The Delusional Economist

[rollhead]

I have read so many testimonials to the *great* Economist magazine on here that I decided today to buy a copy.

(I used to subscribe but I stopped when I got tired of trying to wade through its lengthy exegises on important nations such as southeast outer East Timor, which I found almost as tedious as trying to read a hemp-befogged post by the Oracle of Green Mountain.)

The problem with The Economist is that it is predicated on the purity of the free market place and it doesn't entertain or explore the notion that the "free marketplace" ultimately is more corrupt than any other other institution -- in the real or abstract sense -- because it is built on the concept of greed.

The free market is The Economists "sacred cow," and thus cannot be even marginally objective when it comes to its coverage.

Case in point is the article about "the pay scam" at Freddie Mac, which suggests that the outrageous salaries paid there were some kind of an anomaly -- part of just the "few bad apples" in the barrel theory that rightwing publications like the Economists like to promulgate.

A more reasonable theory would be that the pay scam at Freddie Mac is actually a systemic problem fostered by the foxes who are guarding the henhouse -- i.e., lax SEC regulation and the feeling that CEOs can get away with murder and more.

Liberal sprinkling of skewed statistics in a conservative publication with an agenda does not make it objective.

[Scott Dolan]

Come here and give me a big sloppy kiss you sexy beast!!

[rollhead]

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

Come here and give me a big sloppy kiss you sexy beast!!

Sure. you'll just try to get that $250 you paid for your subscription to the Economist out of my back pocket.

Besides, I didn't start this thread to swap spit with you, but to give sonic1 an excuse to say that this is the "Nation of Economist Readers" and if Coda, Cooper and me don't like it here we can all leave.

[Scott Dolan]

Nah.

My hitmen on Capitol Hill have already taken care of that.

[rollhead]

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

Nah.

My hitmen on Capitol Hill have already taken care of that.

Oh, you still getting manila envelopes from Jack Abramoff?

[Scott Dolan]

Yep.

And Jefferson sent me a lovely leather briefcase for my birthday.

[mke]

I can't say I agreed with much in The Economist, back when I read it occasionally, but its articles tend to construct debatable arguments, rather than mere rants, and are often thought-provoking or, at least, informative with some depth. Which, ultimately, is more important than whether or not I agree with either their premises or conclusions.

[Tom Storer]

They have a point of view about economics that they are very straightforward about. Rather than heated polemics and demonizing of the Other Side, they present plenty of information with lucid and relatively balanced analyses that one may or may not agree with. I appreciate their respect for facts, their excellent writing, and their respect for their readers' intelligence. I often disagree with their conclusions but they make me think hard about my own. I think it's an honest, well informed publication, whether or not I find myself on "their side."

[Scott Dolan]

I usually find myself about 50/50 in the agree/disagree department.

But as TStor said, very well written and presented without any of the overheated horseshit you get from so many other sources.

[moneyp]

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

I usually find myself about 50/50 in the agree/disagree department.

Likewise. I think it's the best read out there, though. The global wrapup each issue is essential reading. They at least talk about significant events going on in other parts of the world that don't make the news here.

[Pedantic Wretch]

Rollhead is correct here. The Economist is a British publication which panders to a largely American readership. It has a mistaken reputation for 'objectivity' because its ideological character does not immediately register, since it blends so well into the narrow American political purview. In other words, it is written in the prevailing hegemonic discourse of neoliberalism, which in the last couple of decades has become a synonym for 'common sense'. This was not always the case, nor will it be so forever.

[Monte Smith]

I can't tell if rollhead or Pedantic Wretch is the funnier. But then, that could be just me with my narrow political purview stuck in the prevailing hegemonic discourse of neoliberalism. Ha ha! No, PW is definitely funnier. Sorry, rolly.

[Pedantic Wretch]

Originally Posted by Monte Smith

I can't tell if rollhead or Pedantic Wretch is the funnier. But then, that could be just me with my narrow political purview stuck in the prevailing hegemonic discourse of neoliberalism. Ha ha! No, PW is definitely funnier. Sorry, rolly.

Chuckle away.

[jesus marion joseph]

Note to Rollie and PW: it's called "The Economist", not "The Idealist".

[jesus marion joseph]

Originally Posted by Pedantic Wretch

Chuckle away.

I thought Cheney was a neo-conservative, not a neo-liberal?

