In the 1860s, The Economist stood nearly alone among liberal opinion in Britain in supporting the Confederacy against the Union, all in the name of access to cheap Southern “Blood Cotton” […] and fear of higher tariffs if the North triumphed. “The Economist was unusual,” writes an historian of English public opinion at the time; “Other journals still regarded slavery as a greater evil than restrictive trade practices.”
from https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/economist-has-slavery-problem/
Holy guacamole
Economist writers after age of 60 should be put in amazon fulfillment center, as a bit
Economist writers after age 18 should be put in a cage where we can throw things at them, as a bit.
stocks
stockadesJust toss them in a bottomless pit with a pair of bootstraps
so they can just laze about all day while we do the backbreaking labor of throwing things? fuck that.
we’ll put them in a well and have them throw rocks up so they fall back on their own heads. seems more efficient.
Or you could like develop a hobby or spend time with your family idk
HOBBIES!?!?! What are we, a bunch of browns? If you’re not working, we’re clearly in a 1984 communist dystopia! (No I’m not hiring btw).
The Junior Anti-Sex League
counts as a hobby right?
People working in physical labor jobs:
None of the young Oxford and Cambridge grads who write everything for The Economist have ever known someone who does manual labor for a living.
when your job isn’t a pit of despair sure, maybe you find it fulfilling and want to keep working rather than find other outlets in retirement, but capitalism ensures 99% of jobs won’t be like that and so everyone who can retire pretty much does
-
Never ever ever ever retire ever
-
The computers are going to take all your jobs
Which the fuck is it?
The computer wont take my thinktank job.
-
Even this hypothetical ignores that the human body runs into so many potential ailments in advanced age. Of course if you just kill everyone before that happens…
Is China’s Low Retirement Age Destroying Their Economy?
This whole article is such a target rich environment, but my brain really lodged on
the government rarely announces a goal that may not be attainable.
Imagine this being written about an American institution.
They mean that you, the person reading the article, should never retire. Economist writers definitely will not continue working, if you can even call writing for The Economist a job.
My job will probably leave me disabled before I can retire.
My father in law just got on disability after a life of construction absolutely destroyed his fucking body. Carpal tunnel like mad. Arthritis so bad you can see it on an x ray. No nerves left in his hands so he just randomly drops shit now. They’ve gotta fuse a bunch of the discs in his back. Cartilage is just gone from his knees. After seeing him for the first time in a decade, his doctor was baffled and asked him how he functions and he said he just ignores the pain. Personally I think the rampant drug use helps take the edge off but I’m no doctor. Retirement my ass.
Work sets you free
I’m not going to retire I’m going to eventually get injured at work and go on disability like all construction workers.
Here, then, is the problem with the magazine: readers are consistently given the impression, regardless of whether it is true, that unrestricted free market capitalism is a Thoroughly Good Thing, and that sensible and pragmatic British intellectuals have vouched for this position. The nuances are erased, reality is fudged, and The Economist helps its American readers pretend to have read books by telling them things that the books don’t actually say.
How The Economist Thinks | Current Affairs
If
were a whole articleThe bosses want to work us to death.
Does anyone proof read there tweets or does ai bot summate the article?
