Asymmetrical Information

Concur with the previous commenter. It's good to know who's saying what. Glad to hear you're blogging more frequently again...I feel like a dehydrated prospector finally finding an oasis.

Yes, names please! (Even if it is only a "nom de blog")

And since you were kind enough to introduce us to your friends, can you tell us a little about them?

9-2 says this: "The economics blogging has proceeded so swimmingly that we've decided to put up a new blog for your delectation: Democracy in America, which will cover American politics in the run up to next week's midterm elections . . . and of course, the aftermath. It is, I say not at all modestly, every bit as good as this blog, if not better . . . and should be your go-to source for analysis of this important election. What are you waiting for? Go there now!"

is from the hand of MM/JG.

Agreed -- consider the experience of TAPPED. Not identifying the authors of posts proved very unpopular.

And what can we get from this new liberal media blog that we can't get from other, domestic liberal media?

Yawn.

From Democracy in America:

The Economist’s advice for the mid-term elections is this: throw the Republicans out. blah blah blah

Apparently the Economist hasn't yet learned that we feisty Amurricans don't like to be told how to vote by a bunch of Eurotrash. Or anyone outside our country. Or a magazine, fer Cripes sakes. (That's Cheeses Cripes, son of Gosh. LOL)

I posted a comment showing my particular options and my particular choice in my particular congressional district. All politics is local. But I just registered so it will take up to 24 hours for my comment to appear.

Remember Englishers sending letters to Ohioans in 2004 begging them to vote for Kerry to save civilization? Highly resented by Ohioans.

Still...I'll read the economist blogs until I decide I like them or not. Thanks for the announcement of this and the recent expansion of the availability of content on the economist website.

Also, in Itunes, you can subscribe to Economist podcasts. I've done that.

Congratulations!
I won't repeat everyone else's request for bylines, for reasons we've already discussed. But it does seem incongruous to refuse to identify post authors while simultaneously allowing the use of the first-person singular, right?

There was a comment in one of the other threads about how home burglary is very common in Europe, with no enforcement or even concern... kind of like car theft in New York City. Personally, I find both disgusting.

Great new blog. But, but, but, and another but: Names. Please.

Find the elixir that allows the Economist surveys to be attributed by name, and sprinkle some of it on the blog too.

Megan, you were robbed? Where? How? By who?

This may be piling on, but I'd also like to back the motion for bylines on the blog posts. I know the Economist doesn't like bylines, but blogs are a much more interpersonal form of communications. If the Economist doesn't want to come across as a clueless Old Media dinosaur, they should make a byline exception for these blogs.

P.S. - Mike W and aaron seem to be blogging from seven-and-a-half hours in the future. What's up with that?

I think it's one of the best Economics blogs out there, seriously -- I love it, and I look forward to it loving me back -- if you do find stuff via my site, give me a little hat tip!

Congratulations!

And, yes, the blog entries need some sort of identifier other than "Economist NY".

I remember reading a critique of the Economist few years ago, observing its surging popularity in the late 90s among yuppie self-styled sophisticates. Something about how those types believe anything they read in those factoid-sprinkled Economist articles that always present themselves as inevitably the only possible correct view. I believe the author may have gone further and noted that the same arrogant bluff was likewise how a handful of smart young man ran the British empire, but maybe I am conflating separate writings.

O Jane, how great you could be if you stopped caring what Europeans and Upper West Siders think of you.

I remember reading a critique of the Economist few years ago, observing its surging popularity in the late 90s among yuppie self-styled sophisticates. Something about how those types believe anything they read in those factoid-sprinkled Economist articles that always present themselves as inevitably the only possible correct view. I believe the author may have gone further and noted that the same arrogant bluff was likewise how a handful of smart young man ran the British empire, but maybe I am conflating separate writings.

O Jane, how great you could be if you stopped caring what Europeans and Upper West Siders think of you.

