Daily chart: Our top stories of 2014 | The Economist

English: Logo for The Economist

English: Logo for The Economist (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The ten most popular articles from the Economist is a recommended read. Check it out!

via Daily chart: Our top stories of 2014 | The Economist.

It never ceases to amaze me, which articles are the most and least popular. In the case of the Economist, it has a global brand and a global market. There is a consistency to the quality of reporting, and a house-style, based on evidence and analysis – generally there’s a balanced argument, with different perspectives before reaching a conclusion. Another important factor is often the uniqueness of the perspective. Most of the time, the content is pitched at subscribers and advertisers, current and future.

However, in the last year, I have noted that the Economist titles or headlines lack a certain ‘wow’ or ‘must-read’ factor.


Opinion – Corporate settlements in the United States: The criminalisation of American business | The Economistinion – John Gelmini

Sketch of Gordon Brown, PM a day or two after ...

Sketch of Gordon Brown, PM a day or two after becoming UK Prime Minister. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 Dr Alf is right, the Economist is the defender of the indefensible.

This, in that it acts for the bankers,”masters of the universe” and those above them who created the banking and financial crisis and oversaw the removal of several trillions from the global financial system which were then laundered through 40 different tax havens and literally doubled the nett worth of a tiny plutocracy overnight.

We can see who some of these people are because of the real property and investments they have made but many still remain hidden because they have invested in gold, rare gems, fine art or even their own offshore banks.

In America, many of these people have been caught, tried, found guilty and imprisoned but even there, the really big fish are still at large.

Here the latter day “Robber Barons” walk about with impunity like the fiddling MPs, junketing BBC, NHS and quangocracy executives who get paid more money than ever for wasting taxpayers money, along with top civil service Mandarins, who are given performance bonuses for poor procurement at the MOD.

When the infrastructure company which used to run the London Underground imploded leaving losses of 0.5 billion gbp, the directors were not pursued for wrongful trading or surcharged, let alone investigated during the time of Gordon Brown who was then the Prime Minister.

The “Longbridge 4″ are now living in France, courtesy of the UK taxpayer, and are £44 million gbp wealthier. They too cannot be touched for legal reasons.

The directors of Equitable Life whose salespeople were involved in mis-selling were out of reach.

There are many other cases like this but to the Economist wealth no matter how it is obtained,somehow makes everything fine and as long as no court has convicted someone they hardly ever do), then everything is fine.

The rule seems to be, become a fat cat, fail, steal as much as possible, use a reputation management agency to clean up your image, bank your ill gotten gains, reinvest them into things that make you even more money, acquire more mistresses and live happily ever after.

The rules for everyone else get progressively harder until you become the lowest of the low, a benefit recipient. If you are one of those in my county (Hertfordshire) and you live within the area covered by North Herts District Council, you can expect to be pursued relentlessly if you owe more than £2000 gbp and you can expect to lose your council home and be tried, convicted and imprisoned.

If you are single and have come back from fighting in Afghanistan or are homeless you will be lucky if you are housed or rehoused even if you are maimed and have lost limbs and you may have to go to the newspapers to get any help at all.

The concept of equal treatment under the law has been a joke in this country for some time, yet publications like the Economist, in my view,  want to ingratiate themselves with plutocrats at the expense of everyone else.

John Gelmini