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

121–130 of 189 posts

Re: Is The Economist Always Wrong?

#121

Post by ImageXav »

I read the Economist for over a decade growing up. It was a great way to learn about the world, who was in power where, and the challenges facing economies at the time. I found their exposition to be pretty good given the fact they were restricted to a few pages for important events. However, their proposed solutions were always the same. More market freedom, etc.

I did feel with the change in editorial direction a while back that they lost some of their edge. I've since mostly just stuck to the Financial Times. It feels less worldly, but the content of the articles feels better.

Re: Is The Economist Always Wrong?

#122

Post by thesimon »

mjt91 wrote: post #98

Think of subscribing, anyone experience reading the economist on a kindle?

I would love to, but no official Kindle publishing exists and at least the open thingys out there kinda suck. It's okay, but I don't like the formatting.

Maybe write a better Economist->Kindle transformation with Claude or something to make it better.

Re: Is The Economist Always Wrong?

#123

Post by teamonkey »

drumhead wrote: post #113

They're wrong and right in equal measure, but what they do is publish their opinions with conviction and back it up with sound arguments and facts. I remember reading articles they published in the late 80s about their belief that Japans economic boom was about to end, but they were also one of the biggest backers of Bush's invasion of Iraq which they were disastrously wrong about. I haven't read it for a while so I…

I think there’s a human bias where we remember predictions being wrong more strongly than those being right.

The study shows that they weren’t wrong or right in equal measure, they were right more often, considerably so. But that doesn’t mean that they were always right.

Re: Is The Economist Always Wrong?

#124

Post by Arkhaine_kupo »

dotancohen wrote: post #117
ggm wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 should never have been allowed to occupy a position of authority. He has some charming qualities This is quite the contradiction in a democracy. Democracies, at least in modern indirect democracy form, are popularity contests. I personally prefer this form of government over other popular choices. But ignoring this aspect is exactly what leads to unqualified people being elected to office.

> This is quite the contradiction in a democracy.

Is it?

I get that being charming and literally convincing voters it a prerequisite for the job. However the idea that even despite having those qualities there are parts of his character that should disqualify him as a candidate seem equally plausible.

Charles Manson was very charming, but he should still not hold office.

Similarly, Obama or Mamdani being charming is not what gained them interest in progressive circles.

Re: Is The Economist Always Wrong?

#126

Post by Arkhaine_kupo »

eru wrote: post #86
ngruhn wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Why ask a human being who might have the exact knowledge you are looking for when you can ask the "dumb machine of making things up and getting things wrong" instead.

Now being serious, LLMs are nondeterministic loosy compression algorithm which return "what a plausible answer to that question would be". They have no world model, no truth verification and formally will be excellent while having no verifiable content.

Re: Is The Economist Always Wrong?

#127

Post by eru »

roughly wrote: post #112
eru wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.)

I’m just saying, it’d be nice to see some self-reflection once in a while.

Well, the article you commented on is that self-reflection.

Re: Is The Economist Always Wrong?

#128

Post by idaseing »

bluescrn wrote: post #82
smt88 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t know what person reads The Economist to learn about trans topics (whatever you mean by that)

Probably a reference to Helen Joyce, a prominent gender-critical author/activist. Formerly an editor at The Economist.

She’s the reason I quit the Economist. In almost every issue for a while they inserted an article about the dangers of trans people, without ever speaking with an actual trans person. Weird. So I looked it up and found out they had secretly put an anti-trans crusader in charge of trans issues, giving her the Economist’s no-byline “voice of God”. If they have become that sleazy and one-sided on issues where I know when they are wildly off, how can I trust them on obscure international issues where they are my only source?

Re: Is The Economist Always Wrong?

#129

Post by modo_mario »

drumhead wrote: post #113

They're wrong and right in equal measure, but what they do is publish their opinions with conviction and back it up with sound arguments and facts. I remember reading articles they published in the late 80s about their belief that Japans economic boom was about to end, but they were also one of the biggest backers of Bush's invasion of Iraq which they were disastrously wrong about. I haven't read it for a while so I…

>but they were also one of the biggest backers of Bush's invasion of Iraq which they were disastrously wrong about.

Were they wrong or were they insincere/dishonest?

Re: Is The Economist Always Wrong?

#130

Post by modo_mario »

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.

Is this purely because of their economic stances or did the financial times dive into social issues and idpol and maybe some of the stances where a part of the left clashes (migration and such)?
Post reply on HN