Even if you don't agree with The Economist, you have to admire its talent for making an argument. It's one of the few voices of reason in the global media circus; its coverage is always insightful and nearly always balanced; and, having read it, you come away with a much better understanding of the issues.
As usual the Economist says little with a lot of words. This particular piece is a shallow recitation of campaign impressions with zero actual policy analysis. You don't learn anything by reading it.
"Our main doubts about Mr Obama have to do with the damage a muddle-headed Democratic Congress might try to do to the economy. Despite the protectionist rhetoric that still sometimes seeps into his speeches, Mr Obama would not sponsor a China-bashing bill. But what happens if one appears out of Congress? Worryingly, he has a poor record of defying his party’s baronies, especially the unions. His advisers insist that Mr Obama is too clever to usher in a new age of over-regulation, that he will stop such nonsense getting out of Congress, that he is a political chameleon who would move to the centre in Washington. But the risk remains that on economic matters the centre that Mr Obama moves to would be that of his party, not that of the country as a whole."
Here's hoping the Republicans keep 41 seats in the Senate, or else the economy restrains the Democrats from doing too much damage in their likely unopposed 2 years in power.
Here's hoping the Republicans get the message, abandon the illiberal religious BS, and we can have proper debates about what sort of role the government should have in the economy. Yeah, right:-/
"This journal does not have a vote, and does not claim any particular standing from which to instruct those who do. But if it did, it would cast its vote for Barack Obama."
Would any other respected British publications like to chime in?
Nice that the Economist is endorsing Obama, but the major problem I see with him is that he wants to make alternative Energy the cornerstone of the American economic revitalisation.
I think that's wrong. Energy independence is a fine issue, but I believe that the new government should pay as much interest to the real advances in science that are coming.
The internet has opened up a new frontier for science. Not the little toys that allow you locate your friends on your mobile phones, but the more fundamental changes - milions of people can work on the same thing at the same time, knowledge can be available to everyone at no cost, communication can happen globally without any problem, and hardware is cheap and fast.
What this means is that humanity is about to make a new intellectual leap forward. It's not there yet because the tools are not yet available that actually allow it work efficiently, but facebook and future generations of such connectivity tools will make it possible.
When these methods are applied to biology or robotics, the combined intellectual avility of human beings made lead to some type of exponential effect that will finally allow us create things that we cannot dream of yet.
We are standing on the chasm of the unknown. We should be forging forward, looking for new things, not focusing on that that we know.
It's an adventure like the adventure of first flight. Governments should recognize this, and they should focus on non-commercial research that will take us to where we could be.
Wikipedia et al. work because they can be divided into a bunch of little orthogonal fiefdoms for a bunch of internet tinpot dictators. It's accretion, not collaboration. You can't crowd-source a rocket to the moon.
It doesn't seem to me that most people want to be informed or knowledgeable. While the Internet has made information and knowledge much more accessible it has helped in another area much more: rampant, mindless consumerism.
While I don't care to debate Obama's policies in this forum I would like to point out that advances in battery technology will help with both the foreign energy issue and many of the technological issues you mention. There is also the issue of powering the countless servers that are used.
I think we can see additional funding to primary research atop of what's focused on energy.
I also think that the focus for alternative energy as a primary mission will really alleviate the traditional hurdle of infrastructure or critical mass requirements: instead of just dropping the technology as before, people will start considering them seriously.
OTOH, I'm a huge optimist and fan of this candidate, so take everything I say with a huge grain of salt. :-)
Alternative energy gets you votes. Ethanol especially.
And I don't think a marginal few $ billion from Washington will do much good in this area. If it did, we'd all be driving around in the Hydrogen powered cars that Bush and Clinton lavished such unimaginable sums on.
It's time for Conservative America to clean house. Where did it go wrong? Entrepreneurs and startup enthusiasts should be falling over themselves to vote Republican. Speaking from the outside, it looks to me like the Republicans are on the verge of losing a generation of its strongest natural supporters.
