I recieved a gift subscription to The Economist one year ago, shortly after my interest in Austro-libertarianism had begun to develop. Initially, I was struck by the British spellings, the lack of bylines, and the claim that this magazine-style publication was actually a newspaper. Next, I noticed the "Executive focus" classifieds - a steady stream of job offers for aspiring bureaucrats in the United Nations, the World Bank, and their various international affiliates. Then I realized that the full-page ads throughout were invariably for big banks, government contractors like Lockheed Martin and GE, or for governments themselves ("Invest in Turkey!")
Finally, the content. Despite claiming to be "liberal" in the classical sense, The Economist promotes a sort of Keynesian internationalism and corporatism which fits perfectly with the advertising. Central banks are taken for granted as essential to the workings of the global economy, and the idea of a world fiat currency controlled by the IMF is proposed. Global Warming is a huge problem, but we just might be saved by large-scale geoengineering schemes to create a man-made world thermostat. A weekly column is devoted to cheering on the slow but steady progress of European political integration. The politics of the third world are continuously tracked and judged on whether they move closer to the ideal of democracy. Corruption in politics is treated like a problem to be solved by creating “corruption indexes” and “corruption commissions,” rather than an inherent feature of government.
Needless to say, I am glad my subscription is soon ending. Yes, I have learned more about world business and politics from The Economist, and every now and then there is an article arguing for drug legalization or against red tape. But in general the "newspaper" is one giant anonymous shill for big government and the cartelized big businesses who join them in sucking the productive class dry.
So, what do you think fellow readers? Is this rag as bad as I make it out?
You are not alone in this conclusion. I've seen it referred to by libertarians as The Communist, including on this board.
Yes, you know you're a libertarian when you dismiss the Economist magazine as "left-wing trash". You know you're really libertarian when you treat it like Mad magazine. :-P
You are not alone in this conclusion.
That's good to hear. I mean, I figured the people who frequent these forums would agree, but sometimes I need a rant to keep me sane. I can't get over how a publication targeting the world's most well-educated people can be full of so much absurdity. Perhaps I shouldn't be surprised.
I've seen it referred to by libertarians as The Communist, including on this board.
Much better name. After all, it's clear they favor global democracy, which is only a few steps away. The European Union is the new Soviet Union.
I can't get over how a publication targeting the world's most well-educated people can be full of so much absurdity. Perhaps I shouldn't be surprised.
I don't think LSE graduates are the world's most well-educated people. They just think so.
Many of its “Eastern Approaches” posts (which is basically my whole interest in The Economist) raise my blood pressure beyond acceptable levels. Heck, I don’t even know why I keep visiting the site.
You know you're really libertarian when you treat it like Mad magazine. :-P
I just had a nice chuckle while reading an article in this week's Technology Quarterly about carbon-footprint labels. Here's a quote:
"Shampoo is an example of a product where the footprint associated with using the product—the so-called “use phase” emissions—can be comparable to, or even greater than, the manufacturing footprint. Initially, says Mr Morrison, the Carbon Trust’s carbon labels did not include use-phase emissions, because these can vary enormously depending on consumer behaviour. The emissions associated with a bottle of shampoo depend on how long you spend in the shower, how hot the water is and what sort of boiler you have."
How could someone write that without realizing the utter insanity of the concept of measuring a product's "carbon footprint?" I was reminded of Leonard Read's essay I, Pencil , which just scratches the surface of the complexity involved in the spontaneous production of a pencil. How could one even begin to conceive of the carbon released at every step along the way?
The article actually admits that it can cost $30,000 for a company to calculate the carbon footprint of a single product. But surely they are doing this to satisfy the demands of today's environmentally-conscious consumer? Nope. The article explains that most consumers don't even know what the labels look like. The author explains that "the value of carbon footprinting and labelling lies in identifying these sorts of savings, rather than informing consumers or making companies look green." So, companies are spending thousands of dollars calculating an arbitrary, meaningless number in order to save money?
