3 ms·

I've been reading The Economist for 10 years and I haven't noticed any shift. I read it because they bring me facts that no other news organization that I am aw

I've been reading The Economist for 10 years and I haven't noticed any shift. I read it because they bring me facts that no other news organization that I am aware of can bring me. They are certainly very smart and have a good network of sources. They're also biased towards unregulated markets. I'm a capitalist for sure but unregulated markets are a big problem. I will say I've never forgiven them for cheerleading the Iraq War and then publishing an oblique and weasel-worded come-down in about 2008.

marcamillion 14y ago
I agree with some of this...with a key proviso. They are not 'die-hard unfettered market proselytizers'. For instance, they strongly favor "Obama Care" - maybe not in its entirety and in the EXACT way that it has turned out, but they generally favor the idea of a government created program that creates an exchange for all insurance companies to compete for everybody. They also acknowledge, as the law does, that in order for more people to get coverage and the cost of health care to be tamed, the number of uninsureds has to be decreased significantly - including using fines and subsidies. That stance is quint-essential Economist, based on my experience of reading them cover to cover - weekly - for the last 5 years. They do have a free-market, lightly-regulated bias...but they are pragmatic when they need to be, and for that I love them. Without getting into too much politics, people tend to forget how nuanced the 'Iraq War' decision was at the time. Obama has done a good job of summarizing it into a nice 'sound byte'. The war in Iraq is a "dumb war". The notion there that the outcome was so obvious that it shouldn't have been chosen. What many forget is that post-9/11, the intelligence community was indeed split. The UN SEC actually voted in favor of stricter sanctions and harsher actions against Saddam - if he didn't publicly state that he had no WMDs. It's easy to say Bush knew there were no WMDs in Iraq and he was going there just for oil, but that's a cynical (and non-nuanced view) of the context of the time. As Peter Bergen pointed out in his latest book Man Hunt, the decision for Obama to go to Abbottabad for Bin Laden was based on more circumstantial evidence than the decision for Bush to go to Iraq. Granted, the operations were different in scale - but that alone speaks to the fact that the decision to go to Iraq was supported by faulty intelligence. Assuming that Bush had mal-intent and "knew" there were no WMD in Iraq - but was going just to avenge his father or w/e other story (disregarding everything else) is ridiculous at best. One simple question I always pose to people when they make such statements about Iraq is...if Bush knew there were no WMDs in Iraq, why would he use that as a pretext when he would obviously be either right or wrong? It's not as if they can "plant" WMDs. It's either they will find it, or not. There is no middle ground. So either he will be a hero, or he will be zero. He staked his entire presidency on that decision. He knew that when the presidency is done, he would just have his legacy. His entire legacy would be defined by that decision. There is no way, any rational president/person would make such a decision lightly and frivolously. He would have been better off using the fact that Saddam has slaughtered hundreds of thousands of Kurds, or something else that is more 'ambiguous' that he can't REALLY be held accountable for. Finding WMDs is a key tangible accountability metric. So the fact The Economist was also a proponent of the Iraq War is just further proof as to the ambiguity in the intelligence community at the time of the decision - and how difficult such a decision was.
- SpikeGronim 14y ago
  Thank you for the thoughtful reply marcamillion. The Iraq War subject definitely riles people and I try to stick to the facts. First, with regards to The Economist's position on markets, they are humanists and they care about social welfare. I approve. Yet they still call for further deregulation and resist "populist" regulation to address very serious systemic faults exposed by the financial crisis. If you are going to be a capitalist you need fair market rules, and I see them as wavering in their commitment to that in practice by relying too much on economic theory that does not correspond to the facts on the ground. In particular the "rational markets" hypothesis and the idea that bankers' self interest is sufficient to prevent crisis in the markets. With regards to the Iraq War, I do not and did not see it as ambiguous. Look at the number of false statements made by the Bush administration[1], the way that intelligence was reported to senior decision makers[2], and the flagrant propaganda regarding links between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. Look at the inflated "45 minute" claim[3] and the use of intelligence from "Curveball"[4], a known fabricator. This is not an administration building a case for a necessary war. It's an administration that decided to go to war scraping together a justification. I definitely don't think it as simple as "we want oil". I do believe (but obviously cannot prove) that Dick Cheney cynically manipulated the intelligence to make a case for a war that he personally profited from through his business holdings in contractors such as Haliburton. Finally, the Iraq War was very clearly a disaster as early as 2004. The Economist continued publishing leaders that said, essentially, "X and Y are horrible outcomes from the war, but if we just pursue strategy Z we can turn this around." They kept saying that for years and they were very much in the wrong. They have never come out and published a leader saying "we were wrong" or "we should have stopped supporting the war in 200X". Yet they published numerous leaders in the run up to the war. This asymmetry and inability to admit a mistake in hindsight is what I can't forgive. 1. http://articles.cnn.com/2008-01-23/politics/bush.iraq_1_intelligence-flaws-iraq-and-al-qaeda-study http://articles.cnn.com/2008-01-23/politics/bush.iraq_1_inte... 2. http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2003/10/27/031027fa_fact http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2003/10/27/031027fa_fact 3. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3466005.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3466005.stm 4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curveball_(informant) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curveball_(informant)
  - 14y ago