Unless a political story is big enough to affect hackers, or related to things hackers care about. Tim O'Reilly endorsing Obama seems safely in the territory of hacker news. The Economist is closer to the borderline, but arguably ok as the newsmagazine whose articles appear most here.
I suspect it's really more political debating on HN that's an issue. It's so close to the election most of us are likely looking at political news in another tab, anyways.
It is easy to keep experts around and say things which people want to hear. May be Obama is doing that.
It takes guts to say what you believe in like McCain has done on certain issues.
That shows McCain will do what he is speaking currently once he gets in power, if Obama is just speaking what his experts tell him to there are lot of chances he might not do what he is currently telling, the reason he gets elected.
> What, besides free trade and free markets, does The Economist believe in? "It is to the Radicals that The Economist still likes to think of itself as belonging. The extreme centre is the paper's historical position." That is as true today as when Crowther said it in 1955. The Economist considers itself the enemy of privilege, pomposity and predictability. It has backed conservatives such as Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. It has supported the Americans in Vietnam. But it has also endorsed Harold Wilson and Bill Clinton, and espoused a variety of liberal causes: opposing capital punishment from its earliest days, while favouring penal reform and decolonisation, as well as—more recently—gun control and gay marriage.
Hmmm... The Economist is a UK magazine, isn't it? There is a suggestion that another UK publication - The Guardian - helped win the election for GW four years ago when it asked its readers to write to American voters in swing states pleading with them not to re-elect Bush. If I recall correctly, many recipients were angry at this perceived interference in US affairs (from the former Colonial Masters, of all people!) and this may have persuaded them to vote Bush although initially they were wavering.
Look, if you're going to diss Obama, do it with facts. Don't link to bullshit claims that have all been disproven. It's people like you who fuck things up for the rest of us. You're a shitty piece of scum. And yes, I think my saying that on HN is appropriate: you're pushing known lies on the rest of us. (Comparing Obama to Hitler? Honestly? That is, if you did indeed link to the correct comment, which I'll repost and debunk below.)
American turning it self into a third world country,
I'd suggest you look up what exactly a third-world country is.
By Electing a man "Barack Obama" who straight out supporting KNowN Terrorist, this is just a Fact now
No he hasn't.
Los Angeles Times has a video of Barack obama supporting a torrorist and toasting him, on Video
Not quite, no.
To many facts there, THe left wing like Pelosi and many other Or trying to stop this tape from getting out,
No, they haven't. If you mean Bill Ayers, Obama has addressed this matter specifically. He's hiding nothing.
If it was Hillary or JOhn McCain, you can rest assure this tape would already be out, But more facts MSM is suppressing this video,
The video that has been on every news network? MSNBC had a story specifically about this.
Like so many third world Dictators in other country, Who control the Media, CNN, MSnbc , los angeles times, New york times, So many other Medias
Yet... when people write good things about McCain, that's considered free speech? What?
WHo trying to elect a Man who supports Terrorist,
Barack Obama,
Still no.
No one calling Barack a terrorist, but he sure does support them,
No he doesn't.
His Track record is sure proving this, ,, Rev Wright, Ayers, Rezko Barack Obama sure love surrounding his self with Crminals,
Despite the Ayers claims being thoroughly debunked? Or the Rezko incident being entirely minimal? Or do you mean Wright, who Obama not only denounced but whom - in my opinion - actually made a good set of points in his speech?
Hitler started out this way, Going after the simple Young crowd, to elect them,,then after he is elected its to late, the country in turmoil, and lost, History has proven this,
Every politician uses the same tactics. Lincoln did this. Washington did this. Sometimes people elected in times of crisis do good things.
Why do you think Barack Obama created his own Seal,
You mean the seal of Ohio, which looks like an O?
Why do you think he is trying to make this country a Socialist country,
By supporting the same progressive taxes McCain is on the record as supporting?
