there should be some law where publications have to track their brier scores
I’d be surprised if they knew what a brier score was
The folks at the Economist certainly know. Bunch of nerds! (And I say that in the best sense.)
Is The Economist Always Wrong?
81–90 of 189 posts
Re: Is The Economist Always Wrong?
#82Re: Is The Economist Always Wrong?
#83They don't have any real skin in the game. Who cares if they're right about something? Are they putting money on the line? What is their P/L for being "right"?
I think that's the wrong way to look at it. They do have skin in the game, in the sense that their readers wouldn't want to pay for a newspaper that is consistently wrong. And, even if they don't, it doesn't mean that it's not valuable
Well, I would pay for newspaper that's consistently wrong. I'd just trade the exact opposite of what they say.
But I get what you mean!
Re: Is The Economist Always Wrong?
#84The Economist has been publishing since 1843. As such, one could be forgiven for expecting an article entitled "Is The Economist Always Wrong?" to engage meaningfully with the track record of either the publication or the field with which it shares its name in any meaningful way. Alas. > To assess our record with something approaching neutrality, we took the 7,000 or so leaders The Economist has published this millen…
> [...] the field from which it draws its name [...] The Economist was founded in 1843 and draws its name from a then-current term for something like a 'free-trade liberal' (with perhaps a fiscal conservative bend). Not the modern day field of economics. Their big beef at the time of founding was a fight against the Corn Laws, a protectionist tariff against importing grain into Britain.
My apologies, I've corrected my comment.
Re: Is The Economist Always Wrong?
#85I'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.
Chomsky said it was the only newspaper that told the truth.
I wonder if he wrote that while on the island.
Re: Is The Economist Always Wrong?
#86Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yep. That's why predicting the future of a system you're a part of is sometimes literally impossible; it boils, fundamentally, to the fact that logical negation doesn't have a fixed point.
That's a beautifully simple characterization. I've never heard of of that. What keywords do I need to find more on this topic?
Just copy and paste the sentence you admire into your favourite LLM and then ask the question you had?
Re: Is The Economist Always Wrong?
#87Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you’re a left leaning voter the Speccie is almost _never_ going to have an article for you. And the “almost” is simply because often the articles are very well written and a pleasure to read even when the actual topic and argument are deeply deranged. Amazingly this was especially true when Boris was the editor!
Why is that amazing? For all his faults, Boris Johnson is an excellent writer.
There is an amazing write up[0] of somebody who was present when Boris gave some apparently "impromptu" speeches who absolutely pins him to the ground on his technique for appearing haphazard, off-the-cuff when it's patently clear its a rehearsed schtick. The man is literate.
The problem is he is also almost amoral, and should never have been allowed to occupy a position of authority. He has some charming qualities, and he has some deeply unpleasant ones. (at least, from what I know of him from reading online, having never met him in the flesh)
[0]: "My Boris Johnson Story" by Jeremy Vine: https://spectator.com/article/my-boris-johnson-story/
Re: Is The Economist Always Wrong?
#88Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 reas…
Chomsky makes the same point in his book "Manufacturing Consent": Economic papers report more truthfully than most because the truth is what their readers need to make decisions in the real world. I find that pretty convincing and I do check out such papers occasionally for that reason.
It's somewhat funny that the rest of Chomsky's ideology doesn't seem to really take that insight serious.
Re: Is The Economist Always Wrong?
#89By making this headline, the Economist put us into a paradox. Quite clever
Re: Is The Economist Always Wrong?
#90I'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.
Chomsky said it was the only newspaper that told the truth.
Human beings act as if wisdom and intelligence are general whereas in reality every single area of human endeavor requires so much detail passion and time to acquire the specific knowledge and to maintain currency as the field evolves that those speaking outside their own specific scope are mostly full of shit.