3 ms·

When I was at University two individuals I knew, in different countries, WERE the Economist Intelligence Unit for those (small) countries. They were smart kids

by scandox 10y ago

When I was at University two individuals I knew, in different countries, WERE the Economist Intelligence Unit for those (small) countries. They were smart kids but they didn't really have a clue. They were just really good at digesting a lot of media and once they were EIU had the credibility to pick up the phone to some pundits, who liked to see themselves quoted.

k-mcgrady 10y ago
Was the content their information led to bad? Your comment seems to be based on your personal opinion of these persons rather than a critique of the finished product.
- scandox 10y ago
  I have a very high opinion of those persons! My comment is only intended to give some idea of what the level is vis-a-vis their "intelligence" gathering operations. Their investment in on the ground data gathering is not exactly massive.
gumby 10y ago
Indeed they are notorious for the youth of their staff, and it is occasionally glaringly embarrassing. The writing is mostly of high quality. But they can get smart kids to work for them because it's a great name to have on your resume and they work can be demanding. I can echo your comment: I was at a dinner party in London back in the mid 1980s and my host's gf worked for the EIU covering east Asia. She was an oxbridge graduate in her mid 20s. She said she couldn't understand why so many people in China, HK, SG etc seemed so anti-Japanese. That said a lot about the UK educational system! But on the other hand the coverage is relatively broad and commentary relatively deep, and until recently, they assumed their readers were well read which saves a lot of time and gives a lot of depth. Plus I vastly prefer a weekly to daily (or even high frequency) "news" -- if it's still worth discussing a week later perhaps it's interesting. And it's typically unashamedly liberal, and hasn't lost the point of its founding 150 or so years ago, which was to argue for free trade. I have read every issue since February of 1985 so yes, I am a loyal reader, despite my manifold criticism.

by scandox 10y ago

k-mcgrady 10y ago

Was the content their information led to bad? Your comment seems to be based on your personal opinion of these persons rather than a critique of the finished product.

scandox 10y ago
I have a very high opinion of those persons! My comment is only intended to give some idea of what the level is vis-a-vis their "intelligence" gathering operations. Their investment in on the ground data gathering is not exactly massive.

gumby 10y ago

Indeed they are notorious for the youth of their staff, and it is occasionally glaringly embarrassing. The writing is mostly of high quality. But they can get smart kids to work for them because it's a great name to have on your resume and they work can be demanding. I can echo your comment: I was at a dinner party in London back in the mid 1980s and my host's gf worked for the EIU covering east Asia. She was an oxbridge graduate in her mid 20s. She said she couldn't understand why so many people in China, HK, SG etc seemed so anti-Japanese. That said a lot about the UK educational system! But on the other hand the coverage is relatively broad and commentary relatively deep, and until recently, they assumed their readers were well read which saves a lot of time and gives a lot of depth. Plus I vastly prefer a weekly to daily (or even high frequency) "news" -- if it's still worth discussing a week later perhaps it's interesting. And it's typically unashamedly liberal, and hasn't lost the point of its founding 150 or so years ago, which was to argue for free trade. I have read every issue since February of 1985 so yes, I am a loyal reader, despite my manifold criticism.