Sure enough, government is at the heart of the matter, and France is leading the way with plans to introduce "compulsory carbon labeling rules" as soon as 2012. But we can't have the chaos of different countries and companies using different labels, so "efforts to refine and harmonise carbon footprinting and labelling at a global level are advancing." Thank Goodness! I wasn't sure if we needed a world government, but now I'm convinced. How would we live without wise overlords to harmonize our carbon labeling? And while they're at it, could they also monitor the temperature and length of our showers?
If that's not Mad Magazine material, I don't know what is...
Fortunately, I can apply my penetrating Austrian insight to uncover the perverse logic behind the situation. Obviously, the companies on the forefront of carbon-labelling (like Tesco) have an incentive to lobby government to make the labels mandatory. Then any new competitor who wants to enter the market must deal with the cost and difficulty of complying with carbon-labeling regulations. This is just another example of the fruitful partnership between politicians and politically-connected businesses. And it creates another layer of bureaucracy in the regulatory fiefdom inspired by global warming hysteria.
James: I can't get over how a publication targeting the world's most well-educated people can be full of so much absurdity. Perhaps I shouldn't be surprised. I don't think LSE graduates are the world's most well-educated people. They just think so.
I bet by their (and most of the other people as well, sadly) definition and understanding of word 'educated' they are one of the most 'educated' people out there. Remember subjectivity of meaning of words :)
Distinguished American philosopher, James Burnham, once said, "Where there was no solution, there was no problem."
Now, is there any way that you are going to change the technocratic inclinations of this magazine? No, you are not. So what are you going to do?
You can take the best out of this magazine and LEAVE THE REST. Look at their reports on rising cocoa prices and resultant accumulation of cocoa in large warehouses across Europe. Look at their reports on the major impact of demographic changes and large elderly populations in the Occident, which are forcing radical changes in how the existing welfare state is supposed to work - changes considered "attacks on the welfare state" by one group and considered "expansion of state" by another. It deals with how every issue more complicated than people claim - how both sides are often wrong, off topic, and not even dealing what something is about at all.
At least it is not a magazine for five-year-olds, such as Time Magazine. This is a proper British magazine, without colorful pictures, full page colorful charts, huge summary boxes, and other visual aids for people with two second attention span. It is only hard text, and hard information, presented in an interesting classical essayist style (now hurt a little by a modest shift towards a Guardian/DailyMail tabloid writing style).
I am surprised that Marko - someone who is presumably okay with reading CounterPunch and all the non-liberal writers in AntiWar or even a complete anti-liberal as Srdja Trifkovic - somehow dislikes this one magazine because it has views different from his own. Why? Because it pretends to be liberal, and a non-liberal writer is only worth reading if he doesn't pretend to be a liberal? It's a business decision - this magazine was founded by the Liberal Party, and they have to at least keep a semblance of their ancient reputation.
LeeO:Much better name. After all, it's clear they favor global democracy, which is only a few steps away. The European Union is the new Soviet Union.
You people need to stop worrying about cosmopolitan government so much.
It is not particularly different from the supposedly more enlightened "local" government, which is capable of as many absurdities as any centralized government. Knowledge problem aside, the adverse incentive problems of governments don't change at any level.
I used to make the mistake as you. Now, I look at matters from reality, not abstract principle. And you are dreaming if you think EU is the new CCCP.
What you should have appreciated is that these cosmopolitan governments - in some respects - have reduced legislative control over certain sectors. Inflation? Now that European governments have given up monetary sovereignty, they can not reduce their debt burden using inflation, and they have a harder time using banking priority sector laws to divert funds to their own government-based projects. It has forced these governments to economize and work with strained resources for the first time, instead of being encouraged to be uneconomical with the moral hazard that comes from low-interest lending.
By dividing power between a cosmopolitan government and national government, various governments have found it harder to thump their feet and throw out an arbitrary legislation with possibly adverse unintended consequences - in some respects, while the new cosmopolitan government has no power when national governments refuse to accept their mandate. Interestingly, it has resulted in a beneficial situation in which governments can't do one thing or another thing. For the longest time, Greek government could neither devalue nor deliberately default nor be wastefully given bailout funds that encourage its fiscal imprudence. You think that's a bad thing?
