Video size: 1280 X 720853 X 480640 X 360
Show player controls
What magazines or books would you recommend the. Which is purely economics
I’m a college student for half a year now and I agree it’s bad. I study economics and thought the economist would be interesting and helpful with my study field. After a month or two I’m really disappointed, it’s even more biased than my university books and that says a lot.
old irrelevant dinosaur hating on the new generation. nothing new, and a cancer to my intellect.
Hey Aaron. Fascinating (or not) yours is the only video I could find about an analysis of how biased towards the left The Economist magazine is. I have just learnt about this week's cover talking about "Latin America's Latest Menace". So, have a guess who are these bastard commies talking about! Jair Bolsonaro. He is a former Brazilian Army Captain and our Conservative candidate for. the next presidential election. Just around the corner in October. He is the only MAN with big enough balls to defend the family, patriotic, Judaeo-Christian values and willing to take not only on the big media as well as on the corrupt elite in the country. He's got no criminal charges against (quite rare in Brazil for a professional politician with a 30 year career), defends free market, free press and free initiative; he is truly the only and last hope before Brazil gets turned into another Venezuela, he defends Trump's America and Israel...and for the bloody "The Economist" he is a menace. ?!?!?!?! I already new from year back that this publication was left biased when they spoke so well about the beard frog (it is like we call Lula - our former Labour Party president now in jail for corruption charges), but I couldn't expect them for being so progressive/liberal/whatever against Bolsonaro. Anyways, go check it out if you have much stomach for it. Thanks for the video and take care!
Many people get that mag to dissect its cover... FYI
Your a sore loser who hates everything. Shut the fuck you idiot.
My mac can´t remove the economist app. I don´t anything about the economist but the app sucks!
I would recommend IEA to those who are either studying or just interested in economic issues.
All I can say is that I became aware of the Economist and receive a subscription to it because my Politics teacher at my college encouraged us to do so to expand our political knowledge, particularly relating to the US as that is the module I am taking. To be honest, not knowing what it was like before doesn’t give the full picture, but I really quite enjoy reading a selection of the opinion pieces.
I just torrent The Economist like a normal person.
This has little to do with the publication itself, it's a rant about college students being pretentious and the magazine endorsing a candidate you strongly opposed.
I enjoy reading the Economist, WSJ, and NYT, for comparative views. Economist offers online additional resources, charts, data base, all useful for evaluation and business. Fortunately I am a successful business man, with a strong international market. I graduated summa cum laude from Marquette with a double major in Accounting and Economic Development. Of course that was way back in 1970 when I was just a dumb college kid. But I still like reading the Economist.
I agree, its become a near worthless leftist shit rag, stopped my sub years ago.
I was an avid reader for about 20 years. I never subscribed because I was moving around too much to have it find me by post. I probably missed no more than a dozen issues in all that time simply due to it not being available where I was located that week. I finally gave up on it two years ago. It's a damned shame. I miss The Economist.
Hipster Clarey: I read the Economist before it was cool. Now it's too mainstream.
Aaron, your rattled off a list of Economist substitutes. Would you kindly add them to the video description?
This is exactly what happened to Swank.
The Economist is also partially owned by the Rothschilds so yea I would steer clear from it....
people like you are a cancer to my intellect
I use to be a subscriber, but I don't think paying $125 every year is worth it for the digital subscription. Wall Street Journal is a much better read.
You are getting your nametags in crayon from now on.Oh, and the greatest crime of the Economist is encouraging commu'tards to call themselves "economists" instead of marxists.
I remember stealing my director's copies at a major university back in the mid 1990's. I'd grab them when they came in the mail, read them over two days and then toss them back into the mail queue for him to get to. If I let him have them first, he would take them home never to be seen again.I would have subscribed myself but I couldn't bloody well afford it on an analyst's salary.Sorry to see it gone down hill so horribly.I stopped reading back around 2003; I felt that something had certainly been lost in the intervening years but I couldn't put my finger on it. I just knew that what it had become was not what it once was.
