Liveblogging World War II: September 29, 1943
Felix Salmon: The JP Morgan apologists of CNBC: Noted

Simon Wren-Lewis: Austerity, Growth, and the Financial Times's Editorial Board Being Economical with the Truth: Noted

Simon Wren-Lewis: mainly macro: Austerity, growth and being economical with the truth:

Just imagine it. A leader in the New Scientist or Scientific American saying that politicians have won the climate change argument because of recent heavy snow. So why is that idea inconceivable, but a leader in the Financial Times saying that recent UK growth proves critics of austerity are wrong goes without comment? It has nothing to do with economists being divided about the wisdom of austerity: as I said, there are arguments on austerity that should be debated, but this is not one of them. It cannot be because austerity is so politicised, because climate change is also highly politicised. It cannot be excused by saying that leaders are just opinions: you do not expect opinions in serious newspapers to be based on deliberate misrepresentation. So what is going on here? Would anyone from the FT care to comment?

Note: The offending editorial was not by Chris Giles but by the FT Editorial Board. I apologize to Chris for the original, now deleted, headline...