Reading the actual article instead of just the headline, here’s a summary of their arguments. There are multiple powder keg situations around the world that are either exploding or simmering. Iran and its proxies, Russia and Ukraine, China and Taiwan. They could all turn into an interconnected war at any moment. Yet markets, which supposedly factor in these possibilities, are still very high.
What this is not saying is that another world war would be secondary to investor yields. They make that explicit:
This scenario would of course place financial damage a long way down the list of horrors.
Yeah I’m not seeing the outrage on this one. It’s The Economist. They discuss the economy. If Animals Monthly did a piece on the conflict, I’d expect it to be pretty focused on the impact to animals, and I don’t think that means they’re minimizing the humanitarian aspects of the conflict.
I really want a prescription to Animals Monthly. That’s sounds fucking sick. I love animals. I love months.
Edit:don’t you dare correct me. This ain’t fucking Reddit.
Holy shit. I forgot all about zoo books. I’m 38. I remember those goddamn things and they were just as awesome in person as they were on the infomercials
Don’t confuse The Economist for dipshit right wingers in the US. They’re center-right Brits, which are their own breed. Not that I agree with them all the time, mind you.
Having had a subscription to it for a decade, I would say they’re hardcore neolibs, which would make them straight Rightwing (maybe even Hard Right) in an economic sense, though liberal when it comes to non-economic subjects since any true neoliberal couldn’t care less about things like people’s sexual orientation.
Even though the Overtoon Window in the UK is a lot more to the Right than it used to be and more than most of Continental Europe, it hasn’t lead to the kind of raging near-theocratic autoritarianism in the moral space that you see in the US (there is some of it but not anywhere as extreme: for example being anti-immigrant is common on the rightmost segment in the UK but being anti-LGBT is not) - the shift to the Right is mainly about how resources are distributed in society and the “moralism” angles you see more commonly are things like spreading the idea that the Poor are just lazy to justify reductions in the Social Safety Net and to further reinforce the idea that Wealth is the product of merit (which is quite funny given that the UK has the lowest Social Mobility in Europe, hence there wealth is mainly the product of luck of birth)
Reading the actual article instead of just the headline, here’s a summary of their arguments. There are multiple powder keg situations around the world that are either exploding or simmering. Iran and its proxies, Russia and Ukraine, China and Taiwan. They could all turn into an interconnected war at any moment. Yet markets, which supposedly factor in these possibilities, are still very high.
What this is not saying is that another world war would be secondary to investor yields. They make that explicit:
Yeah I’m not seeing the outrage on this one. It’s The Economist. They discuss the economy. If Animals Monthly did a piece on the conflict, I’d expect it to be pretty focused on the impact to animals, and I don’t think that means they’re minimizing the humanitarian aspects of the conflict.
The Economist is also known for attempts at “wit” in some of their headlines. The title is surely riding the line of satire intentionally.
I really want a prescription to Animals Monthly. That’s sounds fucking sick. I love animals. I love months. Edit:don’t you dare correct me. This ain’t fucking Reddit.
Zoobooks!
Holy shit. I forgot all about zoo books. I’m 38. I remember those goddamn things and they were just as awesome in person as they were on the infomercials
Eat three elephants and one snake daily. If you’re still getting stomachaches, call me.
I’d rather deal with my hemorrhoids than eat an elephant, you monster.
*subscription 🤓
Goddamnit!
😎
Pathetic. Where is the bootstraps, can do attitude? Risks are just opportunity with thorns! or in this case nuclear warheads.
Don’t confuse The Economist for dipshit right wingers in the US. They’re center-right Brits, which are their own breed. Not that I agree with them all the time, mind you.
Having had a subscription to it for a decade, I would say they’re hardcore neolibs, which would make them straight Rightwing (maybe even Hard Right) in an economic sense, though liberal when it comes to non-economic subjects since any true neoliberal couldn’t care less about things like people’s sexual orientation.
Even though the Overtoon Window in the UK is a lot more to the Right than it used to be and more than most of Continental Europe, it hasn’t lead to the kind of raging near-theocratic autoritarianism in the moral space that you see in the US (there is some of it but not anywhere as extreme: for example being anti-immigrant is common on the rightmost segment in the UK but being anti-LGBT is not) - the shift to the Right is mainly about how resources are distributed in society and the “moralism” angles you see more commonly are things like spreading the idea that the Poor are just lazy to justify reductions in the Social Safety Net and to further reinforce the idea that Wealth is the product of merit (which is quite funny given that the UK has the lowest Social Mobility in Europe, hence there wealth is mainly the product of luck of birth)