[Pedantic Wretch]

Originally Posted by jesus marion joseph

I thought Cheney was a neo-conservative, not a neo-liberal?

There is a considerable overlap between the two doctrines.

By the way, you don't think the positions espoused by The Economist are in themselves idealistic?

[Scott Dolan]

Not nearly as idealistic as collectivism.

[Monte Smith]

Originally Posted by jesus marion joseph

I thought Cheney was a neo-conservative, not a neo-liberal?

Neoliberalism is an epithet the European left throws around when it wants to inveigh against good ol'capitalism. Like here on this thread. Hey, it's a free market. They can do what they want. They have a right to their opinions, and their fancy euphemisms, and so do we.

Viva Chavez! he said, his fist raised in irony.

[walto]

A lot of the "positions" espoused in The Economist are IMO, indeed idealistic. And a number of posters here have already indicated that they don't particularly care for those "positions." Where I think you (PW) differ from them is that you take the mag's "data" or "information" or "back-up" that these other posters find useful to also be tainted by the mag's free-marketeerism. For you, an apparently "unbiased study" that finds, say, that X% of all Sudanese families earn less than $Y per day is also "hegemonistic." That is, the "science" too is bullshit.

FWIW, when you write that sort of stuff it's a bit reminiscent the Soviet Stalinists who insisted that Darwin was wrong and Lamarck was right. That the Darwinists were simply trying to push a non-dialectical materialism according to which species couldn't improve themselves.

BWTHDIK?

[jesus marion joseph]

Originally Posted by Pedantic Wretch

There is a considerable overlap between the two doctrines.

By the way, you don't think the positions espoused by The Economist are in themselves idealistic?

In the sense that they often propose solutions to curent problems which will probably never be implemented by the political powers-that-be, sure. But overall, I don't think they're particularly idealistic in the sense that a sea change is on the horizon.

[Adam Hill]

Originally Posted by Monte Smith

Neoliberalism is an epithet the European left throws around when it wants to inveigh against good ol'capitalism.

You are such a diletante.

[Pedantic Wretch]

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

Not nearly as idealistic as collectivism.

Originally Posted by Monte Smith

Neoliberalism is an epithet the European left throws around when it wants to inveigh against good ol'capitalism.

I don't want to get into another circular political dispute on this thread, but I would argue that both of these statements are wrong. Monte, I’m sure a man of your intelligence will be familiar with the general trajectory of twentieth century history. Leaving aside the red rag of Marx entirely, the guiding light of Western economics in the period before and after the Second World War was John Maynard Keynes, a capitalist who advocated significant state intervention in the economy. The post-war European welfare states followed this model, as did Roosevelt’s New Deal. The success of the Labour Party in Britain, for example, led to the creation of the National Health Service, a belief in universal healthcare for all, paid for with taxes. Subsequent generations took this sort of provision for granted.

Only after the economic crisis of the 1970s/80s, with the reconfiguration of the Bretton Woods institutions and the political ascendancy of Thatcher and Reagan, did the neoliberal positions of Friedman and Hayek (formerly regarded as eccentric), come to the fore. I maintain that the ‘free’ market is a dangerously idealistic euphemism, since the last twenty-five years have shown that unregulated capitalism leads to the opposite of freedom (even on its own terms), to an ever-growing accumulation of capital among a handful of transnational corporations (albeit mainly based in the US and a few other countries) which cannot be held to account, to a growing disparity between the richest and the poorest, and to a continuing exploitation of the Third World (or call it the South) under the rubric of ‘freedom’, through such tools as the IMF, the World Bank and the WTO. To return to my example of the British health service, Blair's government now wishes to privatise it, bringing in subsidiaries of American contractors to offer the same services at greater cost (under the rubric of 'patient choice').

Originally Posted by Walto

For you, an apparently "unbiased study" that finds, say, that X% of all Sudanese families earn less than $Y per day is also "hegemonistic." That is, the "science" too is bullshit.

I didn’t say that; I don’t doubt that The Economist includes accurate data, but such data can be presented to support any number of positions.

[Pedantic Wretch]

Originally Posted by Adam Hill

PW,
Just have them read David Harvey's excellent book.

I actually heard him give a public talk on the subject at the beginning of this year, specifically about how it related to the recent history of New York City. He might be the best historicoeconomic geographer out there.

[Tom Storer]

Originally Posted by Pedantic Wretch

Rollhead is correct here. The Economist is a British publication which panders to a largely American readership.

