From the article, wrt how the economist claims that decoupling is phoney because the underlying export by china in the process remains the same:
> Startlingly, however, The Economist provides no actual data to support this claim.
Ha! This was a reason I unsubscribed from the economist. A lot of times it makes broad claims and then leaves out the details to support said claim. Almost like it expects the reader to treat the economist like a first hand source and therefore no citation needed.
Good on the author for calling this out and then rebutting with details of their own (not necessarily supporting author’s claims though since I haven’t had time to really think about it just yet).
> This was a reason I unsubscribed from the economist. A lot of times it makes broad claims and then leaves out the details to support said claim. Almost like it expects the reader to treat the economist like a first hand source and therefore no citation needed.
This is kind of the point of The Economist; its intended audience is busy executives who are on board with its ideological bias and don’t care much about footnotes and citations. Sounds like it wasn’t the publication for you.
That’s really sad. And also logical especially when thinking of it from the perspective of it being a magazine. So definitely not the publication for me. I still want to be caught up on global news on a slow basis like reading an edition once a week. Any recommendations?
Of course the publication was founded to be an advocate for liberalism, and on a global level it still is - in a lot of countries it's one of the only independent English language publications that has any distribution at all.
But as an American, when it comes to anything relevant to my country, I've noticed that in the past few years any remaining social liberal edges have been sanded off and they've become predictably center-right.
> Startlingly, however, The Economist provides no actual data to support this claim.
Ha! This was a reason I unsubscribed from the economist. A lot of times it makes broad claims and then leaves out the details to support said claim. Almost like it expects the reader to treat the economist like a first hand source and therefore no citation needed.
Good on the author for calling this out and then rebutting with details of their own (not necessarily supporting author’s claims though since I haven’t had time to really think about it just yet).