ALL the signs are there, Bias Media, criminal as friend,
Huh. Sounds a lot like McCain and Fox.
the man has no real agenda
The man with a 200-page documented agenda? Or McCain, whose entire site is becoming an Anti-Obama site with nothing Pro-McCain on record?
and for the simple fact, Barack Obama has his Own News Station, to get the lies out there,, THat News Station is Msnbc, Followed by CNN, the 2 most bias News media stations,
Hmm. I remember an article saying Fox was the "most bias News."
by next year after Obama is elected, American will be in a Depression there will be food line, TO SHARE THE WEALTH, SURE SOUND LIKE RUSSIA TO ME, DONT THIS SOUND VERY FAMILIAR!!!!!
Sounds kind of like FDR, the man who helped push America back in shape. I mean, Bush caused this depression.
But enough argument. You're not looking for argument. You're looking for Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. You are scum. You are below awful. You're the man that makes the world worse. Flagged, and I'll be ashamed if you're still allowed to comment on this site after pulling shit like this.
[+] [-] doodyhead|17 years ago|reply
For anyone who appreciates good writing, their Style Guide is invaluable: http://www.economist.com/research/styleguide/
[+] [-] kingkongrevenge|17 years ago|reply
As usual the Economist says little with a lot of words. This particular piece is a shallow recitation of campaign impressions with zero actual policy analysis. You don't learn anything by reading it.
[+] [-] Prrometheus|17 years ago|reply
Here's hoping the Republicans keep 41 seats in the Senate, or else the economy restrains the Democrats from doing too much damage in their likely unopposed 2 years in power.
[+] [-] davidw|17 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dhbradshaw|17 years ago|reply
"This journal does not have a vote, and does not claim any particular standing from which to instruct those who do. But if it did, it would cast its vote for Barack Obama."
Would any other respected British publications like to chime in?
[+] [-] markessien|17 years ago|reply
I think that's wrong. Energy independence is a fine issue, but I believe that the new government should pay as much interest to the real advances in science that are coming.
The internet has opened up a new frontier for science. Not the little toys that allow you locate your friends on your mobile phones, but the more fundamental changes - milions of people can work on the same thing at the same time, knowledge can be available to everyone at no cost, communication can happen globally without any problem, and hardware is cheap and fast.
What this means is that humanity is about to make a new intellectual leap forward. It's not there yet because the tools are not yet available that actually allow it work efficiently, but facebook and future generations of such connectivity tools will make it possible.
When these methods are applied to biology or robotics, the combined intellectual avility of human beings made lead to some type of exponential effect that will finally allow us create things that we cannot dream of yet.
We are standing on the chasm of the unknown. We should be forging forward, looking for new things, not focusing on that that we know.
It's an adventure like the adventure of first flight. Governments should recognize this, and they should focus on non-commercial research that will take us to where we could be.
[+] [-] prospero|17 years ago|reply
[+] [-] anthonyrubin|17 years ago|reply
While I don't care to debate Obama's policies in this forum I would like to point out that advances in battery technology will help with both the foreign energy issue and many of the technological issues you mention. There is also the issue of powering the countless servers that are used.
[+] [-] lallysingh|17 years ago|reply
I also think that the focus for alternative energy as a primary mission will really alleviate the traditional hurdle of infrastructure or critical mass requirements: instead of just dropping the technology as before, people will start considering them seriously.
OTOH, I'm a huge optimist and fan of this candidate, so take everything I say with a huge grain of salt. :-)
[+] [-] Prrometheus|17 years ago|reply
And I don't think a marginal few $ billion from Washington will do much good in this area. If it did, we'd all be driving around in the Hydrogen powered cars that Bush and Clinton lavished such unimaginable sums on.
[+] [-] mlinsey|17 years ago|reply
Until I read that I had no idea that "vim" was defined as such: vim -noun lively or energetic spirit; enthusiasm; vitality
[+] [-] mseebach|17 years ago|reply
[+] [-] raganwald|17 years ago|reply
http://www.unilever.ca/ourbrands/homecare/vim.asp
It's time for Conservative America to clean house. Where did it go wrong? Entrepreneurs and startup enthusiasts should be falling over themselves to vote Republican. Speaking from the outside, it looks to me like the Republicans are on the verge of losing a generation of its strongest natural supporters.
