Reflections on reading The Economist

Miscellaneous Current Events
1

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?

Why Are Most Mises Users from the US?
2

You are not alone in this conclusion. I’ve seen it referred to by libertarians as The Communist, including on this board.

3

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. :stuck_out_tongue:

4

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.

5

I don’t think LSE graduates are the world’s most well-educated people. They just think so.

6

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.

7

You know you’re really libertarian when you treat it like Mad magazine. :stuck_out_tongue:

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.

8

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 :slight_smile:

9

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.

10

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?

11

Wow, are you seriously contending that local government is neither better nor worse than a global state, information aside?

12

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.

13

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.

14

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.

15

I don’t read pro-Empire outlets.

16

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”.

17

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?

18

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).

19

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.

20

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? :stuck_out_tongue: