11 ms·

I've been reading The Economist for well over thirty years. In England I think it's clearly identified as a paper of the right. (Correct me if I'm mistaken.) T

I've been reading The Economist for well over thirty years. In England I think it's clearly identified as a paper of the right. (Correct me if I'm mistaken.) The only reason it might not be seen as right wing in the US, is that the right wing here is so batsh*t crazy: Banning abortion and birth control, blaming gay people for earthquakes, carrying assault rifles around in public, genuinely believing that the world is 6000 years old - these are not part of educated discourse in the rest of the OECD.

kmfrk 13y ago
(Correct me if I'm mistaken.) The problem with this classification is that the concept of left and right varies from country to country. In many European countries, most parties could probably fit in the Democratic party.
- vidarh 13y ago
  It varies from country to country, but not that much. The US is in a class pretty much by itself amongst developed countries at least.
  - scarmig 13y ago
    It's more complicated than that: on the issues that are most controversial in the USA, it's true that other countries have what looks like a consensus by comparison. But other countries have their own issues that make Republicans look positively enlightened: see, for instance, many European countries' right-wing edge of opinion on immigration and diversity. Sure, conservatives get bad in the States--see the attempt to block building a mosque in Tennessee by a bunch of drooling rednecks--but look at things comparatively. In Switzerland, they banned building mosques anywhere in the country. In France, they (successfully?) tried to regulate what clothing Muslim women can wear in public. And even those countries are relatively enlightened for Europe: try being an immigrant in Greece or gay in Russia.
    - vidarh 13y ago
      The difference is that in Europe, the entire spectrum is much more visible because they come in separate parties. And yes, you'll find lots of nutjobs, but overall, across Europe, for the most part those nutjobs are now marginalised one or two parties to the right of the mainstream right wing parties, whereas in the US the centre of gravity in terms of votes fall far closer to them. (Btw. you bring up another interesting point: To most people in the Western parts of Europe, parts of Russia might be geographically Europe, but we don't tend to include it when talking about Europe; the same often goes for countries like Ukraine - I know I didn't even consider either of them when using the term Europe earlier)
  - kmfrk 13y ago
    Definitely, but a prevailing view amongst many HNers is that the world is the United States[1], so it was more about challenging that assumption than anything else. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6564738 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6564738
altoz 13y ago
> Correct me if I'm mistaken Some corrections about the US: - Abortion is legal as is birth control. - A very few crazy people blame gay people for earthquakes but I'm sure such people exist everywhere. - Very few people carry assault rifles around in public. - Very few people believe the world is 6000 years old. Again, I'm sure such people exist everywhere. Please, stop caricaturing.
- jonmrodriguez 13y ago
  " Since 1982, between 40% and 50% of adults in the United States say they hold the creationist view that 'God created humans in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years'. " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism
  - code4life 13y ago
    Just because they believe the creation event was done in the last 10,000 years doesn't mean they believe the earth is 10,000 years old. God created Adam and Eve as adults. They had an age (non zero). The stars had light immediately shining across the sky. So this implies age (via time). etc.
    - halostatue 13y ago
      That’s essentially the day-age view, and surprisingly few creationists subscribe to that (and no young earth creationists do so). It doesn’t change that even if you believe in day-age creationism, you’re accepting something that has no more basis in reality than the various creation tales in the Vedas do.
    - bunderbunder 13y ago
      What a fascinating word game.
  - eco 13y ago
    A bit nitpicking but that's a different statement than saying the earth is 6,000 years old. "Humans in their present form" is a very vague statement. You could take it to mean god imparted the knowledge of agriculture upon humans which had a hugely transformative effect on mankind which made modern humans what they are today. Or you could say god imparted the biblical knowledge of right and wrong and that allowed humans to become what they are today. Hell, it could even be interpreted as true by evolution believing religious people with a poor understanding of the timescales evolution operates over. I'm very skeptical of the idea that around half of the people around me think the existence of the earth or humans are less than 10,000 years old and I live in an extremely religious state (Utah). Mormons aren't known for being creationists though so perhaps my personal experience is unusual.
refurb 13y ago
And the left has it's crazy ideas as well: - killing humans to protect animals - banning happy meals, gold fish, super-sized soft drinks - "living wages" and other failed economic ideas The right certainly doesn't have a monopoly on stupid ideas.
- lukifer 13y ago
  Even if living wage is bad economic policy, it does not belong in the same category as young-earth creationism or eco-terrorism. While there is a left fringe, they have effectively zero influence on national policy, whereas the mainstream right absolutely pays attention (or at least lip service) to their fringe. Compare how often mainstream Republicans discuss Limbaugh or Beck to how often Democrats bring up Chomsky or Moore. Outside of Berkley, the latter simply doesn't happen.
  - glenra 13y ago
    Bad economic policies such as living wage laws actually do get enacted into law (mostly at the state and local level) and thereby make people's lives worse. Laws like that prevent people from employment, restrict economic growth, destroy economic opportunity. Whereas people claiming to believe in young-earth creationism has no real policy ramifications - it doesn't actually MATTER. (Though for left-wing crazy I think would have proposed anti-GMO, anti-vaccine, anti-fracking, anti-growth, anti-technology in general.)
    - warfangle 13y ago
      > Laws like that prevent people from employment, restrict economic growth, destroy economic opportunity. Show me the data that explicitly shows this causation (correlation not encouraged), please.
      - glenra 13y ago
        How about a couple cartoons? http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/10/by-far-the-2-best-cartoons-about-the-minimum-wage-ever/ http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/10/by-far-the-2-best-cartoons-... Seriously though, if you're determined to doubt the law of demand applies to the market for labor - as I suspect you are - then Don Boudreaux has some questions for you: http://cafehayek.com/2013/10/the-science-of-the-minimum-wage-debate.html http://cafehayek.com/2013/10/the-science-of-the-minimum-wage... (I can of course give specific EXAMPLES of people being denied work they would like (and that their employer would like to give them) because their productivity is too low to justify the minimum wage, but I suspect you'd just dismiss that as "anecdotal evidence". Is that what you want to see? Or if not, what would "data that explicitly shows this causation" have to look like for you to find it relevant?) Oh, and if you decide correlation data might be acceptable, I'd start with this report: http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-427 http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-427 (TLDR: in 2007 it was attempted to gradually bring the minimum wage in American Samoa up to the level in the rest of the US. The resulting hit on employment levels was truly impressive and hard to explain any other way than that setting the wage level above the market level destroyed jobs.)
klepra 13y ago
I agree. What is considered left in America is still right in most of Europe.

