I’m behind on my Economist reading, so only last night read this brilliant valedictory from Bill Emmott, who edited the magazine from 1993-2006.
-
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
PJD on Turning Points PJD on Turning Points Clinton McMurray on Turning Points ChrisPer on Turning Points Daniel Waldenström on Turning Points Archives
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
- August 2005
- July 2005
- June 2005
- May 2005
- April 2005
- March 2005
- February 2005
- January 2005
- December 2004
- November 2004
- October 2004
- September 2004
- August 2004
- July 2004
Categories
- Australian issues
- Australian Politics
- Behavioural Economics
- Blogging
- Book launch stuff
- Books
- Coming Events
- Current Affairs
- Development Economics
- Eclectic Observations
- Econometrics
- Economics & Public Policy Course
- Economics for Government Course
- Economics Generally
- Economics of Education
- Economics of Elections
- Economics of National Security
- Economics of the Family
- Election
- Environmental Economics
- Film
- Finance
- Food and Drink
- From the Frontiers
- Games
- Global issues
- Health economics
- Indigenous Policy
- Inequality
- Interesting stuff
- Iraq
- Jobs
- Labour Economics
- Law
- Low Wage Work
- Macroeconomics
- Media
- Prediction Markets
- Randomisation
- Religion
- Social Capital
- Sport
- Sports
- Tax
- Television
- Thinktanks
- Trade & Development
- Travel
- Uncategorized
- Universities
- Urban Economics
- US Politics
- Web/Tech
- Weblogs
- What I'm Reading
Meta
I wonder how many others at the Economist continue to share his view that they were right to support the invasion. Given the tone and content of their recent reporting on Iraq, I’d say not many. Except maybe for their guy in Washington who seems to get most of his editorial ideas from the wingnut blogmire.
It does interest me, though, this clinging to the belief that although the whole thing has been a fuck-up from start to finish, folks were still right to support it, because they couldn’t possibly have known. I would have thought that, at the very least, the fact that his sense of what was going to transpire was so obviously wrong that it calls for a little self-reflection about what information he might have missed that would have resulted in a more accurate understanding of events, and maybe a little concern that having been so wrong about what the consequences of this would be, he ought to be a little more cautious in the future about supporting ventures with potentially huge downsides.
Only a single person so exit not exeunt.
What Mork said. But on top of that, it was not only the warmongers’ known incompetence that should have rung massive warning bells – it was their flagrant mendacity. As Dsquared said in a memorable post, good ideas are not usually associated with lying like a rug about them.
As for the bit about “they should have done it properly” – ie massive mobilisation, a draft, repeal the tax cuts – that too is mendacious. If that had taken place there would have been no public support at all for this criminal venture. No, supporters of the war have to realise that the options were Bush’s war or no war, not some ideal of their imagination.
Am I bitter? You bet.