Comments on: Economist magazine madness

By: John K

John K — Mon, 05 Dec 2011 17:58:22 +0000

On the contrary Paul, I find your anti-Economist pieces rather interesting and informative. Carry on ranting by all means.

By: RRS

RRS — Mon, 05 Dec 2011 15:30:55 +0000

Going to the 5th paragraph of the original post:

What we encounter is a persistently recurring body of self-certifed social “Architects” who have no knowledge of (but are sure they have all necessary information about) the materials with which they propose their constructions.

By: Paul Marks

Paul Marks — Sun, 04 Dec 2011 22:02:00 +0000

The comments are correct – all of them.

As for the attitude of the Economist magazine writers – and the people they serve….

Their rejection of common sense and their smug sense of superiority are joined at the hip. As I mention – they are taught that rejecting common sense (the opinions of the common herd) is the mark of the “intellectual”, of the elite that they worked so hard to become part of (via university and so on) and are desperate to remain a part of.

Sadly this error (and it is an error) is one found in many philosophers – going all the way back to Plato.

Of course much of German philosophy, such as Shopenhauer and Nietzsche, takes this attitude to an extreme.

Although, I hasten to add. neither Shopenhauer or Nietzsche applied this attitude to economics.

Karl Marx (and other, although not all, left Hegalians – and some right Hegalians also) did that.

Rejecting such things as support for private property as simply the tricks (planned – or even automatic without real choice) of the “capitalists” creating a false consciousness among the people. Rather than support for private property being the normal rational opinion of human beings (including people who do not own stuff).

What Rousseau (long before) called the “will of all” (what people “thought” they believed) rather than the true “general will” (which is to be found by the Law Giver and imposed as “true freedom”). Is also to be found in Karl Marx and co.

And, of course, Karl Marx and co defined the collectivist tyranny they craved, as the realm of true (and unlimited) freedom.

Black is white, hot is cold, dry is wet.

By: Jay Thomas

Jay Thomas — Sun, 04 Dec 2011 16:47:48 +0000

I really don’t understand the point of anonymous opinion pieces such as appear in the economist. All the numerous writers for this publication hide behind the ‘Newspaper’s’ masthead. None of them write in their own voice but adopt the tiresome glib and pompous house style that the magazine developed before many of its current writers were out of the nursery. Whose opinions am I actually reading? Does it matter, does the content of these opinions matter, either to their readers or the people formulating them? The purpose of the magazine is to give the right sort of people the right sort of opinions to trot out at dinner parties, that will allow them to sound vaguely sophisticated and informed, cement their status as smart and educated and not ruffle too many of the wrong sorts of feathers. Its a shallow magazine for shallow people.

By: Patrick Crozier

Patrick Crozier — Sun, 04 Dec 2011 14:00:13 +0000

“Their education is confined to nonsense and, being intelligent (but not wise) and hard working people, they absorb the nonsense and it remains with them for the rest of their lives.”

Quite.

By: John B

John B — Sun, 04 Dec 2011 13:42:15 +0000

I find it hard to believe that people are so stupid. In fact I think it is impossible.

Keynesian economics is embraced not because those who embrace it are stupid but because it serves their agenda.
And the logical way it does so is that it enables them to take other people’s wealth through money printing and inflation. The same way counterfeiters make their living.

There are no doubt those who are stupid, willing lackeys of the counterfeiters, such as the Economist writers you refer to, but at origin I am convinced the system is driven by those who are served by the system.

There is nothing so clever (and possibly deluded) as perceived self interest?

By: Runcie Balspune

Runcie Balspune — Sun, 04 Dec 2011 13:15:32 +0000

Isn’t the welfare fallacy explained by “give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime” ?

That’s Confucius era knowledge, isn’t it ?