« Randomness in decision-making | Main | Osborne's spending paradox »

March 26, 2014

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

pablopatito

According to that Daily Mail link, the solution is Noel Edmonds. I find that more concerning.

Luis Enrique

you can discuss fiscal policy as a "neutral", although you will be bound to say things some disagree with, and bound to say things that have some resonance with party politics (appearing to side with one party). I think the same goes for you questions that can be discussed independently* of party politics. It would be hard to say much about secular stagnation or the rise of robots without treading on some political toes.

I think economics reporting is party-politically sensitive. Even if you try to confine yourself to reporting facts, absent any analysis, there's still the choice of facts to report.

* typo there, by the way

Jim M.

Hi Chris... pls feel free to delete this.

Typo alert: I think you meant otiose talk about fiscal policy, unless you're secretly a fan of this guy! (which I doubt, but who knows?)

https://www.triplejunearthed.com/artist/otious

rogerh

Well, interest groups have press officers who have to justify their existence - so whining from professional whiners is just part of the scenery. Snog, marry or avoid according to taste.

Generally I thought journalists had a leftish tendency, even in the FT, but outfits like the Mail seem to be an exception. I should think senior Tories (and Labour ones) would do well to regard their own whiners as yappy little dogs who risk revealing the real nature of party politics.

Thenewcomer.wordpress.com

"I can, mostly, hide my Marxism;" LOL LOL- so true that we see ourselves as through a crystal...

Mark

You may have more in common with IC readers than you think. Look at the comments boxes on the websites or IC and other magazines aimed at individual investors and you'll see huge cynicism about the capture of wealth that should fall to shareholders by senior executives.

Marxism dates back to a time when 'capital' meant monarchs, aristos and bowler-hatted industrialists. Today it means anyone with a private sector pension (ie not the privileged few with public sector ones, subsidised by the taxes of the less well paid, less well pensioned, who work in the private sector). They are nothing like as powerful as in Marx' day, because there are many more of them and the wealth of capital is therefore much more dissipated.

Paul McMc

@Mark

"not the privileged few with public sector ones, subsidised by the taxes of the less well paid, less well pensioned, who work in the private sector"

Not sure what that snide, uncalled-for gripe is about. Sure, there are a few fat cats at the top of the public sector (mostly in Whitehall), but this blanket dig at the alleged perks of all people who work for the government is the kind of ignorant guff I thought we'd seen the last of when the latest round of redundancies, wage freezes and pension cuts went through.

I work in the public sector (in science), earn considerably less than the average wage and pay a (recently increased) contribution towards my pension, a pension that, thanks to recent financially unnecessary cuts, won't pay out much more than the state pension does when I retire after 30-odd years' service (presuming my job still exists at that point).

It'd almost be worth the hassle of the cuts if it meant we never had to listen to braying morons like Mark and his received, Telegraph-reader opinions on 'gold-plated' public sector workers again.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Why S&M?

Blog powered by Typepad