[+] [-] axod|17 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|17 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] comatose_kid|17 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mixmax|17 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pg|17 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lallysingh|17 years ago|reply
[+] [-] davidw|17 years ago|reply
If you can't beat them, join them, I guess:
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=349139
[+] [-] rms|17 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Xichekolas|17 years ago|reply
That pretty much sums up why I ended up voting for Obama. McCain of 2008 != McCain of 2000, and the Presidential race was the lesser for it.
[+] [-] functionoid|17 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kuniklo|17 years ago|reply
[+] [-] khangtoh|17 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Mistone|17 years ago|reply
[+] [-] davidw|17 years ago|reply
http://www.economist.com/help/DisplayHelp.cfm?folder=663377#...
[+] [-] theoneill|17 years ago|reply
What they really are is liberal in the original 19th century sense of the word. I.e. Whigs.
[+] [-] rms|17 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mellow|17 years ago|reply
[+] [-] functionoid|17 years ago|reply
http://radar.oreilly.com/2008/10/why-i-support-barack-obama....
[+] [-] unalone|17 years ago|reply
American turning it self into a third world country, I'd suggest you look up what exactly a third-world country is.
By Electing a man "Barack Obama" who straight out supporting KNowN Terrorist, this is just a Fact now No he hasn't.
Los Angeles Times has a video of Barack obama supporting a torrorist and toasting him, on Video Not quite, no.
To many facts there, THe left wing like Pelosi and many other Or trying to stop this tape from getting out, No, they haven't. If you mean Bill Ayers, Obama has addressed this matter specifically. He's hiding nothing.
If it was Hillary or JOhn McCain, you can rest assure this tape would already be out, But more facts MSM is suppressing this video, The video that has been on every news network? MSNBC had a story specifically about this.
Like so many third world Dictators in other country, Who control the Media, CNN, MSnbc , los angeles times, New york times, So many other Medias Yet... when people write good things about McCain, that's considered free speech? What?
WHo trying to elect a Man who supports Terrorist, Barack Obama, Still no.
No one calling Barack a terrorist, but he sure does support them, No he doesn't.
His Track record is sure proving this, ,, Rev Wright, Ayers, Rezko Barack Obama sure love surrounding his self with Crminals, Despite the Ayers claims being thoroughly debunked? Or the Rezko incident being entirely minimal? Or do you mean Wright, who Obama not only denounced but whom - in my opinion - actually made a good set of points in his speech?
Hitler started out this way, Going after the simple Young crowd, to elect them,,then after he is elected its to late, the country in turmoil, and lost, History has proven this, Every politician uses the same tactics. Lincoln did this. Washington did this. Sometimes people elected in times of crisis do good things.
Why do you think Barack Obama created his own Seal, You mean the seal of Ohio, which looks like an O?
Why do you think he is trying to make this country a Socialist country, By supporting the same progressive taxes McCain is on the record as supporting?
ALL the signs are there, Bias Media, criminal as friend, Huh. Sounds a lot like McCain and Fox.
the man has no real agenda The man with a 200-page documented agenda? Or McCain, whose entire site is becoming an Anti-Obama site with nothing Pro-McCain on record?
and for the simple fact, Barack Obama has his Own News Station, to get the lies out there,, THat News Station is Msnbc, Followed by CNN, the 2 most bias News media stations, Hmm. I remember an article saying Fox was the "most bias News."
by next year after Obama is elected, American will be in a Depression there will be food line, TO SHARE THE WEALTH, SURE SOUND LIKE RUSSIA TO ME, DONT THIS SOUND VERY FAMILIAR!!!!!
Sounds kind of like FDR, the man who helped push America back in shape. I mean, Bush caused this depression.
But enough argument. You're not looking for argument. You're looking for Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. You are scum. You are below awful. You're the man that makes the world worse. Flagged, and I'll be ashamed if you're still allowed to comment on this site after pulling shit like this.
[+] [-] unknown|17 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unalone|17 years ago|reply