I am actually in the present, but my post is time traveling (that's travelling to you, Megan), as I had the first post, then the tenth, and now it is around 19th. Curious. If Aaron whizzes by I'll let everyone know.

Another comment on the names request: The best thing about blogs (There are many good things, such as timeliness, the ability to post quick thoughts/comments about articles written by others, regulation of author by readers via comments) is that the bias of the author is (somewhat) known. When every post is by the economist.com and the tone changes without names... the large advantage over normal MSM is mostly gone.

> Remember Englishers sending letters to Ohioans in 2004 begging them to vote for Kerry to save civilization?

That was a fantastic idea. Please use it again in the future.

In fact, each Economist reader in the UK, nay, each Brit, should be encouraged to "adopt" 10-20 Americans and regularly send them political and personal instructions.

In fact, British citizens should be allowed to vote in US elections. The only real question is whether Americans should be allowed to vote in US elections.

No, I'm not joking.

It would be nice if their comment section actually worked. I tried to log in - I'm an Economist and Economist.com subscriber - and it took me to a blank page in both IE and Firefox 2.0.

And I wish _The Economist_ hadn't drank the global warming Kool-aid quite so deeply, to the point where those who question anything about it are regarded as moral lepers in the pay of Big Oil.

If not names, perhaps the geographic locality could be uniquely specified? Once there are multiple contributers from London, there could be postings from "The City", "Kensington", "Westminster", while those who join you from New York could be "Upper East Side", "Greenwich Village", "Wall Street", and "Flushing".

Or some other sort of unique pseudonym? The New Republic has done well with "TRB"

AT -- The critique you remember was by Andrew Sullivan, no less, in The New Republic. And it was pretty spot-on, as I recall.

I agree with the previous posters that the Economist ought to provide some way of identifying (or at least distinguishing) between posters. So far the content on the “Democracy in America” leads much to be desired. Although considering the lack of any factual or logical reasoning in the posts (to say nothing of the grievous errors) and generally snide tone, I can only hope that it will backfire much as the “adopt an Ohioan for Kerry” effort in 2004.

I've tried to get the new economist to accept my comments and despite the factg that I've subscribed to the Economists for over some 40 years it will not accept my comments. I do not know wht the problem is.

P.S. kentuckyliz the Economist is a newspaper, not a magazine. And I point this out to you despite the fact that I am a natitive Kentuckian and a UK graduate.

I recommend reading the comments to the post linking the blog over at Crooked Timber. Good for a laugh.

Well, guess it's time for a new addition to the 'favorites' list.

It was about time The Economist woke up to this ... well done. I also want to note that (the excellent!) Buttonwood is now out of his/her misery slumbering away in that quasi-blog/column format and has now gotten a place in the print edition.

I would have liked Buttonwood to become a blog as well but now The Economist has at least made a decision and created a real blog.

I am going to second the suggestions made by others ...

Names please

and ... that commentary/registration thing is no good. You already have a decent commentary policy sectíon and you should be able to 'mod' your way out of problems based on that. If it gets too crazy you can always go back and force registration.

Haven't read anything yet, but one quick comment. You might want to consider identifying the author of each post.

Names...

I noticed that in the right sidebar, it has a feature - Blog of the Week. Guess who is listed?

Asymmetrical Information

;-) Work, it, grrl!

Jane: Great idea from your employer. Just checked the blogs for a nanosecond (9-5 responsibilities beckon) but will do so at greater length later. I want to dissent from the complaints about names, by the way: bylines would make the blogs less Economistesque. Lack of names doesn't really bother me. I'll assume "Economist NY" posts are likely written by you (plus, I think I can recognize your writing style anyway).

Jane, I sympathize with you getting robbed.

Hope you fared better than I did.

I hope you will come back to blogging economics here. I really dislike having to read a bunch of stuff I'm not interested in on their blog in order to get the stuff you write, and not having your writing sound like you and be signed by you...

