8 ms·

The Economist has often badmouthed Italy. The title is way too sensationalist. The comment section also highlights this ethnic bias. I will never forget their i

The Economist has often badmouthed Italy. The title is way too sensationalist. The comment section also highlights this ethnic bias. I will never forget their insulting cover from years ago: http://static.fanpage.it/socialmediafanpage/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Grillo-Berlusconi-Economist-300x225.jpg http://static.fanpage.it/socialmediafanpage/wp-content/uploa.... Just clickbaits and provocations.

danielvf 10y ago
If not Italy, what do you think would be Europe's next couple economic crisis countries?
- yulaow 10y ago
  Here in EU, ironically, the talk these weeks is about German Banks... yeah, I too was surprised. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/feb/10/deutsche-bank-germany-financial-colossus-stumbles https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/feb/10/deutsche-ba...
  - im3w1l 10y ago
    Agreed. February, when your article was published, isn't these weeks though.
    - yulaow 10y ago
      My bad, I just linked the first article I found. They are talking about it a lot in the news in TV, especially after Brexit
  - phee 10y ago
    As far as I can understand DB troubles aren't that urgent, but this way Germans believe they're the ones needing bailout so Merkel can get away with saving MPS without losing much consent.
- collyw 10y ago
  The UK while it still remains. They have managed to push housing affordability to levels not seen since the last crisis. Rather than try to solve the problem, governments have done everything they can to keep things like they were before. http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/mortgageshome/article-3678511/Property-hits-levels-unaffordability-not-seen-financial-crisis-house-prices-rise-3k-June.html http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/mortgageshome/article-367...
leoc 10y ago
To be honest, that cover looks like a perfectly fair and accurate assessment of both men.
sremani 10y ago
I really do not have context about Italy and Economist, but this issue has been predicted and talked about by others. Here is one of them. https://geopoliticalfutures.com/italy-and-systemic-failure/ https://geopoliticalfutures.com/italy-and-systemic-failure/
- wsc981 10y ago
  I fear the EU will use the (huge) Dutch pension funds to bail out Italy. Just last week the Dutch parliament hurriedly accepted EU regulations that allow the Dutch pension funds to move to other EU countries, which would put them out of scope of Dutch (strict) regulation and could possibly be used in the future by the EU to bail out countries like Italy. One way to achieve this would be by requiring a certain percentage of funds be invested in bad bonds. More surprising was that Germany decided not to accept these EU regulations for pension funds, which makes some wonder why the Dutch did accept. Most surprising of all was that all parties in the government promised during last elections that Dutch pension funds would stay under Dutch control. And almost all opposition parties shared the same view. I.e. almost all broke their election promises, which makes no sense at all, unless EU priorities are regarded as more important than Dutch priorities.
  - bonzini 10y ago
    Just FYI, there has never been any need to bail out Italy, unlike Greece, Spain, Portugal, Cyprus and Ireland.
  - vkou 10y ago
    If these pension funds are throwing large amounts of money into a dangerous market, that would solely be the fault of Dutch pension fund managers. There are plenty of other non-Dutch instruments they can, and should be investing in.
davidw 10y ago
You're saying that cover is insulting to clowns? Having lived most of the past 15 years in Italy, I think a lot of the criticism is justified.
- toomuchtodo 10y ago
  What do you think the likelihood is of a run on Italian banks? I'm curious if you're average Italian citizen is aware of what a supposed bail in would subject depositors to (anything above a certain euro amount would be wiped out, such that occurred in Cyprus as one of the links in this thread notes).
  - pmontra 10y ago
    The limit is 100k Euro. There is a fund to save deposits under 100k if a bank collapses. The problem is that there is no enough money to save every single depositor under 100k if enough banks are in trouble. That in Italy and everywhere else.
    - mseebach 10y ago
      That limit either was, or was very close to being, ignored in Cyprus. You'd be foolish to bet €100k on that limit being hard if the shit hits the fan in Italy (which is a lot bigger than Cyprus and doesn't have anywhere near as much dirty Russian money they can grab instead). Also, the limit is for nought if Italy leaves the Eurozone and your savings are forcefully converted to "New Lira" (which are then "protected", but worth a lot less). TL;DR: If you have cash in Italian banks, GTFOASAP. If you're a "good guy", buy hard Italian assets (perhaps property), so the money (perhaps) stays in the country, otherwise, get an offshore account (even if declared, and thus perfectly legal, it's much less likely that the Italian government will be successful in grabbing the money, especially if you pick a non-EU jurisdiction, but IANAL).
      - bonzini 10y ago
        > If you have cash in Italian banks, GTFOASAP That makes no sense at all. Just don't keep cash and invest everything except for a small contingency fund.
jomamaxx 10y ago
It doesn't matter. The facts are the facts and the Italian banking system is in big trouble.
- tremon 10y ago
  Facts are never facts when the topic is economic forecasts.
diego_moita 10y ago
> highlights this ethnic bias They've done that to a lot of British & American politicians. They've been harder on Trump than they were on Berlusconi. And face it, both Berlusconi and Grillo were professional "pagliacci".
jcranmer 10y ago
There's just been three digs at Berlusconi on the NA cover (plus another on the EU cover that wasn't on the NA cover that I'm aware of)--one of which was nothing more than an addition on the bill of bailouts of Eastern Europe saying "Silvio to go (if only)". In 1998 alone, there are 5 digs at Clinton over the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Three in 2000 at Bush, and several more over the course of the presidency (to be fair, Bush kinda was an easy target for this sort of stuff)--and they endorsed him. Vladimir Putin has also been a sore point for them (Vlad the Impaler all the way back in 2003? I'd forgotten Putin's been around that long...). The 2008 Super Tuesday issue had Mike Huckabee shaking hands with a pig in a field of mud. That's not counting the number of world leaders or potential world leaders they hate... which tends to round to about all of them. The Economist doesn't try to represent facts neutrally, but rather finds something to criticize about everything (even things they like, usually because it's not as far as could be gone) to exhort people to do what they think people should be doing. Sure, Berlusconi has had it a lot, but that's because he's the rare example of a (to them) incompetent leader actually gaining power and keeping it for a long time. If someone like Trump or Le Pen or Farage were to be elected, you'd see equally, possibly more, relentless negative coverage of them. Hell, they're still appalled that Trump actually won the nomination.
- aphextron 10y ago
  >In 1998 alone, there are 5 digs at Clinton over the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Three in 2000 at Bush, and several more over the course of the presidency (to be fair, Bush kinda was an easy target for this sort of stuff)--and they endorsed him. Vladimir Putin has also been a sore point for them (Vlad the Impaler all the way back in 2003? I'd forgotten Putin's been around that long...). The 2008 Super Tuesday issue had Mike Huckabee shaking hands with a pig in a field of mud. I think this is more of a general British attitude than The Economist in particular. You see a lot of the same kind of stuff from the BBC. Arrogant, anglo-centric, looking down the nose at anyone foreign.
  - choult 10y ago
    The BBC is clearly doing a pretty good job at being unbiased (as per its mandate) as _everyone_ thinks it's biased against _them_. In reality, in an attempt at balance, the Beeb generall gives too much time to fringe views, often lending the appearance of legitimacy to them. (cf. Their climate change coverage up until fairly recently)

