Books of 2023, as Chosen by The Economist(economist.com)
economist.com
Books of 2023, as Chosen by The Economist
https://www.economist.com/culture/2023/12/01/the-best-books-of-2023-as-chosen-by-the-economist
42 comments
Did you read the rest of the link you provided? The committees decision was overturned:
"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"
"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"
Please go and check out the best albums they have chosen. Yes. Now you know how it feels to be an economist.
I can't access the article because I have failed the captcha several times.
However, i found the list of the books online:
https://www.yearendlists.com/2023/economist-the-best-books-o...
However, i found the list of the books online:
https://www.yearendlists.com/2023/economist-the-best-books-o...
>I can't access the article because I have failed the captcha several times.
Do you use Cloudflare DNS? I recall archive.ph + Cloudflare don't play well together.
Do you use Cloudflare DNS? I recall archive.ph + Cloudflare don't play well together.
I'm wondering whether this is a "submarine"[0] article.
[0] http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html
[0] http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html
Great article although I'm not sure this is the case for this book list
> 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.
> 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.
Andrew Keen wrote a book on this in 2007 called The Cult of the Amateur: How Today's Internet Is Killing Our Culture.
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.
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.
Readers of Private Eye regularly get to read about what the magazine calls "log rolling".
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.
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.
Are you suggesting all these books’ publishers or authors might have paid to be on the list? It’s such a vast and varied list that it seems like a bizarre conclusion. Or do you think they’re paid to raise awareness of books in general? Is The Economist in the pocket of Big Book?
Maybe the PR side is to keep book lists constantly in the news. Also not too sure about OP point.
Don't mean to speak on behalf of OP, but yes, no, yes, and yes.
So how would we distinguish a paid-for article about best books of 2023 from a non-paid one? Would we conclude everything is above board only if there’s no such article at all?
Seems like a claim that’s bordering on unfalsifiable…
Seems like a claim that’s bordering on unfalsifiable…
It's not varied. The economist has a political bent and the list has a bit of this too.
A pro-free market book but also a few critical of climate change and Big Tech; an anti-Evangelical but also an anti-woke one. Some critical of China but others critical of Japan and South Korea, etc. I’d argue that there’s at least an attempt to cover a variety of viewpoints.
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.
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.
yeah the political bent isn't a dealbreaker for me, they're not kidding about it, have what I'd call a painfully plain mainstream view on most things, and at least attempt to, most of the time, examine both sides of an issue before picking a side (which will obviously be the free market one). fairly deep looks with standard UK middlebrow takes
I don't understand on what you base this accusation / whataboutism. The Economist is widely considered a very balanced (though opinionated), high quality source of news and coverage. FWIW throughout its coverage it is very careful to disclose any potential conflict of interest, as also in the book list (for example where a recommended book is written by a current or former writer for the Economist or published by an affiliated company). For myself, and I guess many readers of HN, the Economist's annual book list is one of the best sources available for learning about new books. No wonder this made it to the front page.
great read, thanks for sharing
okasaki(2)
Am I the only one finding interesting that this
> 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?
> 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?
> Flowers of Fire. By Hawon Jung.
> 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.
[1] - https://m.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20231208000534
> 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.
[1] - https://m.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20231208000534
You're suggestion is to ignore the issues that cause the decline in birth rates?
This doesn't appear to be a sober outline of the causes, but a partisan book full of cherry-picked anecdotes. And even if it describes true trends, it does so only from one side.
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.
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.
Maybe if you treat them like people and helped with child care, they will make more babies.
The economist is known to have an extreme liberal bent. So a book like that is expected.
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.
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.
> The economist is known to have an extreme liberal bent. So a book like that is expected.
Thats simply untrue? Its one of the most balanced, centrist -- if opinionated -- news magazines.
Thats simply untrue? Its one of the most balanced, centrist -- if opinionated -- news magazines.
They've been liberal since they were founded.
They defend free-market economy, self determination of individuals, open societies, free global movement of capital, men and information.
However, they might not be liberal in the sense that the word has taken in the US in recent years.
However, they might not be liberal in the sense that the word has taken in the US in recent years.
No it's not. It's true. The economist is really liberal. It's readership is majority liberal at 59 percent. The rest are a combination of moderate and conservatives, I think conservatives are 18 percent.
In general with more power women are able to be more selective of their mates. By default women are hypergamous. They rather share an alpha male. This changes dating culture into hookup culture where thousands of young women hook up with a few top tier men. Coupled with birth control and disdain for polygamy it lowers the population overall as women seek polygamy, but culture doesn't allow it so they are sort of stuck in this hookup mode as there are "no good men" willing to settled down from their point of view.
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.
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.
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...