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

151–160 of 189 posts

Re: Is The Economist Always Wrong?

#151

Post by modo_mario »

davidw wrote: post #58
narism wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because Fox News crowed about it doesn’t mean it’s bad journalism. Arguably toeing the party line is what resulted in Democrats being in that situation (fielding a weaker candidate against Trump) in the first place.

Framing someone who supports democracy vs someone who tried to overturn a free and fair election as a 'weaker' candidate is kind of the problem though. In any sane world, you'd support a literal corpse over a guy who does not want there to be free and fair elections.

If your argument is that people must choose between the devil and the deep blue sea as a repeated excuse for fielding a candidate that isn't all that popular or optimal.... Well then you're going to lose to the devil from time in the binary shitflinging that is the american political system.

Re: Is The Economist Always Wrong?

#152

Post by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF »

Arkhaine_kupo wrote: post #124
dotancohen wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

To add to this, I've read accounts that US Presidents suddenly needed to be charismatic to compete meaningfully after the debates started being televised. So even being charming had not always helped one win public office.

I recall a story about Calvin Coolidge, who had earned the nicname "Cool Cal" for his standoffish attitude, about a dinner party he attended. Another guest bet him they could get him to say three words to them by the time the party was over. He didn't say anything in response, then found them at the end of the party and said, "You lose."

Re: Is The Economist Always Wrong?

#153

Post by tonyedgecombe »

twolf910616 wrote: post #74
papaver-somnamb wrote: post #61

After reading their newspaper (their label, not mine) for years, I've come away with three revelations: A) More than gaining insight and staying abreast of events, what I was really purchasing was the /feeling/ of being in-the-know. B) Whenever I met with "certain" people, they were likely to also read The Economist which turned out to be another, tremendously handy means of anchoring conversation. C) The trade balan…

+1 on C. I actually started reading it back to front and have been having much more fun.

I do too, I picked that idea up from HN. I often don’t get to the front for three or four weeks which makes the news part interesting. Last week I read a piece from early in the Iran/US war and it was telling me I wouldn’t be able to buy petrol by then but the reality was prices were already falling off.

Re: Is The Economist Always Wrong?

#154

Post by estearum »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #134
fmajid wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Economist is to the City of London (the financial center masquerading as a local authority, not the metropolis) what Pravda was to the Soviet Communist Party. Useless as a source of truth, but invaluable to find out who was going to be purged and you should disown stat. Similarly The Economist is useful as a barometer of conventional wisdom in as very specific demographic. Their science and arts section can be ve…

I find that publications aimed at business people to be a bit more reliable since their readers jobs are to make money and not have their biases confirmed. If the media isn’t useful in helping them make money (by giving them too much bad information), they will simply stop using it. Of course, making money doesn’t necessarily mean having access to the best unbiased information, sometimes it simply means onboarding on…

This is why (in the US anyway) The Business Journals are fantastic. Also, they're extremely localized, which is most stuff of direct relevance anyway. Absolutely love those publications.

Re: Is The Economist Always Wrong?

#155

Post by Gimpei »

fmajid wrote: post #115
papaver-somnamb wrote: post #61

After reading their newspaper (their label, not mine) for years, I've come away with three revelations: A) More than gaining insight and staying abreast of events, what I was really purchasing was the /feeling/ of being in-the-know. B) Whenever I met with "certain" people, they were likely to also read The Economist which turned out to be another, tremendously handy means of anchoring conversation. C) The trade balan…

The Economist is to the City of London (the financial center masquerading as a local authority, not the metropolis) what Pravda was to the Soviet Communist Party. Useless as a source of truth, but invaluable to find out who was going to be purged and you should disown stat. Similarly The Economist is useful as a barometer of conventional wisdom in as very specific demographic. Their science and arts section can be ve…

The Pravda parallel is a stretch. It's definitely opinion, but they do consult actual research and more so than most other English language publications. As a social scientist I think they do a better job of treating research than the NY Times or the New Yorker. Often I get the sense the journalists at those publications haven't seen a number since high school. That being said, if you think the kind of statistics based research that comes out of social sciences is all bunk, we live in different worlds and will have to agree to disagree.

Re: Is The Economist Always Wrong?

#157

Post by red-iron-pine »

ImageXav wrote: post #121

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 w…

"you know what would fix this problem? put the Torys in charge and let them privatize everything" -- essentially their refrain

that said, they gave generally good briefs about topics but I found whenever it was anything I knew about they tended to be fairly one-sided. Often they'd acknowledge the other view, in half a paragraph, and then immediately ignore the entire argument and keep on harping about whatever their particular axe to grind was.

having it around did help literacy in high school I guess.

Re: Is The Economist Always Wrong?

#158

Post by red-iron-pine »

fugaziboutit wrote: post #131
doe88 wrote: post #114

An outgoing foreign affairs editor suggested in 1988 that the newspaper ‘never saw a war it didn’t like’. 𐞸 𐞸 https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lsereviewofbooks/2020/05/27/book-rev... 𐞸 Maybe outdated regarding the later conflicts (tbh i don't know, i didn't follow their positions on the Ukraine and the Middle-East wars).

They're very strongly against the Iran War right now.

the entire world is, except for Israel and their puppet

Re: Is The Economist Always Wrong?

#159

Post by [deleted] »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #134
fmajid wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Economist is to the City of London (the financial center masquerading as a local authority, not the metropolis) what Pravda was to the Soviet Communist Party. Useless as a source of truth, but invaluable to find out who was going to be purged and you should disown stat. Similarly The Economist is useful as a barometer of conventional wisdom in as very specific demographic. Their science and arts section can be ve…

I find that publications aimed at business people to be a bit more reliable since their readers jobs are to make money and not have their biases confirmed. If the media isn’t useful in helping them make money (by giving them too much bad information), they will simply stop using it. Of course, making money doesn’t necessarily mean having access to the best unbiased information, sometimes it simply means onboarding on…

[deleted]

Re: Is The Economist Always Wrong?

#160

Post by CGMthrowaway »

mrandish wrote: post #53
jjmarr wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alan Greenspan (fed chair from 1987-2006) was famous for deliberately confusing forward guidance. Ben Bernanke and Janet Yellen are the historical anomalies for clearly communicating their intent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fedspeak Quote from Greenspan himself: > As Fed chairman, every time I expressed a view, I added or subtracted 10 basis points from the credit market. That was not helpful. But I nonetheless ha…

I think the better Greenspan quote is from one of his earlier congressional testimony sessions: "Since becoming a central banker, I have learned to mumble with great incoherence. If I seem unduly clear to you, you must have misunderstood what I said."

Greenspan himself coined the term "Fed speak"
Post reply on HN