kmfrk 13y ago

(Correct me if I'm mistaken.) The problem with this classification is that the concept of left and right varies from country to country. In many European countries, most parties could probably fit in the Democratic party.

vidarh 13y ago
It varies from country to country, but not that much. The US is in a class pretty much by itself amongst developed countries at least.
- scarmig 13y ago
  It's more complicated than that: on the issues that are most controversial in the USA, it's true that other countries have what looks like a consensus by comparison. But other countries have their own issues that make Republicans look positively enlightened: see, for instance, many European countries' right-wing edge of opinion on immigration and diversity. Sure, conservatives get bad in the States--see the attempt to block building a mosque in Tennessee by a bunch of drooling rednecks--but look at things comparatively. In Switzerland, they banned building mosques anywhere in the country. In France, they (successfully?) tried to regulate what clothing Muslim women can wear in public. And even those countries are relatively enlightened for Europe: try being an immigrant in Greece or gay in Russia.
  - vidarh 13y ago
    The difference is that in Europe, the entire spectrum is much more visible because they come in separate parties. And yes, you'll find lots of nutjobs, but overall, across Europe, for the most part those nutjobs are now marginalised one or two parties to the right of the mainstream right wing parties, whereas in the US the centre of gravity in terms of votes fall far closer to them. (Btw. you bring up another interesting point: To most people in the Western parts of Europe, parts of Russia might be geographically Europe, but we don't tend to include it when talking about Europe; the same often goes for countries like Ukraine - I know I didn't even consider either of them when using the term Europe earlier)
- kmfrk 13y ago
  Definitely, but a prevailing view amongst many HNers is that the world is the United States[1], so it was more about challenging that assumption than anything else. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6564738 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6564738

altoz 13y ago

> Correct me if I'm mistaken Some corrections about the US: - Abortion is legal as is birth control. - A very few crazy people blame gay people for earthquakes but I'm sure such people exist everywhere. - Very few people carry assault rifles around in public. - Very few people believe the world is 6000 years old. Again, I'm sure such people exist everywhere. Please, stop caricaturing.

