Tuesday, October 2, 2007

Why, Exactly?

Here's a big question: Why does The Atlantic want or need an "econoblogger?" And why Megan McArdle? The guy who writes the "The Financial Page" for The New Yorker, James Surowiecki, cranks out a page every other week or so, & it's always a solid 26 column inches of, if not raw economics, useful & clearly written financial information, backed by The New Yorker's famed fact-checking, rather than, as w/ Megan's blog, the inane recitation of statistics copied & pasted from another "econoblog," followed by questioning of & bickering over statistical methods & other truly compelling input from the commentariat.

Not that it's all econ, all the time, @ Asymmetrical Information:

Music Sunday
30 Sep 2007 11:36 am
I have, as of yesterday's eMusic download fest, 2,406 songs in iTunes. And as I finished downloading, it occurred to me, with a small wow, that I really like almost all of the music I have right now.
[...] Also, because the collection is relatively small, there's nothing of which I could say "I really like that, but I haven't listened to it in a while."
As the collection grows, obviously that will change. And it will, for I'm now a backup obsessive. I will never again lose more than a few days worth of music.
So discussion question of the day, for this fine, lazy Sunday: how many songs do you have in your iTunes*? And is it too many, too few, or just right?
[The Goldilocks equation.]
* Or other MP3 player--or CD collection, if you're still living in the paleolithic. [Or, if you like to listen to music w/ those subtle overtones & harmonics, & no digital ear fatigue, how many LPs do you have, if you're still pre-Cambrian?]
The worst part? Commenters actually responded to it!
Next week: "How many pieces in your silver service?"


Fishbone McGonigle said...

The worst part? Commenters actually responded to it!

I'm guessing that's because it's the only credible metric by which those people might play the classic game, "mine's bigger."

As to "why Megan McArdle," I'm almost positive it's because she's got pictures of someone.

M. Bouffant said...

I remember when I used to look @ Sulllivan on a daily basis he would link to her fairly often. Maybe that & her being Yglesias' "friend" indicate whose pictures they might be.

Anonymous said...

That post basically defines why I can't stand her blogging at the Atlantic. It's one thing to write cutesy personal posts on your own site. That's what blogging is pretty much about. But at a place like the Atlantic Monthly, I expect to get news, professional-grade analysis, and useful information, not Megan McArdle trying to prove to the world how hip she is or soliciting e-dating advice for her one of her friends. It's pathetic and has no place in a professional publication.

Anonymous said...

I stopped reading her after she asked her readership if lying about food allergies was an appropriate way to avoid foods she didn't like.
Maybe you can change the sitename from Fire Megan McArdle to Liar Megan McArdle.

Anonymous said...

There are numerous, expansive econoblogs that offer much more informative and useful information about economics. Megan is too busy worrying about how much to pay her cleaning lady to care about the potential "crack-boom" inflation ocurring in China right now. But who cares about actual inflation when you can write about the inflation of your music collection.

I am really getting sick of the Yglesias-Ezra-McArdle trio. The three have kind of developed a smug sense of themselves, and it shows in their posts. Gone are in-depth analysis (Yglesias anyways) and in have come the anecdotal posts. Sullivan, while he occasionally posts on his personal life, uses it merely as an occasional way to lighted the load of constant negative, depressing stories that abound in our daily lives.

I agree on one thing. McArdle got where she got through networking, and being that "hot" econ girl all her media superiors (who know little about economics in the first place) helped her out. She is 38 now. She is already starting to look a bit over the hill, and in a few more years, she goes from being a "hot" econ girl to..."who the hell ever hired this old, dumb bag in the first place".

Adam Eli Clem said...

38? I do believe she was born in 1973.

Fishbone McGonigle said...

Clem, I've heard several different dates of birth for Megan, due mainly to her own caginess on the matter. Hell, she claimed to be in her "late 20s" just a couple years ago, apparently.

So I'm less inclined to give her the benefit of the doubt on the age question . . . just like on any other question, for that matter.

M. Bouffant said...

I guess the only way we'll ever be certain is to saw her in half & count the rings.
I'd rerally be inclined to go w/ 1973, though. No one 38 could be that...well...