And many FReeps like this rag.
Posted on 01/11/2005 5:40:52 AM PST by FreeMarket1
Jan 11, 2005 - FreeMarketNews.com
by staff reports
Edited by David H. Smith, Newsbriefs Correspondent
ECONOMIST MAGAZINE SHOWS TRUE COLORS
FreeMarketNews.Com, Jan. 11, 2005 – The Economist Magazine is at it again. The magazine that many incorrectly associate with free-markets and entrepreneurialism has released another analysis of an international social, political and cultural trend that ducks the hard questions and predictably proposes more government as a solution.
Even a cursory read of the Economist will find many of its articles focus not on entrepreneurialism but on governmental issues and policies, from big countries to small, with nary a question as to whether government is truly effective in its sphere as arbiter of the private sector.
After reading some issues of the Economist, one puts aside the magazine with the feeling that the writers and editors never met an up-and-coming-bureaucrat lacking in “vitality” and “charisma,” nor analyzed a government scandal without allowing that a new regime would provide the necessary prophylactic.
In “Meritocracy in America: Ever higher society, ever harder to ascend,” all of the The Economist’s most disingenuous qualities are on display.
The article purports to tackle the issue of whether or not the United States still is the land where one can, through the dint of discipline and hard work, ”move on up” to a better life. Though the United States has by no means become as rigid in its social structure as some countries in Europe, and are a world away from a caste-like society such as India’s, there are, according to the writers, reasons for concern.
The authors write that whereas “In Europe, majorities of people in every country except Britain, the Czech Republic and Slovakia believe that forces beyond their personal control determine their success. In America, only 32% take such a fatalistic view. But are they right? A growing body of evidence suggests that the meritocratic ideal is in trouble in America. Income inequality is growing to levels not seen since the Gilded Age, around the 1880’s. But social mobility is not increasing at anything like the same pace… The United States risks calcifying into a European-style class-based society.”
One piece of evidence advanced for this view is put forth by the Economic Policy Institute, a Washington think-tank. Their research, as reported by the Economist, leads them to conclude that during the past 20 years, up to 2000, the real income of households in the highest 20% of earners grew at nearly 10 times the rate of the lowest fifth. And looking at the top 1% of families, whereas in 1979, the average income was 133 times that of the bottom fifth, by 2000 the differential had risen to 189 times that of the bottom 20%.
Sounds reasonable, right? But even a cursory “Google” search of papers issued by the EPI reveals some fairly stark left-wing rhetoric as illustrated in this on-line essay by “Robert Scott, an international economist” at the Economic Policy Institute:
“Enforceable labor rights should be a crucial part of any trade agreements negotiated in the future [by the United States], to encourage workers to bargain collectively and, allow them to reap more of the benefits of globalization. Setting environmental standards, and providing support to poorer countries to help them comply with those standards, should also be a part of any future agreements.”
Thus it appears that the class analysis the Economist presents as a “problem” is brought to us by a “think tank” employing “economists” who believe in global unions for “workers” and Kyoto-type environmental accords.
Having framed the article’s premise through use of statistics provided by a left-wing think tank, the Economist proceeds to its analysis, pointing out that one disturbing trend in the United States is that the upper classes of American society are “perpetuating” themselves.
“America is increasingly looking like Imperial Britain, with dynastic ties proliferating, social circles interlocking, mechanisms of social exclusion strengthening and a gap widening between the people who make the decisions and shape the culture and the vast majority of ordinary working stiffs.”
To its credit, the Economist does cite America’s public schools as bearing some responsibility for the stratification of social classes - in that the school’s are doing a horrible job with poor children, thus polarizing educational advantages between those who attend bad inner city public schools and good private schools.
But then the magazine goes and spoils its free-market moment with the following astonishing paragraphs (well, not-so-astonishing for regular readers):
“One reason for [failing public schools] is government money. The main federal programme supporting poorer students is the Pell grant: 90% of such grants go to families with incomes below $41,000. But the federal government has been shifting resources from Pell grants to other forms of aid to higher education. Student loans are unrelated to family resources. Federal tax breaks for higher education benefit the rich. State subsidies for higher education benefit rich and poor alike. At the same time, colleges are increasingly using financial aid to attract talented students away from competitors rather than to help the poor.”