jonmrodriguez 13y ago
" Since 1982, between 40% and 50% of adults in the United States say they hold the creationist view that 'God created humans in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years'. " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism
- code4life 13y ago
  Just because they believe the creation event was done in the last 10,000 years doesn't mean they believe the earth is 10,000 years old. God created Adam and Eve as adults. They had an age (non zero). The stars had light immediately shining across the sky. So this implies age (via time). etc.
  - halostatue 13y ago
    That’s essentially the day-age view, and surprisingly few creationists subscribe to that (and no young earth creationists do so). It doesn’t change that even if you believe in day-age creationism, you’re accepting something that has no more basis in reality than the various creation tales in the Vedas do.
  - bunderbunder 13y ago
    What a fascinating word game.
- eco 13y ago
  A bit nitpicking but that's a different statement than saying the earth is 6,000 years old. "Humans in their present form" is a very vague statement. You could take it to mean god imparted the knowledge of agriculture upon humans which had a hugely transformative effect on mankind which made modern humans what they are today. Or you could say god imparted the biblical knowledge of right and wrong and that allowed humans to become what they are today. Hell, it could even be interpreted as true by evolution believing religious people with a poor understanding of the timescales evolution operates over. I'm very skeptical of the idea that around half of the people around me think the existence of the earth or humans are less than 10,000 years old and I live in an extremely religious state (Utah). Mormons aren't known for being creationists though so perhaps my personal experience is unusual.

refurb 13y ago

And the left has it's crazy ideas as well: - killing humans to protect animals - banning happy meals, gold fish, super-sized soft drinks - "living wages" and other failed economic ideas The right certainly doesn't have a monopoly on stupid ideas.

lukifer 13y ago
Even if living wage is bad economic policy, it does not belong in the same category as young-earth creationism or eco-terrorism. While there is a left fringe, they have effectively zero influence on national policy, whereas the mainstream right absolutely pays attention (or at least lip service) to their fringe. Compare how often mainstream Republicans discuss Limbaugh or Beck to how often Democrats bring up Chomsky or Moore. Outside of Berkley, the latter simply doesn't happen.
- glenra 13y ago
  Bad economic policies such as living wage laws actually do get enacted into law (mostly at the state and local level) and thereby make people's lives worse. Laws like that prevent people from employment, restrict economic growth, destroy economic opportunity. Whereas people claiming to believe in young-earth creationism has no real policy ramifications - it doesn't actually MATTER. (Though for left-wing crazy I think would have proposed anti-GMO, anti-vaccine, anti-fracking, anti-growth, anti-technology in general.)
  - warfangle 13y ago
    > Laws like that prevent people from employment, restrict economic growth, destroy economic opportunity. Show me the data that explicitly shows this causation (correlation not encouraged), please.
    - glenra 13y ago
      How about a couple cartoons? http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/10/by-far-the-2-best-cartoons-about-the-minimum-wage-ever/ http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/10/by-far-the-2-best-cartoons-... Seriously though, if you're determined to doubt the law of demand applies to the market for labor - as I suspect you are - then Don Boudreaux has some questions for you: http://cafehayek.com/2013/10/the-science-of-the-minimum-wage-debate.html http://cafehayek.com/2013/10/the-science-of-the-minimum-wage... (I can of course give specific EXAMPLES of people being denied work they would like (and that their employer would like to give them) because their productivity is too low to justify the minimum wage, but I suspect you'd just dismiss that as "anecdotal evidence". Is that what you want to see? Or if not, what would "data that explicitly shows this causation" have to look like for you to find it relevant?) Oh, and if you decide correlation data might be acceptable, I'd start with this report: http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-427 http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-427 (TLDR: in 2007 it was attempted to gradually bring the minimum wage in American Samoa up to the level in the rest of the US. The resulting hit on employment levels was truly impressive and hard to explain any other way than that setting the wage level above the market level destroyed jobs.)

klepra 13y ago

I agree. What is considered left in America is still right in most of Europe.