Anyone read the Economist??

Discussion in 'Economics' started by bungrider, Jan 16, 2004.

  1. I think it is a an absolutely hateful magazine. Sometimes socialist type of undertones in its developing country type of articles and sometimes the usual crap about how free trade will ruin the third worlds envioronment. I cant stand that stupid shit.
     
    #11     Jan 16, 2004
  2. Andre

    Andre

    Yes that British rag with no names of editor and correspondent/writer has some good stuff on economics, if you can withstand their snooty attitude.

    I love the 'tude! I haven't read it regularly for a while because I've been busy and let my subscription lapse. I still remember a comment from them regarding the French/American division from the start of the invasion of Iraq... the liberals in the press were at the time lambasting Bush for his term the axis of evil, and the Economist was covering another angle, and disparaged Russia and France for throwing up some road blocks in the UN, I think... calling them the axis of awkwardness.

    It was so subtle, so biting, so... British. It was beautiful. ::sniffs::

    André
     
    #12     Jan 16, 2004
  3. Andre

    Andre

    Are you talking about the Economist? I've always got the tone that they feel free markets will help living conditions in the thrid world. I saved an article on how they feel immigration and work permits should be made easier, because of how funds travel back into their home countries, improving life there...
     
    #13     Jan 16, 2004
  4. Gee, and why would it be so surprising. The same can be said about the British media in general when compared to the US. The US media has no global perspective at all. Sad but true.
     
    #14     Jan 16, 2004
  5. yes I like it too. A bit too pro american(pro Bush) though sometimes.
     
    #15     Jan 16, 2004
  6. Why are humans nearly hairless? And why do some wish to become more so?

    AT THE back of a hairdresser's shop, just off Piccadilly in London, an Irish beautician called Genevieve is explaining what a “Brazilian” is as she practises her art on your correspondent. A Brazilian strip, some are surprised to learn, is nothing to do with Latin American football. Between each excruciating rip, she explains that she is going to remove nearly all my pubic hair, except for a narrow vertical strip of hairs the width of a couple of fingers. This is known colloquially as the “landing strip”.

    In only a few years, this form of waxing has gone from the esoteric to the everyday and is starting to rival the ordinary bikini wax in popularity. At the same time the bikini wax is becoming a normal procedure for women of all ages: the youngest person Genevieve has waxed is a 12-year-old girl. Women are styling their pubic hair into hearts, stars and arrows. It is one of the more notable developments in hairdressing since the permanent wave.
    http://www.economist.com/science/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2281888
     
    #16     Jan 16, 2004
  7. Nothing wrong with that
     
    #17     Jan 16, 2004
  8. The socialist mags belongs to the (fake) "capitalists" ... don't wonder why : they want capitalism for them and socialism for the majority.

    http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=24336

    http://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/gary_a...cker/ch1-4.html

    Who in facts finances the socialist mentality


    "The Carnegie and Rockefeller foundations had jumped into the financing of education and the social sciences with both Left feet. For example, the foundations (principally Carnegie and Rockefeller) stimulated two-thirds of the total endowment funding of all institutions of higher learning in America during the first third of this century. During this period the Carnegie-Rockefeller complex supplied 20 % of the total income of colleges and universities and became in fact, if not in name, a sort of U.S. Ministry of Education. The result was a sharp Socialist-Fascist turn. As Rene Wormser, Counsel for the Reece Committee, reports:

    A very powerful complex of foundations and allied organizations has developed over the years to exercise a high degree of control over education. Part of this complex, and ultimately responsible for it, are the Rockefeller and Carnegie groups of foundations.

    These foundations were, by way of grants amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars, responsible for the nationwide acceptance of avowed socialist John Dewey's theories of progressive education and permissiveness -the products of which have been marching on our college campuses for the past two decades.

    Traditionalist teachers, who had been strongly resisting Deweyism, were swamped by education propagandists backed with a flood of Rockefeller-Carnegie dollars. At the same time the National Education Association, the country's chief education lobby, was also financed largely by the Rockfellers and Carnegie foundations.

    It, too, threw its considerable weight behind the Dewey philosophies. As an NEA report maintained in 1934:

    A dying laissez-faire must be completely destroyed and all of us, including the "owners," must be subjected to a large degree of social control.

    Since America's public school system was decentralized, the foundations had concentrated on influencing schools of education (particularly Columbia, the spawning ground for Deweyism), and on financing the writing of textbooks which were subsequently adopted nationwide. These foundation-produced textbooks were so heavily slanted in favor of socialism that Wormser concluded:"- It is difficult to believe that the Rockefeller Foundation and the National Education Association could have supported these textbooks. But the fact is that Rockefeller financed them and the N.E.A. promoted them very widely.-"

    -------
    Why ?

    "The best way for the Rockefeller-Morgan Insiders to eliminate growing competition was to impose a progressive income tax on their competitors while making sure the law contained built-in escape hatches for themselves. Actually, very few of the proponents of the graduated income tax realized they were playing into the hands of those they were seeking to control. As Ferdinand Lundberg notes in The Rich And The Super rich:

    What it [the income tax] became, finally, was a siphon gradually inserted into the pocketbooks of the general public. Imposed to popular huzzahs as a class tax, the income tax was gradually turned into a mass tax in a jujitsu turnaround ....

    The Insiders' principal mouthpiece in the Senate during this period was Nelson Aldrich of Rhode Island, the maternal grandfather of Nelson Aldrich Rockefeller. Lundberg says that "when Aldrich spoke, newsmen understood that although the words were his, the dramatic line was surely approved by 'Big John' [D. Rockefeller] . . . .- In earlier years Aldrich had denounced the income tax as -communist and socialistic,- but in 1909 he pulled a dramatic and stunning reversal. The American Biographical- Dictionary comments:

    just when the opposition had become formidable he (Aldrich) took the wind out of its sails by bringing forward, with the support of the President (Taft) a proposed amendment to the Constitution empowering Congress to lay income taxes.

    The escape hatch was ready. By the time the Amendment had been approved by the states, the Rockefeller Foundation was in full operation. The careful orchestration of both parts of the campaign represents one of the most successful financial coups in history. The money the Rockefellers have made by it is incalculable.

    By exempting themselves from the burden they forced on their competitors, the Rockefellers were able to operate in a world of near laissez-faire capitalism while foisting the weight of more and more socialism on their competitors. It is the equivalent of a sprinter forcing every other runner in a race to carry a sixteen-pound shot.

     
    #18     Jan 16, 2004
  9. Cutten

    Cutten

    The point is that the FT covers global markets (I don't mean the UK) far better than any US paper. I.e. if you want to know what is happening in S America, Asia, Eastern Europe etc, it is better to read the FT than the WSJ or Barrons.
     
    #19     Jan 16, 2004
  10. Cutten

    Cutten

    See what I mean? Thanks to the Economist you can load up on Brazilian cosmetics microcaps now instead of waiting for them to get on a Barron's cover story after rising 3000%.
     
    #20     Jan 16, 2004