An investor who is both intelligent and wise seeks the best information. Many turn to the leading Internet sources. One of my missions is to help investors in finding and interpreting information, so this is often a theme at "A Dash."
Here is the big problem: There is no good forum for debate.
It is very difficult to engage another blogger in intelligent debate. CNBC's twenty-second segments, pitting known partisans against each other, are little better. There are some high-profile economic discussions, but even these seem quickly to disintegrate into politics.
If you are interested in your investments -- and put politics aside -- where do you look?
The Kauffman Foundation Economic Bloggers Forum
I spent a day last week at a conference for economic bloggers. While the Kauffman Foundation generously supported the event, this was a big investment of time for the participants. What was so interesting? Was it worth it? More importantly, is there a reason for investors to be interested in this conclave?
I obviously believe that the answer is "yes" or I would not be writing, but the reason may surprise you. I have attended many conventions of like-minded people. That serves a function, but it is not always enlightenment. It is refreshing to attend a meeting where there is so much spirited debate!
The participants were certainly not representative of the general public. Libertarians, Democrats, and Republicans were three equal parties. The self-identification in member polling shows a significant conservative bias. That is fine. Getting strong representation for all viewpoints is the key. Proportional representation is not needed.
The Fault Lines
Here are some key differences among the Economic Bloggers. I am calling them "fault lines" to emphasize the nature of each issue.
- Smart people who write about economics v. professional economists
- MSM writers v. bloggers
- Those looking for an explanation to the economic collapse v. those who have made up their minds
- People who see value in blogs when MSM "drills down" v. those who see information and analysis as "bubbling up."
- Austrian economists v. Keynsians
- Populist "tea party" types v. traditionalists
- Importance of blogging -- "professional" bloggers (pride in page views) v. those who write when able
- Bloggers with actual experience -- responsibility for making policy decisions v. those who have opinions without ever having accountability
- The visionary entrepreneurial types v. the dire pessimists.
The Absentees
Because of my training, I always look for what is missing. The conference would have benefited from the inclusion of several other groups -- another future topic. As an example, many topics stalled when it came to analysis of the political process. As far as I could tell, I was the only political scientist/public policy type in attendance. Several panels would have benefited from this viewpoint -- especially the final panel on the deficit. There was a lot of name-calling about "politicians."
A Glimpse Ahead
Regular readers know that I have certain conclusions about these divisions. I call them conclusions rather than biases, since I am trying to find the best information and analysis -- the same as my readers. I favor analytical strength, experience, pragmatism, and evidence. You should do the same.
I understand that few will actually watch the webcast, despite the value. I expect to write about and highlight the listed themes in some future articles, in the context of my regular agenda. Meanwhile, most readers would benefit from watching the video of the conference. The formal presentations were excellent and the questions and responses were pretty lively.
Submitted By 
's
