*I too read a wide range and have had access to many economic documents, forecasts and briefs in my previous line of work.*

Ah Pelican, but that is not going to teach you to know about the nuts
and bolts of the global economy and how it interlinks with politics.
Perhaps reading some intelligent stuff, like the Economist
occasionally, would brighten up your economic skills a bit,
rather then all just coloured ideology.

People like Bill Gates, Richard Branson and others are subscribers.
In fact its readership is made up of the highest income people
on the planet. Like it or not, these are not fools. I've never
come across anything with a higher standard of journalism.

They say what they think, but often just present data and both sides
of a situation. Just today I was reading about a couple of their
correspondants travels. One went to live with illegal Mexicans
in the US and described their world. Another went to India, to spend
time living in an Indian village, amongst the poorest. Their
reports were fascinating.

This is great journalism, warts and all. Far more enlightening
then the rants that you have so far suggested and its global.

btw, Pericles reads the Economist. So you would not be in
bad company to stretch your reading in that direction.

But suit yourself. I've given up long ago on stubborn horses
that won't drink. I just let then stay thirsty :)

Have a happy New Year by the way!

Yabby I too have read the Economist and am already in great company with yoursefl and Pericles. The department I previously worked for subscribed to many different magazines and newspapers being heavily policy oriented. I dont' read it now.

However, reading something does not make it right - that is what you are suggesting. I am only recommending you extend your reading, mine is already wide and varied but I only recommend (as is natural) that which I think you would not have selected already from the bookshelves. There would be no point in me recommending The Economist to you or anything that is fundamentalist pro-free trade/globalisation. I would assume you have already read it.

As I said read it or don't, no problems at all. Try John Ralston Saul first - he is my preferred read on this subject. 'Voltaire's Bastards' is a bit of a hard slog but worth the effort but 'The Unconcsious Civilisation' is a keeper.

*However, reading something does not make it right - that is what you are suggesting.*

No Pelican, what I am arguing is that no matter what your philosophy,
you cannot argue with the evidence. Fact is that trade and increased
global trade has dragged hundreds of millions around the globe
out of poverty. Now you might not care, with your secure income,
living in the richest city in Australia, but I assure you that
those hundreds of millions do care.

When you've argued against free trade in the past, you've presented
a mumbo jumbo of points, confusing political decisions made by
the EU, USA, etc, with basic economic ones.

If you want to understand economics and how trade benefits people
and makes the majority better off, you need to pull the whole thing
apart, like pulling a car engine apart in little pieces, to understand
how the whole thing works. Judging by your posts, I doubt very
much if you have that kind of understanding. The Economist, if you
bothered to learn, could explain it to you. The evidence is
all out there in hard data.

As it happens, I don't just read the Economist. I read heaps of
stuff, written by heaps of people. Many of them are in fact
philosophers like Saul is, but many of those same people, just
like you, don't understand those basic mechanisms. So I make
a harsh critic, easily picking their writing to bits.

Now you can argue that hundreds of millions should not be better
off, you can argue that we are wrecking the planet, you can argue
whatever you want. My argument will be that if we are going to
solve these problems, created by humanity, it will happen through
human innovation and human innovation only happens when you give
the maximum number of people a chance to innovate to their potential.
For that you need market economics, not Govt commitees.

You seemingly have blind faith in Govt to solve everything. The
track record of Govt shows, this is clearly not the case. Nobody
wastes money like Govts do.

*It is therefore something of a disappointment to finally reach the end of this book and discover that he has very little in the way of practical solutions to offer for our current troubles. When I asked him about this in an interview, he replied, "I'm not in the business of suggesting solutions. I don't belong to the Platonic tradition, I belong to the Socratic tradition."*

Hehe Pelican, this came from here:

http://www.scottlondon.com/reviews/saul.html

I loved his answer, he has no answers. Clearly this guy knows
how to sell books!

Yabby when you read the book I would be interested in YOUR views (although we both know what they will be) ;).

You will find positive and negative book reviews about everyone. Not sure what your point is there. Anyone from a Michael Moore to a Milton Friedman receives various feedback.

If you don't want to dip into Ellis try Saul. Ellis's views about the inherent problems in Capitalism (that without any regulation) hit the spot in my opinion and we know the solutions already. They are not in dispute there only exists disagreement over the balance between private and public control.

You are wrong Yabby IMO - about free trade-globalisation but I can understand your adherence to the code given it is now truly embedded in our cultural economic thinking. The Economist is good for repeating the mantra of whatever is the flavour of the month.

The tide is turning. While some people in developing worlds have been lifted out of poverty even if it is only cyclical many have been dragged down by the effects of FT.

Have you ever asked yourself why the Capitalist West has to borrow money from a Communist country like China. Have a little think (outside your usual square) about that one. How has it happened that a democratic capitalist nations have to now borrow from a so despised Command Ecomomy like China.

I am not advocating Command Economies by any means I am all for a mixed economy. I neither think private enterprise can supply everything nor governments but I do think some things are best left in public ownership for the greater good. The system should work for us not against us.

I don't think everything should be controlled by a central government but rampant capitalism needs to be reigned in by regulation that ensures it works for the people not the other way around with the current system benefitting overall mainly small vested groups. FT and globalisation are all part of that package.

As I said read it or don't - up to you.

*You will find positive and negative book reviews about everyone. Not sure what your point is there*

Pelican, if you were to see my collection of books, you would be
quite amazed at the variety. Virtually no novels lol, but a
collection that covers neuroscience, primatology, evolutionary
psychology, genetics, twin studies, all the way to agriculture and cooking.

With today's information overload, before I spend the time to read
a 600 page book, I find out a little about the author and the best
way to do that, is to read what his critics have to say about him
or her. Everyone has critics, but what the critics say matters and
often reveals a great deal.

I spent some time yesterday, reading up a bit about Mr Saul,
from Wicki to his critics. His famous Harpars article was pay only, so
I was not about to subscribe for one article.

Yes, he has been given much acclaim, but he comes across to me like
one of those modern philosophy gurus. From the old Bagwahn-Osho
to Deepak Chopra, millions preach their virtues, but few are critical.

Saul is critical of ever increasing specialisation, but in a world
of the ever increasing knowledge mountain, ever increasing
specialisation is a direct outcome and it has to be that way, for
the amount of information that a single human brain can handle,
remains limited.

Saul admits himself to having no answers. Well yes, its easy to
ask questions and be critical, but having answers that might work,
is what its all about in the end. The rest is wah wah.

Nobody is suggesting that we need no regulation. Its all about
balance. But going back to high tariffs, as some are suggesting,
would indeed be foolish and would send us into banana republic state,
as our standard of living dropped dramatically.

tbc