I've been thinking of subscribing to the economist ever since I read some Thomas Sowell and he quoted some good stuff published by them. Thanks for letting me know it sucks now.
So what you're saying is... using The Economist as a scholarly source is kinda like quoting Paul Krugman because he's a Nobel Prize winner...Either way, you're wrong. :)
@AaronClarey Any reasons, i can't have both. people keep harping on its lack of nuance and conservatism.
WSJ. FT is good too. But I prefer the WSJ.
@AaronClarey [30 Anti-Libertarian Fallacies] #15: "Nobel Fallacy"
@AaronClarey Do you prefer FT or WSJ? Everybody keeps telling me how much better Financial Times is with its "nuanced analysis."
The Nobel Peace prize is meaningless and completely political now. Besides, bang up job Krugman OBama and all the other Keynesians have done with the economy.
Will Paul Krugman and Tom Friedman write for the Economist now? You know they sell a lot of books, and Krugman received a Noble Prize for trade theory that has more assumptions that reject real world practice than I care to list or figure-out. BTW when I was in college the really liberal professors preferred for us to read the Financial Times, but no one did, because the economics professors required the Wall Street Journal. Like most companies, the Economist will probably disenfranchise its primary market segment, and lose more money in the future.
I'm too young to have read it 10 years ago, but even 6-7 years ago it was a lot better than it is now. Now it's just a stupid rag.
@Iznaga1420 Not to mention all they show in history now is like ice road trucker and pawn stars ffs.
@KaiserinAstridAcadame, n. An ancient school where morality and philosophy were taught.Academy, n. [from ACADEME] A modern school where football is taught.The Devil's Dictionary by Ambrose Bierce. 1881-1906.Sir Francis Galton himself scoffed at the inane pedantries of university education during his time. Charles Darwin, of course, needed no mouth-breathing pontificators so pretentious as to confuse their drivel with insight. Men of superior ability have long seen the university as an encumbering obstacle that impedes intellectual development rather than cultivates it. It's just now becoming so obvious that universities preach nonsense and sell sheep skins that even the lowest common denominator is getting wise to it.
@Iznaga1420 I think the universities went down in quality. 100 years ago you wouldn't have gotten into university if you needed remedial classes. Maybe universities didn't get a lot worse at the undergraduate level, but at the graduate level the decline is horrific, if you ask me.Now on the History Channel you have mostly 2nd rate reality TV.
That reminds me of about 6 years ago when I stopped watching the History Channel because I thought it had gotten so terrible that at its best it offered dramatized brain candy, or "history", and at worst 2nd rate reality TV.All I had to compare it to, however, was when I first started watching it roughly 3-4 years prior. To be honest, this was when I was still watching shows like Ed Edd n Eddy and could only rudimentarily discern the difference in quality between the two. Looking back on it, I find it clear that Ed Edd n Eddy is slightly more aesthetically sophisticated than the History Channel when I was watching it as far back as 9 years ago. Perhaps THC has genuinely gotten worse over the years, but if so, it's only by means of magnitude and not direction.HL Mencken as early as movies were in production described the heroine as one who offers the grossest sexual provocations; the hero who makes his wife roll her eyes as a perambulatory phallus. The only appreciable differences between those archetypes then and today are androgenic drugs, convincing cosmetic surgery, and CGI. I suspect the veneer of greater sophistication in media, universities and other institutions in the recent past (within 140 years) is due largely to more elaborate tact and formalities. Otherwise, it's qualitatively the same. It just takes a good long while before every last vestige of decency and quality is eliminated by such philistinism.
Aw yeah, ZeroHedge has got to be the best source of REAL economics news out there. And no subscription fee either.
Dammit... well, it makes for okay reading on the jon.
Wall to wall propaganda.
A crushing blow to my friends just by the title..