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

91–100 of 189 posts

Re: Is The Economist Always Wrong?

#91

Post by eru »

roughly wrote: post #84
eru wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> [...] 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.

No worries.

> This millennium is also entirely, utterly, absolutely defined by the short-sighted ideas of the economist.

I think you give them more credit than is due.

(And for all their faults, I don't think you can accuse them of eg having caused covid or started the war against Ukraine or turned China towards greater autocracy again.)

Re: Is The Economist Always Wrong?

#92

Post by tjwebbnorfolk »

carabiner wrote: post #63
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.

Chomsky said it was the only newspaper that told the truth.

Chomsky is a perfect example of an academic that should never have strayed outside the academy. Everything he's done outside of his narrow field of linguistics has been an embarrassment.

Re: Is The Economist Always Wrong?

#93

Post by ifwinterco »

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.

Truth is reading any of these MSM sources on either left or right is bad imo.

Before reading them you're merely uninformed, after you're misinformed which is far worse

Re: Is The Economist Always Wrong?

#95

Post by rw2 »

twolf910616 wrote: post #76
givemeethekeys wrote: post #64

They 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

They are so consistently wrong and out of touch with reality they are the Cramer of publications.

Re: Is The Economist Always Wrong?

#96

Post by [deleted] »

eru wrote: post #80
roughly wrote: post #75

The 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.

[deleted]

Re: Is The Economist Always Wrong?

#97

Post by mdp2021 »

ggm wrote: post #87
skrebbel wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

> literate

There is form and there is content. Poor content is more dangerous with alluring form. Some declared having witnessed a bewildering scientific ignorance ("He can't understand data representations").

Re: Is The Economist Always Wrong?

#99

Post by onetokeoverthe »

skrebbel wrote: post #69
gumby wrote: post #60

Earlier 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.

[dead]

Re: Is The Economist Always Wrong?

#100

Post by mdp2021 »

tjwebbnorfolk wrote: post #92
carabiner wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chomsky said it was the only newspaper that told the truth.

Chomsky is a perfect example of an academic that should never have strayed outside the academy. Everything he's done outside of his narrow field of linguistics has been an embarrassment.

Argument missing.
Post reply on HN