6 ms·

I applaud the fact that they admit to the mistakes and owning up to them. Converting abstract relationships into semiological representation is not exactly well

I applaud the fact that they admit to the mistakes and owning up to them. Converting abstract relationships into semiological representation is not exactly well cut science. There is a bit of experience and discovery in being able to take complex data and present it in a clear manner. Now, only if we can get publications like Bloomberg to admit their mistake about "The Big Hack" but off-topic and I digress. I've always enjoyed Economist and its British humor, and this article just adds more credibility.

hi5eyes 8y ago
dont most people pass off the bloomberg hack story as stock manipulation
- mikekchar 8y ago
  Personally, my tinfoil hat theory is that it was concocted by the white house staff to create a political climate conducive to playing hardball the Chinese. Not one shred of evidence, of course, but it seems the most plausible thing I could think of.
chiaro 8y ago
Or the classic least norwegian squares method of regression in the WSJ http://kieranhealy.org/files/misc/laffer.png http://kieranhealy.org/files/misc/laffer.png
- voldacar 8y ago
  This link returns a 403
  - glastra 8y ago
    Copy and paste the link. It gives a 403 because the referrer is HN (so not from the same domain). No referrer, no 403.
    - voldacar 8y ago
      should have thought of that. D'oh
- lb1lf 8y ago
  We (Norway) cheat a bit, though - we're a small (5M and change citizens) economy with a massive oil extraction industry which we tax to high heaven, hence the large fraction of GDP raised by taxes. Regular corporate tax is 22%, whereas anything involving pumping hydrocarbons out of the ground is taxed with an additional 56%, leading to a tax rate of 78%. In 2018, this led to more than $13B in taxes being paid from oil companies. Joe Q. Public, for comparison, paid $35B or so in income tax.
  - tomp 8y ago
    I think that's his/her point. Norway is obviously an outlier, so fitting the curve through Norway makes absolutely no sense!
    - lb1lf 8y ago
      D'oh, of course. In my defense, I hardly slept last night courtesy of a three-year-old with the chicken pox, and I hadn't had my morning gallon of coffee when I replied.
- gowld 8y ago
  That's a amazing. They made a plot and then drew an unrelated scribble through Norway.
- mcguire 8y ago
  The post containing the graph: https://kieranhealy.org/blog/archives/2007/07/13/outliers/ https://kieranhealy.org/blog/archives/2007/07/13/outliers/
nindalf 8y ago
The Economist’s willingness to fess up to their mistakes makes me trust them. For years, even up till 2017 every mention of the Iraq war would include the caveat “(which this newspaper supported)”. They didn’t need to, especially since other publications don’t do the same. It shows a level of integrity and self-awareness that appears generally lacking.
- baragiola 8y ago
  Exactly, they are by far the less biased news outlet I read. For instance, they explicitly don't support Trump, but don't hesitate to say "Trump is right about X", or "Trump did well on Y". They also don't support the Chinese PC, but don't hesitate on giving recommendations that would help them fix their problems (knowing that the Chinese elite read The Economist)
  - js2 8y ago
    Saying they aren’t biased doesn’t mean they don’t have a viewpoint, which they themselves disclose: “We do not attach ourselves to any political party. Our public agenda is liberal in the classical sense. We have supported free trade ever since our foundation in 1843 when we opposed Britain’s corn laws, which sought to keep the price of grain high by limiting imports. We have continued to advocate bold policies in favour of individual freedoms, such as same-sex marriage and legalisation of drugs, regardless of whether they are politically popular, in the belief that the force of argument will eventually prevail.” https://www.economist.com/about-the-economist#editorial-philosophy https://www.economist.com/about-the-economist#editorial-phil... I know people who would call that biased. Disclosure: I’m a subscriber.
    - nxc18 8y ago
      Thanks for raising this. I listen to the economist (big fan of their podcasts) as well as occasionally reading. I remember being somewhat shocked to discover that not only do they have a strong bias towards liberalism, but they aren't afraid to talk about it. They absolutely are biased, but they tell you how and why right up front which is rather refreshing.

hi5eyes 8y ago

dont most people pass off the bloomberg hack story as stock manipulation

mikekchar 8y ago
Personally, my tinfoil hat theory is that it was concocted by the white house staff to create a political climate conducive to playing hardball the Chinese. Not one shred of evidence, of course, but it seems the most plausible thing I could think of.

chiaro 8y ago

Or the classic least norwegian squares method of regression in the WSJ http://kieranhealy.org/files/misc/laffer.png http://kieranhealy.org/files/misc/laffer.png

voldacar 8y ago
This link returns a 403
- glastra 8y ago
  Copy and paste the link. It gives a 403 because the referrer is HN (so not from the same domain). No referrer, no 403.
  - voldacar 8y ago
    should have thought of that. D'oh
lb1lf 8y ago
We (Norway) cheat a bit, though - we're a small (5M and change citizens) economy with a massive oil extraction industry which we tax to high heaven, hence the large fraction of GDP raised by taxes. Regular corporate tax is 22%, whereas anything involving pumping hydrocarbons out of the ground is taxed with an additional 56%, leading to a tax rate of 78%. In 2018, this led to more than $13B in taxes being paid from oil companies. Joe Q. Public, for comparison, paid $35B or so in income tax.
- tomp 8y ago
  I think that's his/her point. Norway is obviously an outlier, so fitting the curve through Norway makes absolutely no sense!
  - lb1lf 8y ago
    D'oh, of course. In my defense, I hardly slept last night courtesy of a three-year-old with the chicken pox, and I hadn't had my morning gallon of coffee when I replied.
gowld 8y ago
That's a amazing. They made a plot and then drew an unrelated scribble through Norway.
mcguire 8y ago
The post containing the graph: https://kieranhealy.org/blog/archives/2007/07/13/outliers/ https://kieranhealy.org/blog/archives/2007/07/13/outliers/

nindalf 8y ago

The Economist’s willingness to fess up to their mistakes makes me trust them. For years, even up till 2017 every mention of the Iraq war would include the caveat “(which this newspaper supported)”. They didn’t need to, especially since other publications don’t do the same. It shows a level of integrity and self-awareness that appears generally lacking.

baragiola 8y ago
Exactly, they are by far the less biased news outlet I read. For instance, they explicitly don't support Trump, but don't hesitate to say "Trump is right about X", or "Trump did well on Y". They also don't support the Chinese PC, but don't hesitate on giving recommendations that would help them fix their problems (knowing that the Chinese elite read The Economist)
- js2 8y ago
  Saying they aren’t biased doesn’t mean they don’t have a viewpoint, which they themselves disclose: “We do not attach ourselves to any political party. Our public agenda is liberal in the classical sense. We have supported free trade ever since our foundation in 1843 when we opposed Britain’s corn laws, which sought to keep the price of grain high by limiting imports. We have continued to advocate bold policies in favour of individual freedoms, such as same-sex marriage and legalisation of drugs, regardless of whether they are politically popular, in the belief that the force of argument will eventually prevail.” https://www.economist.com/about-the-economist#editorial-philosophy https://www.economist.com/about-the-economist#editorial-phil... I know people who would call that biased. Disclosure: I’m a subscriber.
  - nxc18 8y ago
    Thanks for raising this. I listen to the economist (big fan of their podcasts) as well as occasionally reading. I remember being somewhat shocked to discover that not only do they have a strong bias towards liberalism, but they aren't afraid to talk about it. They absolutely are biased, but they tell you how and why right up front which is rather refreshing.