marcamillion 14y ago

I agree with some of this...with a key proviso. They are not 'die-hard unfettered market proselytizers'. For instance, they strongly favor "Obama Care" - maybe not in its entirety and in the EXACT way that it has turned out, but they generally favor the idea of a government created program that creates an exchange for all insurance companies to compete for everybody. They also acknowledge, as the law does, that in order for more people to get coverage and the cost of health care to be tamed, the number of uninsureds has to be decreased significantly - including using fines and subsidies. That stance is quint-essential Economist, based on my experience of reading them cover to cover - weekly - for the last 5 years. They do have a free-market, lightly-regulated bias...but they are pragmatic when they need to be, and for that I love them. Without getting into too much politics, people tend to forget how nuanced the 'Iraq War' decision was at the time. Obama has done a good job of summarizing it into a nice 'sound byte'. The war in Iraq is a "dumb war". The notion there that the outcome was so obvious that it shouldn't have been chosen. What many forget is that post-9/11, the intelligence community was indeed split. The UN SEC actually voted in favor of stricter sanctions and harsher actions against Saddam - if he didn't publicly state that he had no WMDs. It's easy to say Bush knew there were no WMDs in Iraq and he was going there just for oil, but that's a cynical (and non-nuanced view) of the context of the time. As Peter Bergen pointed out in his latest book Man Hunt, the decision for Obama to go to Abbottabad for Bin Laden was based on more circumstantial evidence than the decision for Bush to go to Iraq. Granted, the operations were different in scale - but that alone speaks to the fact that the decision to go to Iraq was supported by faulty intelligence. Assuming that Bush had mal-intent and "knew" there were no WMD in Iraq - but was going just to avenge his father or w/e other story (disregarding everything else) is ridiculous at best. One simple question I always pose to people when they make such statements about Iraq is...if Bush knew there were no WMDs in Iraq, why would he use that as a pretext when he would obviously be either right or wrong? It's not as if they can "plant" WMDs. It's either they will find it, or not. There is no middle ground. So either he will be a hero, or he will be zero. He staked his entire presidency on that decision. He knew that when the presidency is done, he would just have his legacy. His entire legacy would be defined by that decision. There is no way, any rational president/person would make such a decision lightly and frivolously. He would have been better off using the fact that Saddam has slaughtered hundreds of thousands of Kurds, or something else that is more 'ambiguous' that he can't REALLY be held accountable for. Finding WMDs is a key tangible accountability metric. So the fact The Economist was also a proponent of the Iraq War is just further proof as to the ambiguity in the intelligence community at the time of the decision - and how difficult such a decision was.

SpikeGronim 14y ago
Thank you for the thoughtful reply marcamillion. The Iraq War subject definitely riles people and I try to stick to the facts. First, with regards to The Economist's position on markets, they are humanists and they care about social welfare. I approve. Yet they still call for further deregulation and resist "populist" regulation to address very serious systemic faults exposed by the financial crisis. If you are going to be a capitalist you need fair market rules, and I see them as wavering in their commitment to that in practice by relying too much on economic theory that does not correspond to the facts on the ground. In particular the "rational markets" hypothesis and the idea that bankers' self interest is sufficient to prevent crisis in the markets. With regards to the Iraq War, I do not and did not see it as ambiguous. Look at the number of false statements made by the Bush administration[1], the way that intelligence was reported to senior decision makers[2], and the flagrant propaganda regarding links between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. Look at the inflated "45 minute" claim[3] and the use of intelligence from "Curveball"[4], a known fabricator. This is not an administration building a case for a necessary war. It's an administration that decided to go to war scraping together a justification. I definitely don't think it as simple as "we want oil". I do believe (but obviously cannot prove) that Dick Cheney cynically manipulated the intelligence to make a case for a war that he personally profited from through his business holdings in contractors such as Haliburton. Finally, the Iraq War was very clearly a disaster as early as 2004. The Economist continued publishing leaders that said, essentially, "X and Y are horrible outcomes from the war, but if we just pursue strategy Z we can turn this around." They kept saying that for years and they were very much in the wrong. They have never come out and published a leader saying "we were wrong" or "we should have stopped supporting the war in 200X". Yet they published numerous leaders in the run up to the war. This asymmetry and inability to admit a mistake in hindsight is what I can't forgive. 1. http://articles.cnn.com/2008-01-23/politics/bush.iraq_1_intelligence-flaws-iraq-and-al-qaeda-study http://articles.cnn.com/2008-01-23/politics/bush.iraq_1_inte... 2. http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2003/10/27/031027fa_fact http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2003/10/27/031027fa_fact 3. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3466005.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3466005.stm 4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curveball_(informant) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curveball_(informant)
- 14y ago