Wow, are you seriously contending that local government is neither better nor worse than a global state, information aside?
Look, was price inflation not a genuine problem in Southern European countries as recently as the 1990s? Were you living in Italy, would you really want to go back to the lira and allow local leaders to continue increasing the quantum of money supply in circulation, or would you be just a tad bit more comfortable with ECB with its relatively hard money tendency?
Besides, surely you don't see any difference in local or federal governments as far as their activism goes. A local government is still capable of imposing a maddening mess of industrial policy, incomes policy, price controls, enforced rationing, and priority sector lending laws, as far as its own jurisdiction goes, and still capable of bringing adverse unintended consequences from it.
LeeO: So, what do you think fellow readers? Is this rag as bad as I make it out?
Your criticisms are correct but one could still extract informational utility from an exposition of a problem (actual or perceived) without agreeing to its analysis, conclusions or suggested solutions. I find the Economist to be a useful and efficient source of information, especially when compared to most everything else out there. At the minimum, it's an exposition of the more sophisticated (less populist, or blatant) aspects of the elite's propaganda.
Prateek Sanjay: Look, was price inflation not a genuine problem in Southern European countries as recently as the 1990s? Were you living in Italy, would you really want to go back to the lira and allow local leaders to continue increasing the quantum of money supply in circulation, or would you be just a tad bit more comfortable with ECB with its relatively hard money tendency? Besides, surely you don't see any difference in local or federal governments as far as their activism goes. A local government is still capable of imposing a maddening mess of industrial policy, incomes policy, price controls, enforced rationing, and priority sector lending laws, as far as its own jurisdiction goes, and still capable of bringing adverse unintended consequences from it.
What about the German point of view on the matter? I ask because it is clear that if you mix together a bunch of countries, the resulting policy will be an improvement for some, and a degradation for some others, since some average will result in the aggregation. There’s nothing libertarian there.
If anything, here ve’we decoupled responsibility from choice, be it public choice. Whether once the Italians had to bear themselves the costs of their monetary preferences, now the whole bunch must suffer. So I really do not think there’s any merit in centralization. As for arguments against large political units, those are legion.
I don't read pro-Empire outlets.
I too was given a subscription and read it from time to time. I read it for the information to brush up on current events, and also as pratice to refine economic skills. Its good to read things you disagree with, and at a certain level probably more important than to read things you agree with since it really allows you to test your knowledge and see if you really know something. Its one thing to read something from a book and say "Oh yeah, that", but its a whole other notion to read an article, shake your head and in your mind say "Well, actually that would do blah blah blah blah".
That's a very good point. While it's certainly to your benefit to read essays or articles written by economists of alternative schools of thought, how many Marxist "debunkings" of the socialist economic calculation problem can one person read before going insane?
I agree with BlackNumero on this one.
how many Marxist "debunkings" of the socialist economic calculation problem can one person read before going insane?
The way I've chosen to keep my (presumed) sanity is to subscribe to the Economist on Facebook, and share links to its articles with my FB friends - with a short commentary (of a "Well, actually that would do blah blah blah blah" kind).
It is far from perfect, but it is the best mainstream "classical liberal" magazine. I reached my highest point of loathing when they approved of stimulus spending in 2008, but IMO it remains very valuable for anyone who wants to see liberal and economic ideas spread further.
You do have to understand that it is a classical liberal (minarchist) magazine, not an anarcho-capitalist one. So yes, they do believe that government must be reformed rather than eliminated, that international integration (like the EU) is a good thing, etc.
Reason and CATO are minarchist, Nico. Ron Paul is a minarchist.
Do you think "minarchist" means anyone who isn't a complete totalitarian? If you think there's one little aspect about life that shouldn't be up to a ministry in Washington or Brussels to regulate and control, does that make you a libertarian? :p
The type of analysis those groups do is not so far removed from that of the Economist, barring certain traits specific to American conservatism (eg isolationism) and the fact that they are more polemic whereas the Economist focuses mostly on factual reporting. I don't see where you get the "ministry in Washington or Brussels" vibe from as they are generally staunch defenders of private property and freedom of speech.
