4 ms·
Acquiring wealth is certainly a crucial attribute on making a city "livable", and it's completely left out here. Just because ISIS mentions a cities name, does
by limeyy 10y ago
Acquiring wealth is certainly a crucial attribute on making a city "livable", and it's completely left out here.
Just because ISIS mentions a cities name, does not really mean it makes the city less livable.
This article isn't Economist worthy.
- radicaldreamer 10y agoThe more you know about any particular subject, you start to realize that the Economist is not all that great and it really makes you question what they know about things you might not know a lot about.
- liw 10y agoThe Economist is following mainstream journalism in general, then.
- Quequau 10y agosadly yes.
- collyw 10y agoTheir area of focus is economics after all. Economists never seem to be able to agree on anything except in hindsight.
- aphextron 10y agoCompletely agreed. Their science podcast is absolute garbage, and I've stopped reading the magazine because of it.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- legulere 10y agoExactly, and with enough money, pretty much every city is very livable.
- guard-of-terra 10y ago> with enough money, pretty much every city is very livable Unless your idea of fun is sitting all day behind tall fence, this might be false for a huge number of cities in Eastern Europe and perhaps Africa. Imagine that there's basically no roads. That every road in the city looks like this: http://izhevsk.ru/forums/icons/forum_pictures/005326/5326795.jpg http://izhevsk.ru/forums/icons/forum_pictures/005326/5326795... Imagine a thick cover of mud on said streets also, Deadwood-style. You can surely buy a huge expensive car but you can't buy roads, and not only that.