In other words, the failure of America’s public schools is at least in part due to a lessening of Pell grant money. Tell it to successful home-schooled children – urban and rural – who need neither Pell Grants nor expensive private schools to “succeed” at education.
“Another reason,” the Economist continues, “may be ‘affirmative action’—programmes designed to help members of racial minorities. These are increasingly used by elite universities, in the belief that race is a reasonable proxy for social disadvantage, which it may not be. Flawed as it may be, however, this kind of affirmative action is much less pernicious than another practised by many universities: “legacy preferences”, a programme for the children of alumni—as if privileged children were not already doing well enough out of the education system.
OK … “affirmative action” a government program is bad, but “legacy preferences” – choosing whom you want to attend your PRIVATE establishment is worse. This absurd conflation of public policy and private choice is truly remarkable for a major magazine.
The Economist is not through yet, however, and predictably – if improbably - ends by slamming the removal of the inheritance tax as one evidence of what has gone wrong with America:
“The Republicans, by getting rid of the inheritance tax, seem hell-bent on ignoring Teddy Roosevelt’s warnings about the dangers of a hereditary aristocracy. …”
It may well be that America circa 2000 is a more rigid and calcified society than ever before. But if so, it is more likely due to government programs in general than to a lack of the RIGHT government programs. Inflation, high taxes and regulations that stifle entrepreneurship are the normal culprits reducing upwards mobility. A freer society – not a society intent on tinkering with the massive, inert engine of regulation – is the cure.
Since the English currently have public schools, public health care and a massive, federal welfare system, you would think that English society would be nearly egalitarian by now. Yet this point seems to escape Economist writers who apparently lack an appreciation of irony but are filled to the brim with earnest class consciousness.
In the early 1970’s, Harry Browne, in a book entitled How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World, had this to say about the cost of what the government “gives” us:
“Most people agree that you can’t get something for nothing. And yet, I think they might also assume that what they get from the government doesn’t cost them anything. There’s always a price to pay, however............Full Article www.FreeMarketNews.com
The anti-American disinformation campaign by the British Economist magazine continues unabated.
But hey, what is new?
I stopped wasting money on the Economist long ago.
Advice everyone to do the same.
Its worse than useless.
****************
Makes sense to me.
The Economist is now as bad as BusinessWeak. A "business" publication staffed by J-school victims parroting their pinko profressors.
The Economist was always a British version of Time Magazine, and every bit as Marxist as Time Magazine has always been.
First, the Economist is pro big government, just read an issue. It is also pro no border trade, etc. WTO, which if anyone has checked is Big Government.
And many FReeps like this rag.
How sad that this once great magazine is now abandoning its economic classical liberalism. It has been sneering at social conservatism for a while now.
It is a Euro-Socialist house organ.
One rarely sees the Economist quoted in an important publication or essay. The question that one must ask when reading the Economist is: Which has the more dismal track record, its economic or political reporting?
I disagree. The Economist was and is written on a much higher level than Time. You'll have the type of in depth issue coverage, over multiple pages that you'll not see in Time.
"I disagree. The Economist was and is written on a much higher level than Time. You'll have the type of in depth issue coverage, over multiple pages that you'll not see in Time."
Being verbose and piling on the prose, in the British tradition, is not in itself constructive, nor is the Economist any different than Time Magazine if, in the end, their fundamental premises are the same, leading them both to the same Marxist worldview.
My ex-FIL was fairly level headed and tended to be conservative, especially on economic issues. Everyone once in awhile he would come up with some leftist, socialist position. I always wondered where he got these ideas - then while visiting them one time, I say a copy of The Economist" on his coffee table.
bookmark bump
This would have been the case if Kerry had been elected. Fortunately, the American people voted against this scenario.
Perhaps the Economist is right...
Yesterday, the "Free-est Economies" list was released and the USA dropped another couple of spots.
Tax and reg people to death and pretty soon one will have the results one expects.
EPI is, I believe, the AFL-CIO's economics policy arm. Regardless, it's far more useful to demonstrate the falsity of the argument than to smear the author/publisher.
Clearly, this author is opposed to the thesis of the Economist's article--but counter-polemic is not helpful.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.