That said, maybe you are right in the sense that "minarchism" is not such an appropriate term. At any rate, the Economist belongs to the European classical liberal tradition in most aspects, though I will grant that its slide towards acceptance of certain Keynesian precepts is worrying.
First of all, props to Prateek Sanjay, I've been meaning to mention that you're one of the most reasonable and informed posters on these forums for a while now, never got around to it.
As for The Economist, there was an article somewhere about its targetted audience. I don't remember exactly where it was, I found it through MR, but the jist of the article was the throughout the years The Economist has tried to market itself as the magazine for educated individuals. Presumably for them being a somewhat efficient way of signalling their intelligence, and that moreover this strategy has largely worked and indeed, the readers are definitely way to the right of the intelligence/ education distributions.
Tangent aside, The Economist is generally a very sensible publication, way ahead of Time. Sure, it's a little more pro-government than most libertarians would feel comfortable, both in terms of economic analysis and value judgements. But... a lot of what fills the pages of The Economist, is pretty sound economics that few people besides left wing nuts should have a problem with it. When it goes into macro issues things become a little less clear, in any case though, its less in favour of big government than the mainstream of political discourse in almost any society I can think of, meanwhile meaning to stay relatively free from ideological blinders and crankiness (which Cato often falls into).
And for libertarians that should be a good thing, all the more so given the lack of any other alternatives.
Because it pretends to be liberal, and a non-liberal writer is only worth reading if he doesn't pretend to be a liberal? It's a business decision - this magazine was founded by the Liberal Party, and they have to at least keep a semblance of their ancient reputation.
A non-liberal writer who admits as much is simply mistaken A non-liberal writer who pretends to be liberal is both mistaken and a liar.
You can take the best out of this magazine and LEAVE THE REST.
You're right - that is an intelligent and reasonable thing to do. Unfortunately, I have fallen prey to the seemingly universal human need to complain.
It deals with how every issue more complicated than people claim - how both sides are often wrong, off topic, and not even dealing what something is about at all.
But that's exactly how I feel about the content provided by the Mises Institute. It explains how the current political debate consists mainly of mindless, distracting rhetoric and provides an alternative that appreciates the complexity of human action and the free market. The Economist merely regurgitates mainstream talking points and takes a middle-of-the-road approach. All the details about cocoa prices and whatnot serve to engage an intelligent reader, but that reader is still imprisoned by the false paradigm of left and right. Or as Tom Woods would say, confined between Mitt Romney and Hilary Clinton.
At least it is not a magazine for five-year-olds, such as Time Magazine.
Time magazine creates stupid drones. The Economist creates smart drones who will become bureaucrats. The smart drones are much more dangerous.
I personally loathe ideological puritanism, but even I draw the line of actual classical liberalism at globalist cheerleading (not to mention AGWism) and support for "stimulus spending".There are many mainstream conservatives who oppose the EU, let alone classical liberals. Same goes for global warmingism. I've even seen many Tea Party folks criticise the porkulus. If even these people are opposed to these things (though some admittedly pay them only lip service), I don't see how that makes the Economist anything more than a centrist magazine with internationalist leanings regarding free trade and globalization. And even Paul Krugman is generally good on these issues.
Obviously, this doesn't make everything the magazine says wrong or invalid, but let's call a spade a spade here. I'm all for a big tent policy, but I draw the line of that "tent" roughly at a Reason/Cato level minus the federalism.
You people need to stop worrying about cosmopolitan government so much. It is not particularly different from the supposedly more enlightened "local" government, which is capable of as many absurdities as any centralized government. Knowledge problem aside, the adverse incentive problems of governments don't change at any level.
The difference is size. A centralized government can impose its absurdities on more people, and reduces the alternatives. Competition between local governments helped liberalize Europe. Each step toward centralization is a step backward.
What you should have appreciated is that these cosmopolitan governments - in some respects - have reduced legislative control over certain sectors.
It's hard to appreciate a reduction is legislative control that is accompanied by a much larger increase in legislative control. The centralization of government is usually accompanied by vast increases in the government's power.
