Is The Economist Always Wrong?

Join the discussion

• Hacker News
• They don't have any real skin in the game.

  Who cares if they're right about something? Are they putting money on the line? What is their P/L for being "right"?

  by givemeethekeys
• In theory, their reputation which is the basis for maintaining their subscriber base and hence $$$
  by bawolff
• I think that's the wrong way to look at it. They do have skin in the game, in the sense that their readers wouldn't want to pay for a newspaper that is consistently wrong. And, even if they don't, it doesn't mean that it's not valuable
  by twolf910616
• I think the question was wrong. The problem is that the important things are wrong and the trivial things are right, which causes confusion.
  by jdw64
• > We used artificial intelligence to test the accuracy of our forecasts

  I like the disclosure at the top, saves time.

  by ankit_mishra
• Saves time, as in "no need to read any further".

  The fact that a publication would think that using AI to "confirm" a forecast bodes poorly not only on the publication, but also on those who would rely on such a forecast.

  by dotancohen
• I have a hard time passing on the economist. Best reading out there that is condensed and to the point. The FT is great but I’m a paper guy and the font got too small to enjoy it.
  by zippyman55
• Damn font getting smaller and smaller while my eyes stay the same
  by TomWhitwell
• Prior discussion 70+ comments (2 days ago): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48791799
  by andsoitis
• They're wrong more often than random chance, yes.
  by diego_sandoval
• I read the Economist for over a decade growing up. It was a great way to learn about the world, who was in power where, and the challenges facing economies at the time. I found their exposition to be pretty good given the fact they were restricted to a few pages for important events. However, their proposed solutions were always the same. More market freedom, etc.

  I did feel with the change in editorial direction a while back that they lost some of their edge. I've since mostly just stuck to the Financial Times. It feels less worldly, but the content of the articles feels better.

  by ImageXav
• Less worldly, how so? Been considering an FT sub.
  by doodlesarefun
• "you know what would fix this problem? put the Torys in charge and let them privatize everything" -- essentially their refrain

  that said, they gave generally good briefs about topics but I found whenever it was anything I knew about they tended to be fairly one-sided. Often they'd acknowledge the other view, in half a paragraph, and then immediately ignore the entire argument and keep on harping about whatever their particular axe to grind was.

  having it around did help literacy in high school I guess.

  by red-iron-pine
• Repost of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48791799 (with 63 comments)
  by latch
• Already asked and answered.

  Yes.

  by NordStreamYacht
• The tricky thing about predictions made by public entity or persona is that, the fact that they are making public predictions creates a major influence on the outcome itself. People react to predictions made by them.
  by claw-el
• A major reason why the new Fed chair is refusing to provide forward guidance, in a major departure from all(?) previous Fed chairs and will likely require textbooks to be rewritten.
  by CGMthrowaway
• Yep. That's why predicting the future of a system you're a part of is sometimes literally impossible; it boils, fundamentally, to the fact that logical negation doesn't have a fixed point.
  by Joker_vD
• I don’t think The Economist has that kind of power. More likely that when they make covers like these every normie feels that way and it’s going the other way soon, as it has exhausted every buyer or seller and it has reached the ends of your earth and your Mom and Dad even feel that way.

  https://www.readtrung.com/p/the-economist-cover-curse-explai...

  by Mistletoe
• The thing with the Economist is that they have a style that’s like an erudite version of the old Time magazine — that is stories written to say what the editors want. Except the economist is way more dogmatic.

  I used to read it regularly. I can’t imagine anyone looking to them for predictions, as even a casual reader could probably outline the magazine’s views on most any topic. Let me skim 4-5 recent issues, and I could probably replicate anything they would predict with like 85% accuracy!

  I will say that my favorite part of the magazine was the wacky ads for big shots working for African countries, various UN things, NGOs, etc.

  by Spooky23
• They're wrong and right in equal measure, but what they do is publish their opinions with conviction and back it up with sound arguments and facts. I remember reading articles they published in the late 80s about their belief that Japans economic boom was about to end, but they were also one of the biggest backers of Bush's invasion of Iraq which they were disastrously wrong about. I haven't read it for a while so I don't know what they're like now but for forward economic intelligence they were always one of the best.
  by drumhead
• >but they were also one of the biggest backers of Bush's invasion of Iraq which they were disastrously wrong about.

  Were they wrong or were they insincere/dishonest?

  by modo_mario
• I think there’s a human bias where we remember predictions being wrong more strongly than those being right.

  The study shows that they weren’t wrong or right in equal measure, they were right more often, considerably so. But that doesn’t mean that they were always right.

  by teamonkey
• > invasion of Iraq which they were disastrously wrong about

  They did publish a correction. Some pithy blurb like "Blah blah blah, we regret the error."

  To their credit, most warmongers didn't have the stones to do a mea culpa.

  Regardless, I unsubscribed and never looked back. (Ditto The Atlantic, for the same reason. Impotently, I didn't have a NY Times sub to cancel in protest.)

  During the run up to Bush's Folly, one of their wizened writers related how The Economist regarded the Vietnam War, noting the similarities, noting The Economist's moral failings, wondering if they'd repeat the same mistake.

  by specialist
• I'd love to know if "the pink" has the same problem because I used to find the editorial very good. As a non-investor, left leaning voter, it interested me that I found much to agree with in "the financial times" while still finding much to disagree with in "the times" and "the daily telegraph" and "the spectator" -as if money was more neutrally stanced on left-vs-right.
  by ggm
• Yes.

  The pink is also wrong more often than not when they're talking about non-European issues.

  When they talk about Europe they lie.

  Subtle difference.

  by SanjayMehta
• Truth is reading any of these MSM sources on either left or right is bad imo.

  Before reading them you're merely uninformed, after you're misinformed which is far worse

  by ifwinterco
• Chomsky said it was the only newspaper that told the truth.
  by carabiner
• The FT's market is the small remaining group of people who actively don't want to be lied to. The latter three are basically just propaganda now. James Delingpole has worked for at least two as a climate change denial correspondant.

  Peter Oborne on resigning from the Telegraph, 10 years ago: https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/why-i-have-resigned-from-te...

  by pjc50
• Is this purely because of their economic stances or did the financial times dive into social issues and idpol and maybe some of the stances where a part of the left clashes (migration and such)?
  by modo_mario