3 ms·
> but I like to read a summary in something like The Economist. What makes you think anyone at the economist knows anything or would know anything about chines
by qiskit 4y ago
> but I like to read a summary in something like The Economist.
What makes you think anyone at the economist knows anything or would know anything about chinese economic policy. Even if they did, what makes you think they wouldn't spin it or mislead? The only thing the economist is good for is revealing the western elites' political opinions of china. If the economist says nice things about china, it means our elites want to exploit cheap chinese labor for their financial benefit. If the economist says bad things about china, it means our elites want better deal on exploiting cheap chinese labor.
> I agree that reading the NYT headlines every day is a waste of time though. Depends what he called "news".
The economist is a greater waste of time. At least the NYT is well written. Arguably the best written "news" out there. Though at the end of the day, it's ultimately a waste of time as well.
Reading the news is like the blind leading the deaf. But we have to waste our time somehow.
- plonk 4y ago> What makes you think anyone at the economist knows anything or would know anything about chinese economic policy. I don't know enough to evaluate that, so replace it with whatever they are more versed in, like US economic policy. It's just an example. > The only thing the economist is good for is revealing the western elites' political opinions of china. But even their negative articles about China are two-sided. They usually don't catastrophise. I've read a lot of them and they don't fit with the Econ being a mouthpiece for "western elites".