Books of 2023, as Chosen by The Economist
economist.com
economist.com
Wait, this is the social scientist who wrote The Skeptical Environmentalist, whom a Danish Science committee found to be "scientifically dishonest through misrepresentation of scientific facts, but Lomborg himself not guilty due to his lack of expertise in the fields in question." [1]
And now he's written a book about another topic he doesn't have a deep understanding of. Forgive me if I give it a miss.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bj%C3%B8rn_Lomborg#The_Skeptic...
"the Ministry annulled the DCSD decision, citing procedural errors, including lack of documentation of errors in the book, and asked the DCSD to re-examine the case. In March 2004, the DCSD formally decided not to act further"
However, i found the list of the books online:
https://www.yearendlists.com/2023/economist-the-best-books-o...
Do you use Cloudflare DNS? I recall archive.ph + Cloudflare don't play well together.
> PR people fear bloggers for the same reason readers like them. And that means there may be a struggle ahead. As this new kind of writing draws readers away from traditional media, we should be prepared for whatever PR mutates into to compensate. When I think how hard PR firms work to score press hits in the traditional media, I can't imagine they'll work any less hard to feed stories to bloggers, if they can figure out how.
This was written in April 2005. Turns out they figured out how, we call them influencers and firms pay them. Easy peasy. Also these mostly moved on social media instead of maintaining blogs.
I didn't agree with him on the copyright stuff (I loved Napster, pirate bay, sharing etc), but he was right on most of his points.
Seems like a claim that’s bordering on unfalsifiable…
But your argument is different from the OP’s. Their argument seems to be that the article is paid for by the publishing industry, while yours is that the newspaper in question has a political bent.
It turns out in a lot of christmas book lists - especially lists that solicit book recommendations from famous writers and journalists - are absolutely crammed with recommendations for their friends' books, their co-workers' books, their boss's wife's books, books by authors they share a literary agent or publisher with, and so on.
> A brilliant examination of South Korean feminists’ struggle for equality with global resonance. It describes how many South Koreans still see women only as cooks, cleaners and “baby-making machines” and tells tales of misogyny, from spycams in public toilets to bigots in public office.
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that this book probably isn't a great idea. The birth-rate in S.Korea is now, by far, the lowest in the World -- TFR 0.7 for the nation [1], and Seoul itself might be as low as a stunning 0.3 -- with many asserting that a "cold war" between traditionalist men and feminist women is the culprit.
Really seems to me that we might want cooler heads to prevail, and that promoting books demonizing Korean men and claiming that they see women as "baby making machines" (lmao) is a step in the wrong direction.
As such, it's probably best ignored, yeah. What's more, I think that, in a word, the most appropriate thing one can say about its publication and promotion is that it is unwise.
A wise book would probably strive to reconcile both viewpoints to the fullest extent of their compatibility, and seek commonalities rather than complaints. One should hope for détente, not more airing of grievances.
A lot of classical liberal values are going extremist. Way back when I was liberal I couldn't see it coming.
Now the two big movements within liberalism are pretty extremist: identity politics and feminism.
The weird thing about this list is although the economist is very liberal they have a book on there that is against identity politics that essentially against liberalism.
However, on the feminism side they still have a lot of books on the "patriarchy" and blaming and attacking men for traditional gender roles that dominated the anthropological landscape for eons.
It's not a coincidence that feminism is on the rise this century. It's almost a universal thing that crosses cultural lines... Unilaterally we see women in most 1st world counties gaining more power than they ever have before in human history. We would assume that culture evolves randomly so random cultures would have random perspectives on gender roles, but the fact that the rise of feminism is so universal among first world countries points to a single factor: technology. One book in that list is about the rise of females in outdoor sports. That book likely blames men for not allowing women to be in said sports (which plays a small role in the whole situation) while also likely doesn't mention how tampons basically are the main technological enabler that allowed women to even entertain the concept in the last century.
This divide among men and women does partly lead to the low birth rate you see not just in Korea. But internationally among all 1st world countries.
Thats simply untrue? Its one of the most balanced, centrist -- if opinionated -- news magazines.
However, they might not be liberal in the sense that the word has taken in the US in recent years.
Prior to women gaining power we would have no choice but to marry a man because marriage was coupled with survival. Women in general couldn't work and even in prehistoric times we couldn't hunt. Thus before feminism, someone like me had to settle for a man that was at my level. So overall this imbalance is better for us and worse for men.
> This is the story of one of the world’s greatest (but least famous) con artists. Ghana’s John Ackah Blay-Miezah bilked investors on several continents by promising he knew where lost gold was hidden. Exhaustive reporting by the author makes this a riveting addition to the canon on great swindlers.
is under the business?