That is until they endorsed Barack Obama.
It was such an appalling display of a once great magazine aiming to boost their subscribership by sacrificing their standards so they could appeal to a fad and a brainwashed mass that I ended my then 11 year subscription to the magazine. It called into question the entire purpose and integrity of The Economist. Why would anybody, who was at least intellectually honest and cared about economic reality, subscribe to what had ultimately and quickly become tripe?
Well, if you look at an old post I had, it once again shows you the ole Captain might know what he's talking about.
The Economist is nothing but a biased, albeit, highly dressed up, left wing rag. Their readership is not about advancing economies and increasing standards of living and helping out humanity, it's about purchasing "The Economist" so they can say to their other UN diplomats and dignitaries that "they read "The Economist"" and sound intelligent. It's for liberal arts students to avoid real debate and say, "they read the economist" which then makes them the smartest person in the room. It's for middle aged people who decide to "upgrade" from the local paper and buck for a promotion when their manager realizes "Hey, he's reading THe Economist!"
Understand The Economist is NOT a legitimate publication. It is simply a "badge of honor" somebody can buy to make themselves sound intellectual. It's like buying a degree from a degree mill. You are better served reading various independent blogs and getting your economic data from economic databases than you are reading The Economist because "The Economist" (despite its name) isn't anything approaching what a real economist would do.
To remind you of this, I need not do anything else than post this chart;
Thus is the typical "Economist" subscriber and why you might as well not even bother ever subscribing to it. Because if you couldn't predict Obama would be bad for the US, then what kind of "economist" were you?
Answer - a shill
No comments:
Post a Comment