The Economist tells us that they aim to, “take part in a severe contest between intelligence, which presses forward, and an unworthy, timid ignorance obstructing our progress.” Which side are they on?
The Economist is widely accepted to be one of the best sources for international events abroad. But having read their magazines, I often found myself baffled at the lack of sense, logic, support and thought; while having a large quantity of assumptions, empty words and misleading sewage. I gave them a chance, a second chance, a third chance, and more. They continue to fail, even by their own standards.
For example, their October 31, 2009 issue celebrating the “Falling Fertility: How the population problem is solving itself.” This issue supported the idea of population control how it would benefit society. They talked about how people who do not have children are wealthier, therefore, people without children are happier, and better for society. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The Wall Street Journal has quoted reports and made reports that conclude: More money doesn’t necessarily make people more happy, but more children do. Yet The Economist provides no support (in evidence or logic) for anything it says. Instead they opt to support the horrendous crimes against human rights and liberty in China through their one-child policy. As one subscriber wrote, “by saying that China’s horrible human rights violations which have resulted in unspeakable crimes against women and children ‘has benefited the rest of the world’ (pg. 32) is nothing short of repulsive and inhumane.”
And yet, in a later issue on March 6, 2010 “Gendercide: What happened to 100 million baby girls?” The Economist opposed all the baby boys being chosen over baby girls, and only gave partial blame to the one child policy. But full blame rests on the shoulders of the one child policy. You see, in China when the parents grow old it is the son who takes care of their elderly relatives, so when the Chinese are only allowed to have one child it’s easy to see why boys are favored over girls. Not only was The Economist wrong again, but they opposed the very principles they supported only a few issues before.
And in The Economist‘s latest issue (October 9, 2010) you will find an article, “Highly Charged Motoring” (p. 22.) In it is a support for the carbon tax, claiming that a carbon tax would make new and better electric cars to flourish to replace the conventional no-good-very-bad gas run car. Yet there is no link between a carbon tax and how that would help the development of electric cars. Also, they say that a carbon tax would be better than a subsidy and yet fail at showing why that would be true. And the support of more electric cars is — of course — in the name of a cleaner environment. But apparently the writer of this article fails to realize that electric cars get their energy from electricity, the majority of which is produced by coal (another “nasty” resource.)
Instead of gas, this will run your car.
In other issues The Economist has supported Cyber-arms-control (whatever that means), government management of private data and the like. Not only are these views dangerous, but similar ones often lead to human rights abuses, loss of liberty, and sometimes loss of life. They seem oblivious to problems with their logic, suggestions, thinking and support. They obviously have some sense of shame, because they won’t even put the names of the writers on the articles. That’s right, we don’t know where these “great articles” are coming from. As they sit high in their ivory tower, they tell the rest of us what’s wrong and what we should do, but won’t tell us who they are. The Economist is not a news magazine, its a weekly ramble from elitists with an agenda.
After filtering out the logical fallacies, elitist socialism, and diatribe with no support or evidence it only leaves the ads. I found myself using it as a flyswatter and a pad for the dog bowl, but you don’t need a subscription for that.