From Merriam-Webster:
pander, n.
1. a: a go-between in love intrigues b: PIMP 2. someone who caters to or exploits the weaknesses of others
pander, v.
1. to act as a pander, esp: to provide gratification for others' desires

I wouldn't agree that they "pander" to anyone.

It has a mistaken reputation for 'objectivity' because its ideological character does not immediately register, since it blends so well into the narrow American political purview.

I don't think they're any less objective than other newsmagazines, certainly. And to the extent that they represent an ideology, there's nothing hidden about it. On the contrary, they're quite explicit about championing free-market capitalism.

Originally Posted by Pedantic Wretch

I don't want to get into another circular political dispute on this thread, but I would argue that both of these statements are wrong.

And I basically agree with the rest of your post, with which the Economist would certainly disagree. But somehow, I still don't see the Economist as a crafty purveyor of ideological poison.

[Uli]

Originally Posted by Pedantic Wretch

Only after the economic crisis of the 1970s/80s, with the reconfiguration of the Bretton Woods institutions and the political ascendancy of Thatcher and Reagan, did the neoliberal positions of Friedman and Hayek (formerly regarded as eccentric), come to the fore.

Are the more classic European liberals completely out of style, PD? I used to dig Ralf Dahrendorf, especially his state theories.

[Brian Olewnick]

The Harvey book looks interesting; it's on my list, thanks.

[Gary Sisco]

Their ideology is evident, obvious, and self-stated -- unlike most papers. No ideological journal purports to objectivity in its political line. I don't agree with them down the line about anything (but on the other hand, I don't disagree with them down the line anymore than I do any other publication). I'm one who doesn't require a paper to tow my political line to be acceptable. A good thing, since there isn't one and won't be.

On the other hand, when it comes to simple reporting, they leave other English-language papers behind, and cover more issues, in more places, in more depth, than any other as well.

What I like most about its articles is the calmness of the tone and presentation, esp given the harsh cacaphony of American media, where political "talk shows" are but talking heads insulting each other at the tops of their voices, often simultaneously, and with no one at all giving a fuck who doesn't want to insult the same people. They don't bother to even try making rational points, never mind arguments. Their goal is to be the loudest voice and nothing more, like Stalinists crashing a meeting in older times.

At least the Brits know how to creatively heckle, and often with a tremendous wit. In America, it's just insult and only accidentally funny in almost every case.

I can't see a reason in the world, actually, to read a paper whose ideology I share down the line. I already know what I think. I don't think it any more or less because someone writing in a publication thinks so, too. That's for people who don't have their own ideas to think about.

As for the cost of the subscription, it's about pennies more than a sub to Jazz Times when their normally atrocious CDs are included, except JT isn't even a monthly (it comes out less than 12 times per year) and The Economist is a weekly. The dailies I don't buy anymore because I can read them online for free save me more than the cost of the sub, easily.

There is another thing I can say about it: It would be possible to read nothing else in the way of news, or watch any on tv or what have you, and you would still have a better grasp of world events than if you read the others and watched "headline news" (which is the only kind presented on television, whatever they call it or not).

I can form my own judgments about those events. I don't require a paper to do it for me, and even if there were one, it'd be boring as hell to read what I already think.

[Gary Sisco]

PS -- Hilarious to read a Georgeist call classical liberalism utopian.

One other thing: One of the reasons for their large American audience is that in reality their line is more traditionally American in philosophy-politics-economics than almost all American publications today.

[Scott Dolan]

Originally Posted by Gary

I'm one who doesn't require a paper to tow my political line to be acceptable.

Exactly. As a matter of fact, I prefer the opposite as long as it's well written and thoughtful. Why do I need to read opinions like mine? I prefer provocation over affirmation.

Gary, speaking of heckling with wit, I heard an absolute beauty last night. I was listening to KCRW's podcast of To The Point(usually an outstanding show in my book)and they had a Democratic consultant on there and the host was asking him about the fact that the Democrats still don't have a unified message and that's one area where they still lagged behind the Republican party. The guy responded, quite calmly, by stating that the Republican party has been selling itself for years as a small government, fiscally conservative party. He then said, "but it's obvious now that they've been participating in consumer fraud for quite some time now".

Hahahaha........................classic!

[Gary Sisco]

Yeah, good one.

They don't have anything remotely like a unified line anymore, though. The two parties become even more alike for that.