Hacker News Reader

Comment by pradocchia | Hacker News Reader

From 1993 to 2003 I read the Economist religiously, cover to cover, every week, for the regular reasons. This was from high school through college, grad school and early career.

Then came Iraq and WMD. WMD was so clearly a cover story, such obvious propaganda. I'd open up the Economist, expecting to read some scalding critique of GWB, and instead find them pushing the same damn line. WTF?

I'd beware of it. The corruptive power of intelligent yet intellectually dishonest argument should not be underestimated.

View on HN

The key with the economist is to read between the lines. They tell you what is coming. Credit crunch? A 2006 issue talked about the "remote possibility that if housing prices came down across the board, much of the profits banks have seen in recent years will be reversed and they may have trouble getting credit." If you already knew for sure that housing was going to go down AT LEAST 10 % then you could conjecture where banks were going to head and buy put options accordingly.

Did they "shill" for the war? Yes. Was I misled by them? Yes. But in the grander scheme of things that was an excellent experience for me because it showed me to be critical of even my most trusted news sources.

I still have a well read subscription to this day, along with Harvard Business Review.

Right now if you read between the lines The Economist is clearly saying that world wide income taxes are going to start sky rocketing in 3 to 6 years. Plan accordingly. RRSPs or TFSA (Roth IRA or 401k)? Most people will keep at it with their RRSPs and cry their heart out when taxes go up.

I have found it difficult to entirely forgive The Economist for some woefully incorrect predictions (they were big on Goldman Sac's prediction for $200 oil, and did not see the credit crunch in any shape or form or give space to those who did [and there were a number]). Now they issued a lukewarm 'apology' at the start of this year, all good and well, but still it was delivered with their habitually self-satisfied, borderline arrogant tone.

The key with the economist is to read between the lines.

Why do you have to read between the lines? Maybe economists don't say things in plain English so they can always deny that they were wrong.

On the other hand, I like economists like Mike Shedlock, who crystal-clearly explains himself (Google his blog). He has been right about the coming deflation for a long time.

What? I find their logic/reason driven analysis refreshing when it comes to emotional topics such as war.

Your profile says you're new here.

Without judgment of your claims about WMD and the Iraq War, I'd recommend that you take a look at the HN guidelines on comments and submissions:

http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

It's pretty hard to have only a lukewarm opinion on these issues, and there's sufficient diversity of views around here to ensure that arguments on political topics are fractious and unenlightening. So we tend to avoid those.

I highly recommend these articles, which describe a similar thought process:

http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/02/politics_is_the.html

http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/03/policy_debates_.html

And there are plenty of objective facts about the Iraq war that are known. Not all in the world is a matter of opinion, no matter how much some wingnuts (on both sides) wish it were.

We ignore this at our peril. But overall, you're right. Little is ever gained from political debate, and this probably isn't the place for it.

Thank you.

The corruptive power of accusing those with whom you disagree about public policy of being intellectually dishonest should not be underestimated.

This is a poorly written / passive-voiced comment, but the core thought is good.

Restating:

"Don't leap to assume the worst of others".

"People can come to different conclusions honestly - disagreeing with you does not mean that they are venal".

"Reasonable people can differ".

Reasonable people can differ only if their prior information is different. Or, "People with the same priors cannot agree to disagree.", as put by Robert J. Aumann here: http://www.jstor.org/pss/2958591

> Reasonable people can differ only if their prior information is different.

Disagree entirely.

When evaluating complex choices in a chaotic world, we humans use tons of heuristics. There are a lot of things that aren't quantifiable information, but still allow two rational people to reach different conclusions: models of the universe, weight attached to different speakers, moral stances, worldviews, etc.

I think people can only agree to disagree when they can see past their differences. If it's something like which are better, tomatoes or potatoes, then it is easy. If it is something deeper to one's center like PC or Mac, or some programming language then it's harder, and conflict can end up huge if it's over life and death or reputation building. In mostly anonymous and almost random meetings, such as HN, agreeing to disagree is hard, and more often than not, conflict or alliance is expressed through moderation rather than enmity or camaraderie.

At the end of the day, I tend to view argument as vulgar, but put up with it in striving for truth.

Tautology. :) People with the same priors cannot either disagree or exist, in the real world.

In reasonable people you can assume a degree of psychological integration. They probably believe what they say. It's hard to function otherwise.

Is it safe to assume the same of media outlets? My intuition says no. Management sets the tone and the editorial position. Editors and staff execute. That provides ample room for what would be psychotic behavior if management, the editors and staff were all one person.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com