Response to Steven : As a subscriber to the Economist who first read it 40 years ago, I wouldn't describe it as "liberal" in the sense now used in the US. I personally think it is closer to classic 19th century liberalism .
This is the first time I've visited this blog.

O Jane, how great you could be if you stopped caring what Europeans and Upper West Siders think of you.

Goodness, gracious AT, where would we all be if everyone stopped caring about what their social and moral betters thought of them?

The only real question is whether Americans should be allowed to vote in US elections.

Andy, you know the answer to that question...the majority of Americans are too racist, too ignorant of European sensibilities, too insular, too unaware of what the BBC says, to be allowed to vote. Clearly , voting in the US should only be done by people on the upper West side of Manhattan, certain parts of San Francisco, some parts of Beverly Hills, etc. and so on. I'm quite certain the editorial staff of the Economist would agree.

P.S. kentuckyliz the Economist is a newspaper, not a magazine. And I point this out to you despite the fact that I am a natitive Kentuckian and a UK graduate.

Thanks spencer, for the somewhat odd correction. The hard copy sure looks like a magazine. Dem uppity-smart Europeein's done outsmarted me agin!

I am not a "natitive" [sic] Kentuckian but a transplant. I grew up in Iowa and was educated (undergraduate and graduate school) at the University of Iowa...a far better institution than UK by all objective reckoning.

....the majority of Americans are too racist, too ignorant of European sensibilities, too insular, too unaware of what the BBC says, to be allowed to vote.

Oh, gosh golly darn! Dem uppity smart Europeans done outsmarted me agin! Here I was thinking the Economist editors were really out of touch with American voters and how our process works.

Since I don't live in any of those anointed districts, and I'm not Eurotrashy enough...silly me, I only live in the top energy producing area of the country, nothing sophisticated and important like Beverly Hills...I better not vote next Tuesday.

It might rain anyway. Look at the national weather map for next Tuesday. God loves Dubya.

Of course the Economist is a magazine and not a newspaper. Duh. The only time anybody ever refers to it as a newspaper is when it refers to itself as a newspaper, and its readers start scratching their heads 'cos it's blindingly obvious that it's not a newspaper, it's a magazine. If it were a newspaper, it would (a) be printed on newsprint, and (b) break news. If someone like Spencer thinks that the Economist is a newspaper, they're far too far in thrall to anything and everything the Economist says. It's a test to see how free-thinking you are: if the Economist says something obviously untrue, will you still believe it just because the Economist says it?

So I spent two bucks to download Andrew Sullivan's "London Fog" article from the June 14, 1999 issue of The New Republic. It's sad, really. He was a talented man before identity politics plus BDS made him completely daft. Anyway, here are my favorite fair-use quotes:

"a kind of Reader's Digest for the overclass"

"Beneath the shrewd blizzard of one-liners, Oxford Union ripostes, and snazzy graphs, the little secret of The Economist is that it actually contains less original reporting than any other newsmagazine, relies heavily on amateur stringers for write-ups of other news sources, and, when it comes to its vaunted analysis, has shown a remarkable capacity over the past couple of years to be demonstrably wrong."

On the U.S. news summary: " 'The fact that we're from the outside from a relatively unimportant country means we have an extra piece of credibility,' he explains. Rough translation: We're right because we're British."

And, of course, the perfect summary: "According to the magazine's media kit, Larry Ellison, the CEO of Oracle, has remarked: 'I used to think. Now I just read The Economist.'"

Jane, ya know I love you, but sorry, I just can't take the Democracy in America blog.

Kentuckyliz, how quaint that you actually have a connection to the Internet in such a remote location. When you moved from Iowa to Kentucky, did you have any problems crossing any rivers? Someone once told me that the Hudson isn't the biggest river in America, and although I find that hard to believe , she had flown to California several times and was sure she had seen some sort of waterway out there, somewhere, that looked pretty big.

