[svenski7]

I like the Economist Magazine and website. They have insightful, world news that more often than not bucks "mainstream media's perception."

Family got me a year-long subscription as a birthday present.

And now, every time I open my PO Box, I see some stupid fucking headline about China. I mean every single edition.

I want to know what's going on in China. Guess what, I also want to know about Brazil, India, Russia, Venezuela, etc.

So, if they're going to spotlight China (read: suck commie dick) then I expect the article to be groundbreaking. They usually aren't.

Everybody has slant to their perspective but I feel like the Brits writing the Economists desperately want to bash the US and West and become cheerleaders for Comintern and China.

If girls can smell try-hard Game, I'm smelling try-hard socialism from this magazine.

I can't point out authors because they don't put their name on their articles (never have).

[TigerMandingo]

(01-26-2014 04:02 PM)svenski7 Wrote:  

I like the Economist Magazine and website. They have insightful, world news that more often than not bucks "mainstream media's perception."

Family got me a year-long subscription as a birthday present.

And now, every time I open my PO Box, I see some stupid fucking headline about China. I mean every single edition.

I want to know what's going on in China. Guess what, I also want to know about Brazil, India, Russia, Venezuela, etc.

So, if they're going to spotlight China (read: suck commie dick) then I expect the article to be groundbreaking. They usually aren't.

Everybody has slant to their perspective but I feel like the Brits writing the Economists desperately want to bash the US and West and become cheerleaders for Comintern and China.

If girls can smell try-hard Game, I'm smelling try-hard socialism from this magazine.

I can't point out authors because they don't put their name on their articles (never have).

If The Economist was any more pro-US and pro-unfettered capitalism, they'd be going down on Milton Friedman and George Bush simultaneously.

They strongly supported the Iraq and Afghan wars, constantly demonize Putin and Russia, and are sympathetic to Israel. Hardly a socialist rag.

[Tommy Eyes]

I too am tired of the China worship ("and I, for one, support our new Sino overlords!") but I'd say The Economist is more straight up cathedral globalist (socially liberal, but pro-war and pro-Tom Friedman "world is flat" outsource and slave wages for all "let them eat beans!"). They support high income taxes, b/c in the end only high earning upper middle class professionals pay the bulk of them, while the truly rich just borrow against unrealized capital gains.

Aaron Clarey just did a video on how The Economist has jumped the shark

[RawGod]

   

[randomForest]

The only thing you need to know about China is this: they are our second largest trading partner (after Canada) and the largest holder in US sovereign debt. They are not an enemy of the US, but an economic rival---big difference. Anyone saying anything else is either an idiot or a neocon. But I repeat myself.

[Suits]

(01-26-2014 05:51 PM)randomForest Wrote:  

The only thing you need to know about China is this: they are our second largest trading partner (after Canada) and the largest holder in US sovereign debt. They are not an enemy of the US, but an economic rival---big difference. Anyone saying anything else is either an idiot or a neocon. But I repeat myself.

Negative. There is a lot more to say. The Economist magazine is targeted at business people and other investors who can benefit from staying aware of trends in the countries they have assets in.

Since China is a key investment location for many in the Economist's target audience, it is understandable that they would provide more in depth coverage of this region.

Day to day changes and trends could mean the different between millions of dollars lost or earned for investors. It pays to know more that what you've suggested is sufficient.

However, as a China specialist myself, I find most the China coverage pretty dull, since it is all written to for the needs of investors and not those who actually live in China and have an interest in a more personal approach.

[Cattle Rustler]

The chinese are far from commies, they're more capitalistic than the US......they learned about the free market from the US and were able to beat us at our own game.

If anything, americans are more commy than chinese with their "buy american" "support america" crap.

[svenski7]

(01-26-2014 06:14 PM)Cattle Rustler Wrote:  

The chinese are far from commies, they're more capitalistic than the US......they learned about the free market from the US and were able to beat us at our own game.

If anything, americans are more commy than chinese with their "buy american" "support america" crap.

Actually this issue's cover article is about China becoming more and more unfriendly to foreign businesses.

I predicted this a few years back. China is only interested in foreign investment as long as their manufacturing sector is dependent on sales to foreign countries. When their domestic demand becomes adequate for a self-sustaining economy, they will throw the rest of the world under the bus (if necessary).

To clarify, I'm not downplaying the role of China as the second largest economy in the world. I'm just puzzled at the number of articles about China that are basically hollow with no information you couldn't see on ABC, NBC, FOX, etc...

I can't imagine what it would be like to meet the staff of The Economist. I would imagine it being as haughty and pretentious as Victorian England teatime at some noble's private estate. I think there is a lot of armchair moral and ethic judgments being passed down. They seem to downplay or ignore the fact that they are publishing in a country without guaranteed freedom of speech, the longest allowable detention without trial (28 days) in the West and whose economic stature has gone from undisputed champion to 6th largest and falling.

