Mar

19

Jeffrey Sachs Ruins the Daily Show

Written by

Jeffrey Sachs was on the Daily Show last night to promote his new book, Common Wealth, in what turns out to be the least entertaining Daily Show interview ever. It’s repetitive and vague; Sachs says we all must work together to fix the world’s problems, Stewart asks which problems we must solve, Sachs then names about 5 problems and says we must work together to fix them, etc. Stewart concludes the interview with an awkward, nonsensical joke about Poland and then it’s all over. Like it never even happened. 

 

Tags: ,

38 Comments

  1. Seriously, Bwog  

    Whatever stick that seems to have found its way into your ass needs to be removed ASAP. This interview wasn't bad at all.

    First "EC Exclusion" and now this. I swear, if it isn't Hawkmadinejad or Jeffrey Hunter Northrop II, you somehow find it necessary to criticize everything that crosses your path.

    You used to be the witty guy who would make clever little quips now and then, but now you're that asshole who puts everything down in a desperate attempt to be funny or gain respect. Ugh.

  2. Sachs

    multilateralism for the sake of multilateralism

  3. i second

    the first comment.

    why couldn't you just post the damn video and let us decide what we think? you sounded - hm - dumb.

    • "let us decide"

      Don't you realise that those who comment on Bwog are much meaner/dumb sounding than those who post on it?

      If you think that Bwog sucks so much, then why don't you start your own blog and try to putting up as much content as Bwog does on a day-to-day basis. I'm sick and tired of anonymous complainers...bring back the Geometer.

      • msss  

        Fuck the geometer.

      • He/She  

        questioned the nature of the PRESENTATION of the content not the content itself.

        If your argument is that the rudeness with which Sachs' interview was presented was a direct result of the stress Bwog faces, then why didn't Bwog do itself a favor and present the interview without any snarky commentary? Bwog would have reduced its stress and, according to you, its rudeness simultaneously. It's a win-win situation.

        I agree that Bwog commenters can be some of the most despicable people on this campus (or off it), but don't justify the Bwog's tone simply because it has so many time commitments. We are all busy, but we are all expected to conduct ourselves in an appropriate manner.

  4. umm

    seemed like any other Daily Show interview with an author...

  5. I dunno

    I thought it was pretty bad, and I typically disagree with nearly everything on bwog.

  6. third #1

    this interview wasnt nearly as bad as bwog claimed. remember too its like 4 minutes long, not a lot that can be said in such a short period of time.

    that joke about poland though, THAT was bad. real bad.

  7. uh, no.

    This interview sounded fine. Sachs made some good points in the tiny amount of time he was given. You're a douche.

  8. meh  

    The interview was not that bad. BWOG needs a nap.

  9. Spring break  

    Take the week off Bwog. Come back refreshed and interesting.

  10. anon

    It was a stupid interview. Unbearable.

  11. jeffery sachs

    is full of shit. bwog is right to call out his crap. sachs has ridden the 'i know how to solve the world's problems and its easy to do' train for years, with little actually accomplishment. maybe the truth is that these problems really are big, and require a lot of careful thought AND a lot of money to fix. what an asshat.

  12. suggestion

    Maybe Columbia should replace him with his prized acquaintance, Angelina Jolie. I would certainly be pleased.

  13. 123213123

    Sachs sucks. The 300k/yr we spend on this guy should be put elsewhere. Instead of sipping on Columbia's fat professorship deal, and going on shows to promote his books to get royalties, he should be advising Bill Gates like a worker bee.

  14. they both suck

    note to jon stewart and jeff sachs

    you both suck

    • ha!  

      Okay then. Now you just sound silly.

      The truth is, nobody is qualified enough here to criticize Sachs. He was appointed head of the UN Millennium Development Project ffs. He has called for countries to donate a tiny fraction of their GDP (0.8%?) to certain countries in Africa; the economics behind such a large one-time lump sum donation are very compelling and have caused quite a stir in the academic community (see Sala-i-Martin; Easterly ). So while I don't always agree with his positions, he is not the fraud that some of the douches above seem to suggest. He has since scaled down his efforts and focused on sustainable development and micro-financing, which I don't think you can argue against. I really fail to see why people could be so virulently opposed to someone who is clearly well-intentioned and trying to make positive change.

      • do you realize

        how stupid it is to say .8% of gdp is somehow insignificant?

        currently in the US, GDP is 6 or 7 times our yearly budget

        that means you're essentially saying take 5% of our budget and donate

        The difference between gdp and the budget is even more pronounced in other countries--not to mention that the whole argument centered aroudn gdp is amazing because its at best a tangential relation to do w/the governments revenues/outlays

        sachs has tons of critics on his 'substance'

        we're don't have to parrot back all of that criticism everytime we rip on him the same way we don't have to point out how warantless wiretapping violated fisa when we rip on bush

        • meh  

          just some facts:
          US GDP: ~$13.13 trillion
          0.8% of this is ~$104 Billion
          2009 Proposed US Budget ~$3 trillion
          So 0.8% of GDP is ~3.5% of our proposed 2009 budget.