danielvf 10y ago

If not Italy, what do you think would be Europe's next couple economic crisis countries?

yulaow 10y ago
Here in EU, ironically, the talk these weeks is about German Banks... yeah, I too was surprised. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/feb/10/deutsche-bank-germany-financial-colossus-stumbles https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/feb/10/deutsche-ba...
- im3w1l 10y ago
  Agreed. February, when your article was published, isn't these weeks though.
  - yulaow 10y ago
    My bad, I just linked the first article I found. They are talking about it a lot in the news in TV, especially after Brexit
- phee 10y ago
  As far as I can understand DB troubles aren't that urgent, but this way Germans believe they're the ones needing bailout so Merkel can get away with saving MPS without losing much consent.
collyw 10y ago
The UK while it still remains. They have managed to push housing affordability to levels not seen since the last crisis. Rather than try to solve the problem, governments have done everything they can to keep things like they were before. http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/mortgageshome/article-3678511/Property-hits-levels-unaffordability-not-seen-financial-crisis-house-prices-rise-3k-June.html http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/mortgageshome/article-367...

leoc 10y ago

To be honest, that cover looks like a perfectly fair and accurate assessment of both men.

sremani 10y ago

I really do not have context about Italy and Economist, but this issue has been predicted and talked about by others. Here is one of them. https://geopoliticalfutures.com/italy-and-systemic-failure/ https://geopoliticalfutures.com/italy-and-systemic-failure/

wsc981 10y ago
I fear the EU will use the (huge) Dutch pension funds to bail out Italy. Just last week the Dutch parliament hurriedly accepted EU regulations that allow the Dutch pension funds to move to other EU countries, which would put them out of scope of Dutch (strict) regulation and could possibly be used in the future by the EU to bail out countries like Italy. One way to achieve this would be by requiring a certain percentage of funds be invested in bad bonds. More surprising was that Germany decided not to accept these EU regulations for pension funds, which makes some wonder why the Dutch did accept. Most surprising of all was that all parties in the government promised during last elections that Dutch pension funds would stay under Dutch control. And almost all opposition parties shared the same view. I.e. almost all broke their election promises, which makes no sense at all, unless EU priorities are regarded as more important than Dutch priorities.
- bonzini 10y ago
  Just FYI, there has never been any need to bail out Italy, unlike Greece, Spain, Portugal, Cyprus and Ireland.
- vkou 10y ago
  If these pension funds are throwing large amounts of money into a dangerous market, that would solely be the fault of Dutch pension fund managers. There are plenty of other non-Dutch instruments they can, and should be investing in.

