The best piece of writing about the Economist you've ever read is a piece by an author who admits that "until last week, I had not read The Economist since high school"? This is the author whose opinion on the Economist you trust?
I haven’t read the piece, but if someone makes a well-reasoned argument, it doesn’t matter who they are or what credentials they hold.
It’s equally as meek a counter-argument as, “trust me because I hold degrees in this topic.” Good. Then it should be easy for you to make a well-reasoned argument.
> I haven’t read the piece, but if someone makes a well-reasoned argument, it doesn’t matter who they are or what credentials they hold.
I strongly disagree. Well reasoned means nothing if it is not based on anything real except own imagination. And it means nothing if it was not checked against reality.
Our tendency to favor "sounds plausible and logical" even when the person writing it never bothered to check reality is just yet another logical fallacy.
The author has discovered that The Economist is pro-market.
As someone who is a Yale educated leftist and believes that markets do not work Robinson is upset.
Meanwhile, when employers of his own magazine wanted it to become a worker owned socialist cooperative he got them to resign. Socialism for thee, not for me.
