skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Last week I criticised the Economist's lack of coverage of postal strikes, the Royal Mail, etc. I take that back.
This week they have a leader calling for privatisation as the best way to take it forward. To respond to falling demand, private companies like TNT are better placed. I agree.
Saw this in my Economist which came on Tuesday, rather than Saturday. The Royal Mail - a right mess.
Privatisation is the best way to ensure that the public does not, instead, end up serving the post office.
Bang on.
My copy of the Economist hasn't come today. Not that I particularly like reading the Keynesian "consensus" and other rubbish (see climate change), but I suppose as far as economics journals go there's not much better. Shame that something that was founded in opposition to the Corn Laws doesn't seem to support free markets as much as it should.
It makes me wonder - a lot of my post has been sent via TNT (the logos on the envelopes and such) - so why doesn't the Economist do the same? I suppose it might still be praising the fiscal stimulus (that clearly hasn't worked anyway) to think about practical issues, like losing subscribers. In fact, looking online (since it's probably the best way to beat the strike), they haven't even got an article about the postal strikes. Will there be one next week, after the strike has taken hold a little?
What does the Economist really stand for at all?
Posts
