Wednesday, February 03, 2010

Epically, Fantastically, Face-Palmingly Wrong

From The Economist, comes this lead para that speaks volumes — all of them scathing — about both the writer and the editor:
ALL men are created equal, or so reckoned Thomas Jefferson as he drafted America’s Declaration of Independence in 1776. Subsequent Americans have had reason to question the founding father. So too have people in the land from which the new nation gained its freedom. America and Britain are among the most unequal countries in the rich world ...
For this I am paying $100/year?

Ohhhh, that's what caveat emptor means.

10 Comments:

Blogger Peter Burnet said...

The new study, led by John Hills of the London School of Economics, found, for example, that the richest tenth of households received income more than four times that of the poorest tenth;

You must send this to Brit. He is collecting them.

As far as I can see, the left sees two major crises facing the West. The first is growing poverty and the second is environmental degradation brought on by exponential suburban expansion, second cars and massive, out-of-control conspicuous consumption.

February 04, 2010 2:43 AM  
Blogger Gaw said...

What a lazy non-sequitur and certainly not what you pay the Economist for.

February 04, 2010 3:19 AM  
Blogger David said...

Peter:

You say that as if those two points are contradictory, rather than pointing directly at their preferred solution: Poverty for all; Power for us.

February 04, 2010 6:03 AM  
Blogger Brit said...

the richest tenth of households received income more than four times that of the poorest tenth

Scandalous!

February 04, 2010 6:08 AM  
Blogger erp said...

Did the article say that 5% of taxpayers pay over 50% of the taxes and almost 50% of our fellows pay no taxes at all -- some of those who don't pay any taxes, get tax refunds (EIC) anyway! Is this a great country or what!

Parasites can't seem to understand that if we can't generate great wealth, Uncle Sap won't won't be able to pay them their allowances.

February 04, 2010 6:12 AM  
Blogger Peter Burnet said...

David:

So what's wrong with that? Don't tell me you are one of those fanatics who claims to believe in social mobility but then sets conditions on which direction it should take?

BTW, can anyone beat this excerpt for incoherence, pretentiousness, self-parody or just plain old-fashioned stupidity?

The goal of greater equality of outcomes also has its boosters. In “The Spirit Level”, epidemiologists Kate Pickett and Richard Wilkinson claim that more equal societies are healthier than unequal ones, as well as happier. Not all agree, but in a country where the National Health Service accounts for almost a fifth of public spending, it is worth considering.

February 04, 2010 7:24 AM  
Blogger Bret said...

Some day Hey Skipper will stop paying for such nonsense.

February 04, 2010 9:42 AM  
Blogger Hey Skipper said...

Gaw:

It is worse than a just a non-sequitor, although there is that too. The initial assertion could not have gotten the whole basis for liberal democracy more wrong: they used up all the wrongness there is on this subject in a couple sentences.

It is one thing to disagree with Jefferson, but another entirely to stand him on his head.

Bret:

I thought this was going to be the year I gave them the heave-ho, but decided on another chance.

February 04, 2010 12:28 PM  
Blogger Ali said...

It's a pity they don't have by-lines so you can tell whose work to avoid. The obit on Charlie Wilson was a thing of beauty that brought a (manly) tear to the eye.

http://www.economist.com/obituary/displayStory.cfm?story_id=15543398

February 27, 2010 2:50 PM  
Blogger Hey Skipper said...

The Economist obits are almost universally excellent.

The best obits I have ever read are all by British authors.

March 04, 2010 1:27 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home