          • that's the

            2006 estimate moran

            go here and here: http://www.bea.gov/national/xls/gdplev.xls
            http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TableView.asp?SelectedTable=84&FirstYear=2006&LastYear=2007&Freq=Qtr

            its actually more like 4 1/2 to 5 times but its still a significant %

            whats amazing though is your rip on my characterization of that 'tiny fraction' and at teh same time somehow taking from my post that i don't understand lump sum from your original post

            if you werent such a pompous jerk you'd have realized that i was aware it was a lump sum and made a reference to the budget because gdp is a completely different number from the budget

            gdp doesn't measure governmental product--it measures the entire nations--using it is completely illogical if its not done in the context of a budget. on top of that that 4-5 percent outlay is even larger in other countries, especially emerging powers

            as for post #28 and fractions, i was waiting for the moron who'd post this

            yeah, i'm sure discretionary donations to a select set of nations in africa as a voluntary altruistic effort (and after the iraq/afghan debacle i'm almost sure this is a heavily underestimated amount because of underestimating corruption and overruns) is comparable to discretionary defense spending in teh middle of the war. I don't agree with the war, but if idiots like you truly are trying to equate that percentage to also one time expenditures on wars we are generally claiming go to our defense, you should step back and get a real good look at your priorities, not to mention the fact that as a percentage of non defense discretionary spending such an outlay even as a one time expenditure would be an enormous project.

            and as for your last part..when exactly did i say the countries didn't know how to cultivate their economy? thats the type of arrogant shit that sustainable development supporters throw out to try to delegitimize valid critics and which makes sachs supporters so contemptible

            take your worries of ignorance and arrogance amongst your opponents and stuff them

          • not to mention

            that such a lump sum donation would have its own logistical problems ranging for tracking to financing (i'm not opposed to a collective donation of that amount--but a lump sum one is a highly flawed plan)

          • meh  

            First, it's moron, not moran.
            Second, before popping off on someone, take a deep breath and count to 10. There are a lot of posters here, not just you and the guy you are arguing with. I did not rip on your characterization, that was poster number 23. Try replying to him/her instead of calling me a pompous jerk. I was just putting some numbers out there so that other posters could put into context what you and the other poster were arguing about. I apologize deeply that those numbers are a year old. It was a 30 second google search. I will put more rigor into my posts from here on out if it pleases you.

            Finally, to actually attack the other poster's use of fractions is silly when you were the first to use them. Saying 8/1000 like it is a tiny number is misleading. What if I told you that only 0.8% of your water was arsenic. Would you still drink it?

        • FYI  

          I did not say 0.8% of GDP was insignificant, I said 0.8% represents a tiny fraction. 0.8% = 8/1000, which most people would agree is a small number. In fact, in the following line, I used the words "such a large lump-sum...". So you go to your room and think about what you said.

          Also, don't knock Sachs before reading up on the economics of poverty traps. I disagree with it's assumptions - plus sustainable development is much more practical - but to criticize him purely on the grounds that a lump sum donation to "countries that know nothing of how to cultivate their economies" is silly, is both ignorant & arrogant.

  15. fuck off  

    bwog commenters. you sarcastically bash anything and everything then get your panties in a bunch when bwog takes a shot at saint sachs. did you have to spend an evening wondering if buying that "sustainable development is sexy" t-shirt wasn't the most you could do to help end global poverty?

    • meh  

      I don't really have a strong feeling for sachs or BWOG. I just think calling this interview the "least entertaining ever" on the daily show was not only terrible hyperbole, but it wasn't even snarky/witty/funny. Meaning it was only mean-spirited.

  16. 3332341111

    Sachs has since turned to micro-financing and sustainable development because those are the ways to go - not dumping lump sums on countries that know nothing of how to cultivate their economies.

    While Sachs is well-intentioned (we all are, to some degree), and he should not be criticized for his intentions, he can certainly be criticized for his methods. That's what we're doing.

  17. more cool facts

    BWOG's coolness: 12%

    the Commentariat's coolness: 400%

    don't fuck with us.

  18. fractions

    I suppose that you will regard the 4% of GDP that we are spending on defense (Iraq, Afghanistan, everything) as a small fraction as well. No?

  19. austin

    that interview was far better than any of the interviews bwog's attempted.

  20. Anonymous

    the poland quip was a good one.

  21. big ups bwog  

    the interview was annoying and sucked ass. spot on ol bwoggo!

  22. meh  

    also, since BWOG's track function sucks the big one - I am poster #10, #22, #24, and #32.

    Geez I need a life.

  23. yeah

    I thought this was a great interview. Given the little amount of time that he had with Stewart, I feel like he did enough to get his point across about how to confront our global problems. There was nothing repetitive or awkward. Maybe you should watch the video again.

  24. an axe to grind?  

    If bwog calls this bad, I wonder what it would have to say about its own attempts.

    I'm a fan of neither JS or JS, but the interview was a perfectly good and entertaining one.

© 2006-2015 Blue and White Publishing Inc.