I actually have been reading Forbes on a regular basis. This was because, I had noted a greater sense of depth and thoughtfulness that one might expect (or I had expected/seen in the past) from a magazine that chronicles the world’s mega-rich. I also like some of the technology reporting.
Yet I think what is often the case is that we only glimpse a small part of the reality and we often wrongly assume a pattern or shift when it is just an imaginary blip. I started following the online edition of Forbes recently because its still free and had some interesting content about technology as well as social commentary which I would not have expected to find in traditional versions of the publication. Most recently I had begun to see a tilt back towards the more conventional Forbes mentality. That is this idea of being a magazine to promote hedonism, materialism and a definition of the American Dream that revolves around the power addiction needs of the super rich.
Below is my comment to the article in Forbes titled: Bipartisanship Is Great For Politicians But Gridlock Is Better For The American People
“My thinking is that Forbes is struggling to find its intellectual way and to put this kind of “intellectual” content on here is a sign of that. I felt like it was reflecting a shift in thinking where the obvious implications of the dangers of too much wealth concentrated among the ruling class becomes self-evident even to the more thoughtful members of the Ruling Class. Basically the article rehashed the same old weak economic argument that always lacked the reality of being actually proven to work in the real world. In that way, it really reflected the worst assumptions made about the economics class itself – that it talks about abstract theories of how the world works. Economists are taught to think that economics is the center of the universe and they become isolated from the whole or a holistic view of how society. An example of the tendency is to see the planetary Ecology and/or Ecosystems – which we rely on to sustain our economy – as a free and infinite resource. While reference is made to the “ruling elites” in Washington, I see these kind of people who seem to parrot the same uncritical supply views almost in unison as robots who seem not able to ask questions or to look critically at our capitalist dominated society. And to consider bias and delusion in how a society dominated by wealth and power might seek to distort reality so as to affirm the author’s very predictable and intellectually stale point of view. Need I say more?”