Economist might not contain all the truth and nothing but the truth

I have been reading Economist since my first year in the university. It is also the only magazine where i look through all the articles in every issue. Although i really like the analysis and reporting there, i've started to wonder whether relying on one information source for most of my understanding on world affairs leaves me a bit narrow minded. So it was refreshing to read Fistful of Euros blogpost by Edward Hugh: "Bad Journalism at The Economist", where the author harshly criticizes the Economist for not taking into account the demography when analyzing the Eastern-European economies.
I am not sure i agree with E.Hugh's view on the importance of demographics in economic growth, but it is definitely worth while reading. So is an article in Claus Vistesen blog, which is mostly on Lithuania.
There is a remarkable comment at the end of the Claus's blogpost:

A theme that I have been thinking about lately is the idea that young
college graduates from North America might be attracted to European
cities such as the Baltic capitals as places where they could apply
their skills and knowledge at relatively low risk. The appeal of living
in a historic foreign city undergoing dramatic change I think would be
strong. The cost of living compared to New York, London, or Berlin
would make the Baltics attractive as well.

As you note, a policy
of encouraging immigration seems very advisable for the Baltics, and I
think that a program to raise awareness in the US, particularly at
colleges and universities, regarding themselves would serve these
countries well.

This an intriguing idea indeed. Really, why shouldnt "positively transforming" Estonia promote itself as a good place for young well educated people to come and carry out their ideas. That could really help us to grow to higher level of productivity in the goods we produce and services we sell.