You say that Kentucky is an energy producing area, that's remarkable, I didn't know there were oil wells there. Please tell us all more.

Of course you shouldn't vote, and neither should I, because we aren't located in Economist-approved precincts. I guess we'll just have to figure out what to do on our own, eh?

Just what we need: two more lefty British rags.

I can not get the new blog to accept my registration and allow me to comment.

Spencer, are you posting from the Upper West Side? Maybe your ISP is too "Red State" to deserve to post at the Eoconomoniacalist...

ellipsis, I've only lived downtown and on the Upper East Side. Should I bother trying to register?

"You say that Kentucky is an energy producing area, that's remarkable, I didn't know there were oil wells there. Please tell us all more."

Coal, NatGas, & Oil, for starters.

And, given this: "...I'll still be blogging all my non economic stuff here, so don't abandon me..."

This may be interesting to keep in mind:

http://www.alexadex.com/ad/index.py?page=url&url=janegalt.net

JG,

You obviously have a writing talent that people like to read, and an ability to engage them in topics, "Econ", for one, that they may, otherwise, find unappealling. How "The Economist" bolsters you brand or your reach, I'm not sure.

Kentuckyliz:

Ah, small world. I used to live in Kentucky (Fort Knox) and now I live in Iowa City. =)

Great comments on the American media. They do not believe the world to be round. New blogs look great.

"...plus all my super-smart, witty, and oh-so-very-British colleagues."

But I thought this was to be from the "Economist"?

AT asked:
ellipsis, I've only lived downtown and on the Upper East Side. Should I bother trying to register?

Dang, that's a hard one. On the one hand, you are deep in the "blue state" category, on the other hand...Upper East Side, hmm, I just don't know. I guess it's worth a try, it's not as if you're in Flatbush or Dallas...

Ou est Mlle Galt? J'attends la conte du "robbery".

"Great comments on the American media. They do not believe the world to be round. "

Well, opinions differ, it would be irresponsible to draw a conclusion.

Economists Are Destroying America

Economists, politicians, and executives from both parties have promised American families that “free” trade policies like NAFTA, CAFTA, and WTO/CHINA would accomplish three things:

• Increase wages
• Create trade surpluses (for the US)
• Reduce illegal immigration

Well, their trade policies have been in effect for about 15 years. Let’s review the results:

• Declining real wages for 80% of working Americans (while healthcare, education, and childcare costs skyrocket)
• A record-high 46 million Americans who don’t have health insurance (due in part to declining wages and benefits)
• Illegal immigration out of control
• Soaring trade deficits, much with countries that use slave and child labor
• Personal and national debt both out-of-control
• Global environments threatened by lax trade deal enforcement

Economists Keep Advocating Policies That Aren’t Working

Upon seeing incontrovertible evidence of these negative trade agreement results, economists continue with Pollyannish blather. Some say, “Cheer up! GDP is up and the stock market’s doing fine.” Others say, “Be patient. Stay the course. Free trade will raise all ships.”

Even those economists who acknowledge problems with trade agreements offer us only half-measures—adjusting exchange rates, improving safety nets, and providing better job retraining. None of these will close the wage gap in America—and economists know it.

Why Aren’t American Economists Shouting From Street Corners?

America needs trade deals that support American families and businesses in terms of wage, environmental, and intellectual property abuses. Why aren’t economists demanding renegotiation of our trade deals? There are three primary reasons:

• Economists are too beholden to corporations and special interests that provide them with research grants.
• Economists believe—but refuse to admit—that sacrificing the American middle class is necessary and appropriate to generate gains in third world economies.
• Economists refuse to admit they make mistakes.

Economic Ambulance Chasers

Now more than ever, Americans need their economists to speak truth and stand up to their big business clients. Instead, economists sound like lawyers caught chasing ambulances: they claim they’re “doing it for our benefit”.

I want to read it, but I can't without names.

Comments are Closed.