Fuck me sideways, I'm looking at this thing right now and they describe 0.5% GDP growth in the UK as slow progress getting back to the top. Choo-choo, its going to take 100-fucking-years to get that train over the mountain at that rate.

[teh_skeeze]

(01-26-2014 06:14 PM)Cattle Rustler Wrote:  

If anything, americans are more commy than chinese with their "buy american" "support america" crap.

Since when is wanting to have the goods your purchase produced in your country "commy"? It's that kind of bullshit that has sent this country down the toilet.

I guess the WWII generation were a bunch of commies by your assertion. The van I drive right now was purchased by my grandfather in 1999. He had to be talked out of taking it back because it was made in Winsdor, ON.

Nationalism =/= Communism. It's the multinational capitalists throwing their countrymen under the bus to make a buck that turned the current generation of kids into a bunch of pussy socialists.

[randomForest]

(01-26-2014 05:59 PM)Suits Wrote:  

(01-26-2014 05:51 PM)randomForest Wrote:  

The only thing you need to know about China is this: they are our second largest trading partner (after Canada) and the largest holder in US sovereign debt. They are not an enemy of the US, but an economic rival---big difference. Anyone saying anything else is either an idiot or a neocon. But I repeat myself.

Negative. There is a lot more to say. The Economist magazine is targeted at business people and other investors who can benefit from staying aware of trends in the countries they have assets in.

Since China is a key investment location for many in the Economist's target audience, it is understandable that they would provide more in depth coverage of this region.

Day to day changes and trends could mean the different between millions of dollars lost or earned for investors. It pays to know more that what you've suggested is sufficient.

However, as a China specialist myself, I find most the China coverage pretty dull, since it is all written to for the needs of investors and not those who actually live in China and have an interest in a more personal approach.

I agree completely---I was mostly pushing back against this notion that has been gaining currency on the right that China and US are mortal enemies.

I should not have been that casual and simplistic.

[Suits]

(01-26-2014 10:08 PM)randomForest Wrote:  

(01-26-2014 05:59 PM)Suits Wrote:  

(01-26-2014 05:51 PM)randomForest Wrote:  

The only thing you need to know about China is this: they are our second largest trading partner (after Canada) and the largest holder in US sovereign debt. They are not an enemy of the US, but an economic rival---big difference. Anyone saying anything else is either an idiot or a neocon. But I repeat myself.

Negative. There is a lot more to say. The Economist magazine is targeted at business people and other investors who can benefit from staying aware of trends in the countries they have assets in.

Since China is a key investment location for many in the Economist's target audience, it is understandable that they would provide more in depth coverage of this region.

Day to day changes and trends could mean the different between millions of dollars lost or earned for investors. It pays to know more that what you've suggested is sufficient.

However, as a China specialist myself, I find most the China coverage pretty dull, since it is all written to for the needs of investors and not those who actually live in China and have an interest in a more personal approach.

I agree completely---I was mostly pushing back against this notion that has been gaining currency on the right that China and US are mortal enemies.

I should not have been that casual and simplistic.

You're totally correct. China and the USA definitely need each other...at least for the moment.

[clever alias]

they write about it because it sells. every aspiring investor dreams of striking gold there, lots of people on the homefront are generally sinophobes. actual economists love to analyze chinas growth and trajectory. its a hot topic.

[paninaro]

Part of the reason is that they now have a China section. They added that 2-3 years ago as I recall. Before that, China stories were placed into the Asia section. So now that there's a separate China section, they need to turn out at least 1 story per week about China to fill that section.

However, I do agree that given the country's importance to the world economy, it does deserve its own section (the US has one also).

[arcterex]

Funny; I was just talking to someone today about how the Economist is obsessed with China. My take on it is that they are often critical about China like in a recent issue where they talked about how foreign companies are having an even harder time than before in competing locally and that might lead investment away from China. But I agree they are fixated on China, in general.

I see it as a sign of the times. Just as the rest of the world has to always read about the United States, the Economist is a bit ahead of the curve on what will likely be de rigeur for us in 10-15 years, as China closes the gap with the US in GDP. The world will likely be then be inundated with news of China. Heck, China already rivals the EU and the US in the luxury goods market (see, all my reading of the Economist's China-centric articles finally paid off)

[Cattle Rustler]

(01-26-2014 08:16 PM)teh_skeeze Wrote:  

(01-26-2014 06:14 PM)Cattle Rustler Wrote:  

If anything, americans are more commy than chinese with their "buy american" "support america" crap.

Since when is wanting to have the goods your purchase produced in your country "commy"? It's that kind of bullshit that has sent this country down the toilet.

I guess the WWII generation were a bunch of commies by your assertion. The van I drive right now was purchased by my grandfather in 1999. He had to be talked out of taking it back because it was made in Winsdor, ON.

