The disagreements between the Nobel laureate economist Daron Acemoglu and his opponents are consequential—and so are the opponents. But rather than engage in good faith with Acemoglu’s arguments, the venerable British news magazine recently stooped to bibulous calumny by unnamed critics of his work.
Relying on a high salary or a hot stock is a dangerous trap. Why the most secure people plan for sudden crisis.
Editor’s note: This is the first article in a five-part series in which Feroz Ansari is highlighting ideas from his book, The Wisdom and Wealth Solution. Feroz, CFP®, is a portfolio manager at Compak Asset Management and an adjunct professor at the University of California-Irvine. (The Wisdom and Wealth Solution is published by Kiplinger Books…
Quantum computing may seem like a technology of the distant future, but it’s rapidly becoming a reality. There are many pioneers in this space that are developing it toward what they hope will be a practical and useful technology, and IonQ (IONQ +8.02%) is among the best. IonQ stock is also trading well below its…
The United States is an overextended hegemon, and its decline will continue slowly, as other powers like China assume more global responsibilities. Against this backdrop, China’s efforts to lead the Global South are more about consolidating its power in the current international system than creating a new one that benefits all. PRETORIA—China often leans into…
Older adults could be scrambling for new health coverage next year, especially in rural markets that have fewer insurance choices.
TEL AVIV—By publishing a recent article smearing the Nobel laureate economist Daron Acemoglu, The Economist has demonstrated bad judgment, overweening arrogance, and bad faith. The magazine engages with Acemoglu’s academic work disingenuously, quoting the snarky comments of unnamed economists interviewed over drinks to support its argument that his influential research makes sweeping, unfounded claims. Acemoglu’s research linking institutions to long-run prosperity—the work that the Nobel committee honored two years ago—supposedly is little better than glib. And Acemoglu’s pessimism about AI and his preference for steering technological change through public policy rest on dubious assumptions and underestimate AI’s potential economic benefits.