davidw 10y ago

You're saying that cover is insulting to clowns? Having lived most of the past 15 years in Italy, I think a lot of the criticism is justified.

toomuchtodo 10y ago
What do you think the likelihood is of a run on Italian banks? I'm curious if you're average Italian citizen is aware of what a supposed bail in would subject depositors to (anything above a certain euro amount would be wiped out, such that occurred in Cyprus as one of the links in this thread notes).
- pmontra 10y ago
  The limit is 100k Euro. There is a fund to save deposits under 100k if a bank collapses. The problem is that there is no enough money to save every single depositor under 100k if enough banks are in trouble. That in Italy and everywhere else.
  - mseebach 10y ago
    That limit either was, or was very close to being, ignored in Cyprus. You'd be foolish to bet €100k on that limit being hard if the shit hits the fan in Italy (which is a lot bigger than Cyprus and doesn't have anywhere near as much dirty Russian money they can grab instead). Also, the limit is for nought if Italy leaves the Eurozone and your savings are forcefully converted to "New Lira" (which are then "protected", but worth a lot less). TL;DR: If you have cash in Italian banks, GTFOASAP. If you're a "good guy", buy hard Italian assets (perhaps property), so the money (perhaps) stays in the country, otherwise, get an offshore account (even if declared, and thus perfectly legal, it's much less likely that the Italian government will be successful in grabbing the money, especially if you pick a non-EU jurisdiction, but IANAL).
    - bonzini 10y ago
      > If you have cash in Italian banks, GTFOASAP That makes no sense at all. Just don't keep cash and invest everything except for a small contingency fund.

jomamaxx 10y ago

It doesn't matter. The facts are the facts and the Italian banking system is in big trouble.

tremon 10y ago
Facts are never facts when the topic is economic forecasts.

diego_moita 10y ago

> highlights this ethnic bias They've done that to a lot of British & American politicians. They've been harder on Trump than they were on Berlusconi. And face it, both Berlusconi and Grillo were professional "pagliacci".

jcranmer 10y ago

There's just been three digs at Berlusconi on the NA cover (plus another on the EU cover that wasn't on the NA cover that I'm aware of)--one of which was nothing more than an addition on the bill of bailouts of Eastern Europe saying "Silvio to go (if only)". In 1998 alone, there are 5 digs at Clinton over the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Three in 2000 at Bush, and several more over the course of the presidency (to be fair, Bush kinda was an easy target for this sort of stuff)--and they endorsed him. Vladimir Putin has also been a sore point for them (Vlad the Impaler all the way back in 2003? I'd forgotten Putin's been around that long...). The 2008 Super Tuesday issue had Mike Huckabee shaking hands with a pig in a field of mud. That's not counting the number of world leaders or potential world leaders they hate... which tends to round to about all of them. The Economist doesn't try to represent facts neutrally, but rather finds something to criticize about everything (even things they like, usually because it's not as far as could be gone) to exhort people to do what they think people should be doing. Sure, Berlusconi has had it a lot, but that's because he's the rare example of a (to them) incompetent leader actually gaining power and keeping it for a long time. If someone like Trump or Le Pen or Farage were to be elected, you'd see equally, possibly more, relentless negative coverage of them. Hell, they're still appalled that Trump actually won the nomination.

aphextron 10y ago
>In 1998 alone, there are 5 digs at Clinton over the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Three in 2000 at Bush, and several more over the course of the presidency (to be fair, Bush kinda was an easy target for this sort of stuff)--and they endorsed him. Vladimir Putin has also been a sore point for them (Vlad the Impaler all the way back in 2003? I'd forgotten Putin's been around that long...). The 2008 Super Tuesday issue had Mike Huckabee shaking hands with a pig in a field of mud. I think this is more of a general British attitude than The Economist in particular. You see a lot of the same kind of stuff from the BBC. Arrogant, anglo-centric, looking down the nose at anyone foreign.
- choult 10y ago
  The BBC is clearly doing a pretty good job at being unbiased (as per its mandate) as _everyone_ thinks it's biased against _them_. In reality, in an attempt at balance, the Beeb generall gives too much time to fringe views, often lending the appearance of legitimacy to them. (cf. Their climate change coverage up until fairly recently)