In the 1860s, The Economist stood nearly alone among liberal opinion in Britain in supporting the Confederacy against the Union, all in the name of access to cheap Southern “Blood Cotton” […] and fear of higher tariffs if the North triumphed. “The Economist was unusual,” writes an historian of English public opinion at the time; “Other journals still regarded slavery as a greater evil than restrictive trade practices.”
‘The Economist’ Has a Slavery Problem | The Nation
Here, then, is the problem with the magazine: readers are consistently given the impression, regardless of whether it is true, that unrestricted free market capitalism is a Thoroughly Good Thing, and that sensible and pragmatic British intellectuals have vouched for this position. The nuances are erased, reality is fudged, and The Economist helps its American readers pretend to have read books by telling them things that the books don’t actually say.
How The Economist Thinks | Current Affairs
“Everyone can learn to code you just need to know
EnglishChinese”
— updated techbro proverbFingers crossed. The scourge of *nglish can be defeated yet!
I’m not even going to bother to read an Econmist article, I’d wager there’s some brainworms in there
my fav bit was when they complain how capitalist markets can’t compete with central planning 🎻
In the process, the West has been abandoning its commitment to a bottom-up, market-based approach to setting technical standards. “We are being forced to undermine a system that has been very effective and that we have profited from for a long time,” laments Mr Rühlig. In more ways than one, China is making the West play by its rules.
If your system is so effective, then why is it unable to compete?
hey, it’s effective at lining the pockets of the oligarchs :)
Better China than Zuckerberg and Musk
