A letter to the Economist
Sir,
As you well know, it would be best by far if you could simply stop making your silly, ugly magazine.
Just as a gunshot victim often feels only the heat of the bullet or nothing at all, accepting the “Economist’s Worldview” CAN leave one with vaguely warm thoughts. . . dizzily smug thoughts even. But as you well know, this puny, delusional warm-feeling that you peddle, has a huge horrible anti-particle at the center.
What is the Economist’s Worldview? A recent issue of yours puts it-“If anything can be said to unite the varied thinking of economists, it is that they tend to think that the things that people want can be accounted for in terms of dollars and cents.”. A simple sentence can be used to say exactly the same thing — “Everything is for sale.” Or alternately, “The money-changers may, at their option, eat your babies, so get used to it.” I quite understand your desire to use a long silly phrase instead.
This is a very ugly worldview, and to put oneself underneath of it is to make oneself either ugly or gunshot.
People who already know themselves to be ugly can slip into the EW with ease. People who know themselves to be beautiful need a bullet through their brains to get the EW vibe. A real-world glut of known uglies and suicidal beauties explains your current “success”.
In the next 2 paragraphs, just for you English uglies, I will use the words of celebrated men, from the highest social classes who agree with me. Go ahead and skip down, as you well know, this will be easy.. . . . . -Marcus Aurelius (Roman Emperor 161–180, known as the last of the “good” emperors) from MEDITATIONS II 13, ”Nothing is more wretched than the man who travels about everywhere, and pries into things beneath the earth, as the Poet says, and strives to conjecture the thoughts of his neighbors, without perceiving that it is enough to attend to that which is superlative within himself, and to reverence it sincerely.” . . . .
OOOOh but our mathematical models of Econometrics are so sophistickated!! Formulated by rarefied genius! They make such a warm-feeling ring around the bullet-hole! Oscar Wilde trumps this nonsense with — “Beauty is above genius because it needs no explanation”. I trump it by pointing out that the air is transparent, yet we cannot say what the weather will be tomorrow. How to see through the murky wants of men then?
While championing the clear ugliness of the EW, your magazine endlessly prompts the reader to do what only a known ugly ever does. This is to put a replacement fantasy world (in this case money and profits) at the center of their being. Investors “feel the pain” of low dividends, workers are “cut” and the financially impotent face “limited growth”.
Illustrating the cheapness of this replacement world is simple. Put a living beautiful person at the center, a person free of restraint, and the concepts of “interest”, “risk” and “credit rating” are wholesome and vibrant. But in the “Economic” world of dead numbers and dead presidents, a beautiful person is not even a concept. Your replacement fantasy world is a degradation, and the shame of yourself and all similar boot-lickers.
Again and again you show cartoon portrayals of your namesake “Economists” as weak-bodied, myopic bald men (uglies). Their briefcases bulge with the virility that they lack, and often shield them from attacks. As you well know, it would be best by far if such sad confessions found no audience.
On top of all of this, devoting so much space to war and military matters clearly shows that your magazine SOOOOO wishes that it were SOLDIER OF FORTUNE. Have you ever even Kissed a girl?
Dear friend, run your clocks backwards. Back to before you pulled the trigger, you ARE beautiful! What more could you want?
Warmest Personal Regards,
Edward Escandón
Theman@angryloser.com