Nationalism =/= Communism. It's the multinational capitalists throwing their countrymen under the bus to make a buck that turned the current generation of kids into a bunch of pussy socialists.

I was using that as an example of improper word/phrase usage. The Chinese are only communist in paper but in reality they are far from it.

Then again, authoritative countries often run the "buy (from your country" campaigns.

[svenski7]

(01-26-2014 06:14 PM)Cattle Rustler Wrote:  

The chinese are far from commies, they're more capitalistic than the US......they learned about the free market from the US and were able to beat us at our own game.

If anything, americans are more commy than chinese with their "buy american" "support america" crap.

Not to dogpile you CR but I disagree.

The line, "The Chinese are more capitalistic than us," or, "they beat us at our own game," is a bunch of capitalist apologist nonsense.

Take a look at this global competitiveness report.

USA is ranked #7 and China #29.

Has the US rank dropped over the last decade? Yes.

Has the Chinese rank gone up from the days of Mao and the rice paddy fields? Definitely.

China is nowhere near mastering or leading world capitalism and the US continues to a shining example of capitalism -- for better or for worse.

I'd just like to point out: One of the reasons for China's growth has been command economy policies in certain sectors. For example, awarding contracts to Chinese companies or subsidizing their own automotive and green energy sectors has proved to be sound investment strategies. It wasn't long ago that rural Chinese were walking most everywhere and now we see Cheri trying to export their automobiles to the US. Initial trade barriers allowed their business to flourish and removing the trade barriers is allowing them to become internationally competitive.

An example of US command economy would be bailout and favoritism of big banks and Detroit automotive industry. Additionally, gov't aids large corporations such as Boeing by spying on competitors and passing along the trade secrets. The administration recently vehemently denied such action that was regarded as something so underhanded only countries such as China would engage in. That's proof enough for me that that is indeed what is happening. I have also seen credible news reports to corroborate that and would be happy to link to that.

[Brosemite]

(01-27-2014 10:51 PM)Cattle Rustler Wrote:  

(01-26-2014 08:16 PM)teh_skeeze Wrote:  

(01-26-2014 06:14 PM)Cattle Rustler Wrote:  

If anything, americans are more commy than chinese with their "buy american" "support america" crap.

Since when is wanting to have the goods your purchase produced in your country "commy"? It's that kind of bullshit that has sent this country down the toilet.

I guess the WWII generation were a bunch of commies by your assertion. The van I drive right now was purchased by my grandfather in 1999. He had to be talked out of taking it back because it was made in Winsdor, ON.

Nationalism =/= Communism. It's the multinational capitalists throwing their countrymen under the bus to make a buck that turned the current generation of kids into a bunch of pussy socialists.

I was using that as an example of improper word/phrase usage. The Chinese are only communist in paper but in reality they are far from it.

Then again, authoritative countries often run the "buy (from your country" campaigns.

Buying domestically only in a more globalized economy that has evolved substantially since the WWII era is something that would limit growth along with consumers having to pay much more for products/services than they're actually worth. With interest & demand in foreign cars, many of these companies are now providing employment & career opportunities to Americans with manufacturing plants being added in the US.

Look at Brazil for example. They tax the hell out of imports with the intention of making their people buy locally. Last time I checked though, Brazilian manufacturing doesn't have the diversity & output to satisfy the wants & needs of their people.

[RexImperator]

However capitalism =/= free trade and low tariffs (although that is the prevailing ethos today) since you could have "capitalism in one country." Arguably the U.S.A. had a more capitalist system in the 19th century compared to today but it also had high tariffs to promote the growth of domestic industries. This was the more Hamiltonian vision (state intervenes in economy in order to promote business) which prevailed over the Jeffersonian one.

[Maciano]

China's rise is simply the biggest story of post-war global economy.

What happens there, matters. A lot.

[porscheguy]

There's nothing capitalistic about free trade. And statements like "China is our second largest trading partner" are vague and misleading.

Free trade only works when when all parties adhere to the same rules. Our various free trade agreements with other nations don't always stipulate that both parties act in a similar fashion. You can buy a Hyundai or Kia in just about any medium size town in the US. How often will you see a Ford Taurus driving down the road in Korea? Not nearly as often as you'll see a Hyundai Genesis on your commute in the US. (and don't try to deflect the argument by saying the Genesis is made in the US, you can switch the Genesis for any other example that is made in Korea and still have the same result.) Why is that? It's because our erstwhile free trade agreements allow others to dump their shit here, but they still have massive restrictions when it comes to us selling our goods over there. Free trade as practiced in the US has great short term benefits I suppose, but over the long haul, it only benefits outsiders and those at the very top of the food chain.

Capitalism would favor FAIR trade.

As for our second largest trading partner. They send over container ships filled with consumer goods. We unload those consumer goods and essentially fill those container ships with cash, and even worse, raw materials for the production of finished goods, and send them back to China. Again, this is great for the short term bottom line, but not sustainable over the long term.