Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Is The Economist Always Wrong?

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 189 posts

Re: Is The Economist Always Wrong?

#41

Post by doctorpangloss »

claw-el wrote: post #25
CGMthrowaway wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A major reason why the new Fed chair is refusing to provide forward guidance, in a major departure from all(?) previous Fed chairs and will likely require textbooks to be rewritten.

Yes, one can see it this way, therefore they don’t want to provide forward guidance. One can also see it another way that ‘their job’ is to purposely use forward guidance to impact direction. Not sure which is the right way.

imo, its purpose is to be independent, because raising rates (combating inflation) is unpopular. otherwise, its job is pretty simple, it does't take much expertise, gravitas or technology to choose the number or to say no to the president.

Re: Is The Economist Always Wrong?

#44

Post by andsoitis »

m348e912 wrote: post #34

Here is a mirror of the article without a paywall. https://archive.is/FziAy The Economist is partly owned by the Rothschild dynasty and was chaired by Evelyn de Rothschild for 17 years, so I've always just assumed it is going to tell you whatever would favor the global elite banking class.

The Economist has this to say about their ownership structure and editorial independence:

The Economist is part of The Economist Group, a private company with a special ownership structure designed to preserve editorial independence. Its shareholders date back more than a century, and include great names in British business, such as the Sainsburys, Cadburys and Schroders. Other shareholders today include funds owned by the Agnelli and Rothschild families. Many staff of The Economist Group also own shares, which are privately traded twice a year.

The company’s constitution does not permit any individual or group to gain a majority shareholding, and no shareholder can exercise more than 20% of voting rights. The editor is appointed by trustees, who are independent of commercial, political and proprietorial influences. This structure ensures that The Economist can take an independent view of the world—free to challenge conventional thinking and concentrations of power. Its role is to inform, not to serve vested interests.

https://myaccount.economist.com/s/article/Who-owns-The-Econo...

Re: Is The Economist Always Wrong?

#45

Post by akoboldfrying »

davidw wrote: post #12

After subscribing for 15 years or so, I noped out after their "walker" cover. The world has enough "both sides" journalism, and I had thought them somewhat immune from that.

For me personally, seeing the phrase "both sides" used pejoratively is a red flag telling me I don't need to read any further.

When people disagree about something, hearing from both sides is important. Can this ideal of openmindedness be cynically abused by strawmanning one side while steelmanning the other? Yes, but in that case the appropriate response is to criticise the specific ways that one or both sides were misrepresented -- which is also the appropriate response to a piece that only presents one side, and does it badly. Muttering about "both sides" never adds anything to an argument. All it does is signal a deep commitment to remaining entrenched in your current position.

Re: Is The Economist Always Wrong?

#46

Post by ggm »

SanjayMehta wrote: post #20
ggm wrote: post #10

I'd love to know if "the pink" has the same problem because I used to find the editorial very good. As a non-investor, left leaning voter, it interested me that I found much to agree with in "the financial times" while still finding much to disagree with in "the times" and "the daily telegraph" and "the spectator" -as if money was more neutrally stanced on left-vs-right.

Yes. The pink is also wrong more often than not when they're talking about non-European issues. When they talk about Europe they lie. Subtle difference.

The view amongst the economically literate left (the LSE?) when I was in the UK, was that lying about money to money-makers was counter productive.

I tend to think this is true. The economist doesn't project into quite the same mindset of outcome, so I still think (despite your polemic) it's less likely the fin randomly lies about things, but I'm prepared to consider it on it's merits if somebody gives me better reasons than what I am afraid is just .. ranting.

Re: Is The Economist Always Wrong?

#47

Post by reenorap »

CGMthrowaway wrote: post #22
claw-el wrote: post #8

The tricky thing about predictions made by public entity or persona is that, the fact that they are making public predictions creates a major influence on the outcome itself. People react to predictions made by them.

A major reason why the new Fed chair is refusing to provide forward guidance, in a major departure from all(?) previous Fed chairs and will likely require textbooks to be rewritten.

No, only since Bernanke. So it’s very recent and not something that was historically done by Fed chairs.

Re: Is The Economist Always Wrong?

#48

Post by [deleted] »

andsoitis wrote: post #44
m348e912 wrote: post #34

Here is a mirror of the article without a paywall. https://archive.is/FziAy The Economist is partly owned by the Rothschild dynasty and was chaired by Evelyn de Rothschild for 17 years, so I've always just assumed it is going to tell you whatever would favor the global elite banking class.

The Economist has this to say about their ownership structure and editorial independence: The Economist is part of The Economist Group, a private company with a special ownership structure designed to preserve editorial independence. Its shareholders date back more than a century, and include great names in British business, such as the Sainsburys, Cadburys and Schroders. Other shareholders today include funds owned…

[deleted]

Re: Is The Economist Always Wrong?

#49

Post by mattclarkdotnet »

akoboldfrying wrote: post #45
davidw wrote: post #12

After subscribing for 15 years or so, I noped out after their "walker" cover. The world has enough "both sides" journalism, and I had thought them somewhat immune from that.

For me personally, seeing the phrase "both sides" used pejoratively is a red flag telling me I don't need to read any further. When people disagree about something, hearing from both sides is important. Can this ideal of openmindedness be cynically abused by strawmanning one side while steelmanning the other? Yes, but in that case the appropriate response is to criticise the specific ways that one or both sides were…

The problem is the assumption that in most debates there are sides to be taken, and that there are 2 of them. It leads to shoddy journalism where "balance" means finding someone to debate another, regardless of the bizarreness of their position.

In the real world there are many perspectives on a given issue, and a lot to be learned by everyone through open discussion. "Both sides" mentality discourages this, and also tends to give too much airtime to extreme views.

Re: Is The Economist Always Wrong?

#50

Post by CalChris »

reenorap wrote: post #47
CGMthrowaway wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A major reason why the new Fed chair is refusing to provide forward guidance, in a major departure from all(?) previous Fed chairs and will likely require textbooks to be rewritten.

No, only since Bernanke. So it’s very recent and not something that was historically done by Fed chairs.

It started with Greenspan but ramped up under Bernanke.

https://www.richmondfed.org/publications/research/econ_focus...

Post reply on HN