Inflation? Now that European governments have given up monetary sovereignty, they can not reduce their debt burden using inflation, and they have a harder time using banking priority sector laws to divert funds to their own government-based projects. It has forced these governments to economize and work with strained resources for the first time, instead of being encouraged to be uneconomical with the moral hazard that comes from low-interest lending.
This seems like a short term benefit. There is still a European central bank that can inflate at will and will undoubtedly wreak havoc in the future.
Gridlock is great, but eventually someone will win the power struggle. My bet is on Brussels. I recommend you read this article by Anthony de Jasay on the matter of the European Union: part 1, part 2
LeeO:So, what do you think fellow readers? Is this rag as bad as I make it out?
I pretty much completely agree with your assessment. I also found it well written. Enjoyed reading it. Kudos.
James:Reason and CATO are minarchist, Nico. Ron Paul is a minarchist.
While I agree with your refutation that The Economist is certainly not a minarchist newspaper, I wouldn't be so sure that Ron Paul is...[1] [2]
The economist was interesting to read when they wrote about things like the Brazilian orange industry, or their famous Big Mac index. After their support of the bailouts, endorsing a big government president and support for a Carbon tax, I no longer subcribed and no longer visit their web page either. Even their witty style they used for some of their articles vanished with time. Its not the worst magazine out there, but not what it used to be, and not worth paying for.
Hmmm, you know, that reminds me. Economic Thought, Jonathan Catalan's blog, is going to expand to include some non-free-market and non-Austrian co-bloggers. Can't wait for the day when it becomes known as an activist government supporting blog! :D
Joking aside, how many of you imagine The Economist's history went like that? Starts out as a Liberal Party paper. Then gives space to fellow dissidents among Liberals. Then includes Walter Bagehot, one of the first to recommend countercyclical policy and bailouts. Eventually tries to broaden its reader base by broadening its range of writers to non-Liberals. Then becomes a mixture of conservatives, social democrats, liberals, radicals,.etc giving their collective inputs for each article. However, all others working are requested that even with their broad discretion, they are try to stick to some loosely liberal paradigm. That's likely what happened.
Much the same way, the Huffington Post was supposed to be a pure progressive blogger's site, but then includes a few not so progressive writers writing against immigration (okay, I am having a hard time finding the right article, so don't believe me until I find it!), and then you have MSNBC regularly putting on Patrick Buchanan, who has some contrarian views on women being in the army and other things unimaginable to the regular viewing crowd.
The idea is that even with a particular bent, some heterodoxy is slowly brought in, so that the media outlet does not seem like the editor's own sounding board.
Joking aside, how many of you imagine The Economist's history went like that? Starts out as a Liberal Party paper. Then gives space to fellow dissidents among Liberals. Then includes Walter Bagehot, one of the first to recommend countercyclical policy and bailouts. Eventually tries to broaden its reader base by broadening its range of writers to non-Liberals. Then becomes a mixture of conservatives, social democrats, liberals, radicals,.etc giving their collective inputs for each article. However, all others working are requested that even with their broad discretion, they are try to stick to some loosely liberal paradigm. That's likely what happened. Much the same way, the Huffington Post was supposed to be a pure progressive blogger's site, but then includes a few not so progressive writers writing against immigration (okay, I am having a hard time finding the right article, so don't believe me until I find it!), and then you have MSNBC regularly putting on Patrick Buchanan, who has some contrarian views on women being in the army and other things unimaginable to the regular viewing crowd. The idea is that even with a particular bent, some heterodoxy is slowly brought in, so that the media outlet does not seem like the editor's own sounding board.
And jet, with all the rainbow coalition of opinion going on, there are some views that are never going to be given space in there.
Competition between local governments helped liberalize Europe. Each step toward centralization is a step backward.
Exactly. Even if EU proposes some pseudo-liberatizations, the whole idea of political centralization is first step towards socialization. It has already happened and is happening in EU, even since its formation. Euro was more stable than some super-inflationary national currency in some country but it has caused a lot of other damage. I suggest to read The Tragedy of Euro if one disagrees. We need the competition of small governments.