Maybe Friedman and Allen can have a Point-Counterpoint on which group of people is dumber: women, or Americans? That debate might not be sophisticated enough for The Economist, but I hear the Washington Post is into that sort of thing these days.

I love the Economist. It is my favorite magazine. The problem is that it is way too expensive. If they lowered the price to $1 an issue, I would subscribe.

not Marketplace.

I think a more appropriate question is: are you smart enough NOT to enjoy the Economist? At least in their coverage of the former Soviet Union and Central and South Asia, the writing is often inaccurate, prone to stereotype and hyperbole, and internally inconsistent.

Then again, as you alluded, it is British.

huh huh huh huh huh...

Good thing we've been mindlessly following the Brits on all foreign policy decisions for the last 10 years.

Though I don't necessarily agree with Friedman's pejorative rhetoric about the U.S., I agree with the substance of his argument - that the Economist is the most erudite and worldly news weekly available in the U.S. these days. As previously strong weeklies like BusinessWeek eschew substance for style in a race to make themselves more and more irrelevant, the Economist is a refreshing alternative.

Well the Economist IS the best thing out there and their success is in no small measure based on the fact of the former British Empire and the fact that they advertise some great jobs....HR pornography for the international set. The problem isn't that Americans are too dumb for the Economist it's that we are too dumb for just about anything complex....Given the fact that we have gone from an inventive meritocracy to a 'feel good' house flipping culture it's not surprising that people would rather entertain than inform themselves....and America is not the laggard in all of this this. We, as always, are the vanguard. The problem, as Foucault has said "is not changing people's consciousnesses --- or what's in their head --- but the political, economic and institutional regime of the production of truth."

I've seen every Beavis and Butthead episode at least 15 times and subscribe to The Economist. One can't always be "on".

I agree with the respondent who says that the Economist is often laden with ethnocentricities and stereotypes, though I do find it very interesting and informative. I think Sp!ked magazine is the the Economist's younger, edgier counterpart.

Kognishun

The question should really be whether the United Kingdom circulation of The Economist is unfairly limited by Britain's shrinking English-speaking population. With a total population of 300 million, the U.S. circulation market for The Economist will be limited more by its inherent qualities than any failings of its intended audience.

Does Mr. Friedman manage the New York Times? It's that same mentality "our readership isn't good enough for us!" that is resulting in an imploding circulation.

Yes of course. This comes from the country whose best selling paper is News of the World. One of their current features is "Top 10 Celeb Boob Jobs".

Their analysis is not only cliched and unfounded, but truly nasty in derogatory insults to the countries that do not tow the neoliberal-neocon line, which only benefits the economic elites in the UK....

They couldn't pay me to read it, nor Friedman.

Don't change the Economist! It is one of the few magazines with substance and clear, concise writing. I look forward to reading it on a weekly basis and being informed on international affairs.

Half of The Economist circulation (total 1M/week) is in North America. Only 15% of the circ is in the UK. Sounds like they don't have to dumb down to be a success.

http://cominganarchy.com