial demand does not create a solid economy; it creates a bubble. When you stop propping up that demand (as must happen), then the bubble pops, and all of the capital that was misdirected to fulfilling artificial demand must now be diverted to actual productive uses.

      There will always be unlimited demand; attempting to stimulate it is idiocy. Capital investment is the foundation of an economy.

      1. but with The Right People In Charge, a bubble can expand to infinity, just like the universe. You’re not saying you doubt the existence of the universe, are you?

        Get back to your tractor pulls and leave the Big Thinking to people who’ve accumulated enough student-loan debt to know better than you.

    6. Tim Cavanaugh made the point a few months ago that aggregate demand has been restored to pre-recession levels. So you need to find a new argument.

  14. Klein should not have the job he has. Way too young, ignorant, and partisan.

  15. “after all spending from SOMEONE is what makes it work, right?”

    Not according to some. Many would argue that it’s production (both of tangible and intangible assets) that drives an economy. Otherwise the broken windows fallacy wouldn’t be a fallacy; you really would stimulate the economy by breaking windows.

    You choose which to believe I guess.

    1. Sadly many people have never heard of Bastiat, let alone his broken window fallacy.

    2. You choose which to believe I guess.

      Yeah, you can choose the position that has been conclusively proven correct by history, or the position that gets proven wrong every time the Top.Men. give it another try.

      Choose away, I mean, it’s still a nominally free country, ain’t it?

  16. I wonder if Ezra Klein ever figured out how to return his Netflix DVDs….

    1. Ezra Klein is actually this retarded. INCREDIBLE.

      1. I would think him being for the nuclear option before he was against it before he was for it would have keyed you in.

        That and how hard it is for him to read a document that is over 100 years old.

        The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn is hard.

        I wonder if after he stops being pretty will he still be listened to.

  17. Wait a minute… no katy perry? Title is confuse.

  18. This is what is maddening about liberals. They claim something has failed or doesn’t work, even that never really happened.

    Like blaming the financial mess on GWB’s “deregulation” of business. Er, what, he added more regulations than anyone except Obama.

    And this, “austerity”, when the spending cuts were minimal and were accompanied by tax increases.

    1. when the spending cuts were minimal actually reductions in spending increases, and not cuts at all

      ftfy.

  19. Nick should have leaned more forward than all the other talking heads and asked why they refused to lean forward like good citizens.

  20. Jesus = Ezra Klein “explaining” the European debt crisis to everyone… When he clearly has less than a child’s grasp on macroeconomics.

    Then VadDer-Derp entres with the notion that, “hey, if we don’t return to out of control deficit spending, …. racism…. nazis…..! QED!”

    … economically illiterate … and yet they genuinely think they’re *super well informed* and ‘get it’. They describe their own views as “orthodox”. And people listen to them.

  21. How can you remain so calm when you go on these shows? Kudos Nick.

    1. firm confidence in being right.

  22. News flash Nick, pretty much everything you said on Melissa Harris Perry show was wrong. It’s amazing how people like you campaign about no taxes, and keeping the government out of your lives are the first to call on the government for help. If someone rob your sorry ass you’re going to call the police. If your house catch on fire, you’re going to call the fire department. These people are paid with tax payer dollars; you and your tea party friends are completely misinformed.

    1. Yet another idiot who can’t distinguish between libertarianism and anarchism.

      1. “koolbrain”

        What a ‘tard.

    2. I can’t tell if this is a very good trolling spoof or whether the poster is 12.

      1. the very mark of a Great Troll.

    3. News flash RT. Nick didn’t say any of that on the Melissa Harris Perry show. Everything he did say (England has not cut spending e.g.) was spot on. You and your elitist friends are complete idiots.

  23. I can’t stand it. The host’s lisp is incredibly irritating. I don’t mean to be insensitive to people with speak impediments, but maybe hosting a talk show wasn’t the best career choice.

    1. Speech impediments. How about that edit feature?

    2. I dunno, Stossel seems to have done okay in spite of his stutter, and his show’s format gives him a lot more solo on-air time than someone like MHP has to contend with. A well run panel show doesn’t give the host a major speaking role, that’s what the guests are there for. The main job of the host is to moderate, keep things moving, and see that some semblance of order is maintained; oddly, these shows are rarely entertaining (or watchable) unless the host is failing miserably at those duties.

      1. IMO, stutter is less annoying. I can deal with rhythmic irregularities, but phonetic ones piss me off.

    3. Two words:
      Baba
      Wawa

  24. Harris-Perry then jumped in to remind her guests that not all their viewers were that well-acquainted with the nuances of European economics? “we start saying ‘inflationary, margins’ and people just tune.”

    So much for liberals being more educated. So you’re supposed to talk about the Eurocrisis without using the word “inflation”? Sort of like explaining gravity without making reference to motion.

    1. Sort of like explaining gravity without making reference to motion.

      Whoa, whoa, whoa, slow down.

    2. Sort of like explaining gravity without making reference to motion.

      F = Gm1m2/r^2

  25. How does this woman deserve a show? She’s awful – horrible grandstanding opinions before a topic is ever brought up… It’s also great how her pandering stretches so long that she has to bump her guests. That’s just good hosting, there.

    The Trayon Martin piece had me grinding my teeth – stooping to emotional handwringing and painting forensic evidence as “rushing to judgement”. Just to make it extra revolting, @ 2:30 in the clip, they show a current picture of Zimmerman with a pic of Martin as a 12(?) year old boy. Christ, why not show him as an infant and we can just burn Zimmerman at the stake for murdering a child. Not a 17 year old, with drugs in his system who assaulted a guy…

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.