On a serious note, here's a blog post on how morally lazy the Economist is. http://lukesmolinski.wordpress.com/2012/01/16/the-economist-incisive-and...

*sigh* And yes, I did write that letter.

The American based Professor Sethi refers to the British East India Company and then goes on to comment on its English traditions and values. We are currently living in extremely sensitive British political times. Don’t stir them. Look up the dates 1603 and 1707 in British history and please take care with future comment.

In reply to Peter G.

The Economist magazine did endorse Barack Obama in 2008. Just as it endorsed John Kerry (then the most collectivist Democrat in the United States Senate - Barack Obama having not yet been elected) in 2004.

Peter seems to be under the false impression that the Economist is free market, roll-back-government, publication (something it sometimes claims to be - but is not). Sadly his knowledge of the Economist magazine is as poor as his knowledge of the Republican Party.

Warren Harding (hardly a radical "right winger") cut Federal government spending by 25% - these days most Republicans just talk about reducing the rate of INCREASE in government spending (and people like Paul Ryan are called radical for wanting to reduce the rate of INCREASE in government spending). Barry Goldwater opposed the Welfare State root-and-branch, these days only Ron Paul talks in opposition to it (and even he would only try to fundementally change it over the longer term). In 1980 Ronald Reagan campaigned on getting rid of the Department of Education and the Department of Energy (and so on). These days most Republicans just talk about changing them in such-and-such ways.

"Drift to the right" - sadly no.

Is it churlish of me to point out that Belgium also created a massive slave camp in the Congo and ruthlessly exploited the Congolese for decades?

Relax, no-one's that bothered about it.

True, then again, the Congo was the Private Property of King Leopold II 1877 to 1908. It Became Belgian Congo in 1908; when conditions are said to have improved.

Actually Belgium was considered extreme at the time.

As no economist, but one who could never understand how a common interest rate could suit the north europeans and the "mediterraneans", when the north of Britain so often complained that British interest rates were set to benefit London and the Southeast, I have always believed the euro could not work. I could never see how a respected and interesting Journal like the Economist could not understand this.
Bill Impey
Brighton

ABOUT "THIS HOUSE BELIEVES THAT BRITAIN SHOULD LEAVE THE EU" JDANTAS : WE LIVE IN A GLOBAL WORLD. THIS PROCESS BEGINS SINCE MANKIND SURGED : CLANS, TRIBES, FIEFDOMS, CITIES AND COUNTRIES. SO IT'S NATURAL THAT NEXT PACE GOING ON WILL THE CONTINENTAL INTEGRATION. TO BREAK THIS CONTINUITY IS GO UPSTREAM. THIS AGGREGATION HAS HER ECONOMIC ASPECT. ON THE CONTRARY THIS PROCESS NEVER WOULD HAVE OCCURRED. IF BRITAIN OR ANY OTHER MEMBERS HAVE SOME UNSATISFACTION THIS ISN'T REASON TO GIVE UP THE COMMUNITY. BRITAIN OUGHT TO ADMINISTER THE SITUATION TO OVERCOME DISAGREEMENTS. A RUPTURE CAN BE HASTEN AND SOONER OR LATER BRITAIN COME BACK TO BECOME PART OF THE GROUP FORCED BY ECONOMIC INTERESTS. JOSÉ ANCHIETA DANTAS, BRAZIL - FORTALEZA ( CE ).

as was common practice of all colonial powers of the day

Shale gas extraction is not forbidden in France. What the French government banned is the current technology which contaminates too much. By the way French companies and others as well are investigating other fracturing technologies which would contaminate much less the environment.

Regarding Total, as far as I know it's not state owned and I don't think that the French government can dictate what Total do of their money outside of France.