3 ms·

This post in current affairs[0] remains the best piece of writing about the Economist that I've ever read. [0] - https://www.currentaffairs.org/news/2017/05/ho

This post in current affairs[0] remains the best piece of writing about the Economist that I've ever read. [0] - https://www.currentaffairs.org/news/2017/05/how-the-economist-thinks https://www.currentaffairs.org/news/2017/05/how-the-economis...

thegrim33 1y ago
The best piece of writing about the Economist you've ever read is a piece by an author who admits that "until last week, I had not read The Economist since high school"? This is the author whose opinion on the Economist you trust?
- Waterluvian 1y ago
  I haven’t read the piece, but if someone makes a well-reasoned argument, it doesn’t matter who they are or what credentials they hold. It’s equally as meek a counter-argument as, “trust me because I hold degrees in this topic.” Good. Then it should be easy for you to make a well-reasoned argument.
  - sien 1y ago
    The author has discovered that The Economist is pro-market. As someone who is a Yale educated leftist and believes that markets do not work Robinson is upset. Meanwhile, when employers of his own magazine wanted it to become a worker owned socialist cooperative he got them to resign. Socialism for thee, not for me.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
  - margalabargala 1y ago
    I see your point but the author is freely admitting their ignorance about the whole thing. Imagine if someone says "I spent the last week reading about the history of the Levant and I know how to implement peace in that region".
  - tekla 1y ago
    The argument is not well reasoned. Thats the point
  - watwut 1y ago
    > I haven’t read the piece, but if someone makes a well-reasoned argument, it doesn’t matter who they are or what credentials they hold. I strongly disagree. Well reasoned means nothing if it is not based on anything real except own imagination. And it means nothing if it was not checked against reality. Our tendency to favor "sounds plausible and logical" even when the person writing it never bothered to check reality is just yet another logical fallacy.
tuatoru 1y ago
The best take on The Economist magazine that I saw (after subscribing for several years) is that it's News of the World for policy wonks. To be read for laughs. For maximum effect, leave your paper copy aside for six months, then read it.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > leave your paper copy aside for six months, then read it So what from the December issue proved horribly wrong?
  - tuatoru 1y ago
    No idea, I haven't subscribed since the 1990s.
DicIfTEx 1y ago
There's also this vintage article (1991!) from the Atlantic: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/1991/10/-quot-the-economics-of-the-colonial-cringe-quot-about-the-economist-magazine-washington-post-1991/7415/ https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/1991/10/-quot...
jfengel 1y ago
Is it true that most of their writers are twenty-somethings? I accept the article's assertion that their kneejerk free-market philosophy is, at the least, limiting. But to me, the tone has always suggested middle-age journalism grads, rather than the right-wing business-school types the article is suggesting. They have a bias, but they don't seem stupid or inexperienced. So much of free-market thought in the US, and recently the UK, has been caught up in culture war, and the Economist is staunchly against that. Which is to say, they don't read like twenty-somethings to me. So if I'm wrong about that, I need to take another look at the lens through which I view their writing.
- jawiggins 1y ago
  > Is it true that most of their writers are twenty-somethings? Wikipedia seems to list their columnists as being closer to fifty-somethings: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist#Columns https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist#Columns

thegrim33 1y ago

The best piece of writing about the Economist you've ever read is a piece by an author who admits that "until last week, I had not read The Economist since high school"? This is the author whose opinion on the Economist you trust?

Waterluvian 1y ago
I haven’t read the piece, but if someone makes a well-reasoned argument, it doesn’t matter who they are or what credentials they hold. It’s equally as meek a counter-argument as, “trust me because I hold degrees in this topic.” Good. Then it should be easy for you to make a well-reasoned argument.
- sien 1y ago
  The author has discovered that The Economist is pro-market. As someone who is a Yale educated leftist and believes that markets do not work Robinson is upset. Meanwhile, when employers of his own magazine wanted it to become a worker owned socialist cooperative he got them to resign. Socialism for thee, not for me.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
- margalabargala 1y ago
  I see your point but the author is freely admitting their ignorance about the whole thing. Imagine if someone says "I spent the last week reading about the history of the Levant and I know how to implement peace in that region".
- tekla 1y ago
  The argument is not well reasoned. Thats the point
- watwut 1y ago
  > I haven’t read the piece, but if someone makes a well-reasoned argument, it doesn’t matter who they are or what credentials they hold. I strongly disagree. Well reasoned means nothing if it is not based on anything real except own imagination. And it means nothing if it was not checked against reality. Our tendency to favor "sounds plausible and logical" even when the person writing it never bothered to check reality is just yet another logical fallacy.

tuatoru 1y ago

The best take on The Economist magazine that I saw (after subscribing for several years) is that it's News of the World for policy wonks. To be read for laughs. For maximum effect, leave your paper copy aside for six months, then read it.

JumpCrisscross 1y ago
> leave your paper copy aside for six months, then read it So what from the December issue proved horribly wrong?
- tuatoru 1y ago
  No idea, I haven't subscribed since the 1990s.

DicIfTEx 1y ago

There's also this vintage article (1991!) from the Atlantic: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/1991/10/-quot-the-economics-of-the-colonial-cringe-quot-about-the-economist-magazine-washington-post-1991/7415/ https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/1991/10/-quot...

jfengel 1y ago

Is it true that most of their writers are twenty-somethings? I accept the article's assertion that their kneejerk free-market philosophy is, at the least, limiting. But to me, the tone has always suggested middle-age journalism grads, rather than the right-wing business-school types the article is suggesting. They have a bias, but they don't seem stupid or inexperienced. So much of free-market thought in the US, and recently the UK, has been caught up in culture war, and the Economist is staunchly against that. Which is to say, they don't read like twenty-somethings to me. So if I'm wrong about that, I need to take another look at the lens through which I view their writing.

jawiggins 1y ago
> Is it true that most of their writers are twenty-somethings? Wikipedia seems to list their columnists as being closer to fifty-somethings: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist#Columns https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist#Columns