51–60 of 84 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Economists actually don't do that. They only use math. It's why they always get it wrong- they ignore the social sciences.
That's not true at all, first of all economics is a social science, secondly I think what you think is ignored is the whole branch of behavioural economics .
I really like the economist, they are quite centric in their views but don't hide a certain bias for strong representative democracies, deregulation, globalism and open (publicly traded) markets. Their writing style is probably the cleanest in the industry and they always point out potential conflict of interest even though I've never seen the write anything really positive about the companies Exor controls (Stellant…
The Economist Group is largely owned by the Agnelli family ("Italy's Kennedys"), Canadian billionaire Stephen Smith, the Rothschilds and others, which is likely a significant factor in those biases.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Indeed. I unsubscribed (after many years) out of frustration at their incessant and unquestioning incantation of orthodox economic dogmas, in particular economic growth (which is at the very least a flawed indicator). This is what religion looks like. I was paying smart people to do some of my thinking for me, yet I couldn't help but conclude that my mind was more open than theirs. Still, the quality of The Economist…
Having similar thoughts at times. What are you reading nowadays?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Having similar thoughts at times. What are you reading nowadays?
The Atlantic. Excellent writers, excellent editing. But as a European I find the US slant is a problem. I do miss The Economist's international coverage.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Atlantic. Excellent writers, excellent editing. But as a European I find the US slant is a problem. I do miss The Economist's international coverage.
Coincidentally enough, frequent Atlantic contributor James Fallows wrote a rather scathing assessment of the Economist (albeit in the Post ) way back in 1991: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/1991/10/-quot...
That said, though The Economist clearly has flaws I have yet to find something better. A weekly, sober, well-written newspaper is a hard thing to find.
I’ve noticed The Economist having odd ways of interpreting statistics and data, and this article makes me even less trustful.
> We asked it [GPT-5.5] to assess whether each leader had made a falsifiable claim about the future as part of its main thesis. About 1,400 did. We then extracted those predictions, and asked the AI to mark out of ten both how contrarian the leader’s outlook was at the time and how accurate the prediction turned out to be. We ran those queries several times and took an average. I understand why it wouldn’t be feasibl…
Quite the contrary actually. The economist has a fairly consistent editing style that gets enforced, so its writing style is very linear and very consistent, fairly easy to “understand” for and advanced llm like GPT-5.5
Lol @ the use of "bête noire", which is of course a way to avoid the old racist saying of you made a hugely and catastrophic mistake ... saying you were black-faced. But surely in French, it's fine, right?