6 ms·

The one thing I like about The Economist is that it in a world in which everything is clearly left or right leaning, The Economist has a diversity of opinions t

• jawarner 10y ago
  The Economist is diverse across red and blue lines. That said it does publish from a unified worldview. From my perspective it's libertarian.
• randomsearch 10y ago
  As an economist subscriber, I would say that it does not present a diversity of opinions at all. It presents a unified world view based on libertarianism. I read a nice satire once that pointed out that according to the economist there is no problem that couldn't be solved without lower taxation, more deregulation, and more free trade. I love the economist, but If you want balance, you'll need to read alternative sources that provide a more (dare I say it) compassionate viewpoint.
  • deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  • ACow_Adonis 10y ago
    Also as an economist subscriber :P, I agree that its not really a diversity of opinions. Its never going to write a pro-brexit article, for example, nor ask for less trade/protectionism. But I would hesitate to call it a libertarian perspective. Its a very "traditional+behavioural" (I do not have a better word) economics point of view. Its "pro free-trade", and generally socially liberal, and sure, it argues against various taxes, but I believe it called out house price bubbles pre-2008, and I think it would generally be in support of environmental regulation (it is not global warming/environmentally skeptic), some kinds of financial regulation, and probably pro-socialised health care. Coming from a european persepctive (as in, the economist is a distinctly european/british magazine), its probably a fair bit more skeptical of american capitalism and libertarianism than might otherwise be assumed.
    • wcummings 10y ago
      >But I would hesitate to call it a libertarian perspective Yeah, there are plenty of examples of The Economist advocating for regulation, the most obvious being gun control in America.
      • zigzigzag 10y ago
        It's fair to say, I think, that the Economist represents the distillation of much globalist/elite thinking.
        • FabHK 10y ago
          Possibly a bit ahead of it. I think they were more critical of austerity than the global "elite" consensus (and a bit closer to the actual economists' majority opinion).
    • spangry 10y ago
      I'd argue the Economist generally doesn't stray too far from the neoclassical synthesis (i.e. what most would generally call 'mainstream' or 'textbook' economics). Just a small aside: if someone is sceptical that climate change is occurring, logically that should not indicate how they view environmental regulation in general (in cases where they agree some environmental harm is occurring). I realise this might not always be the case in reality. If someone tells you they don't believe climate change is occurring because they oppose environmental regulations, it's a pretty good indication that they're full of it.
      • baddox 10y ago
        I think most people who would say they "don't believe climate change is occurring because they oppose environmental regulations" doesn't actually mean that exactly. They probably mean that they don't trust the scientists who make claims about climate change because they believe that the scientists are politically motivated to push for more environmental regulations.
    • FabHK 10y ago
  • reqres 10y ago
    This is wrong. Either: 1) You don't know what libertarianism is 2) You don't read the economist very closely 3) You meant liberalism Given you think that the economist dogmatically believes in less tax, regulation and trade barriers, it seems more likely you don't actually read the newspaper very closely. Take healthcare in US for instance. The economist consistently favours more government intervention and higher taxation with a single payer health system. Just taking one example from the current Europe editor (I think): http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/09/health-care-reform http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/09/he... > In fact, government intervention is often necessary in order to bring comprehensibility to a bewildering private landscape.
    • notahacker 10y ago
      Yeah. The Economist is pretty squarely located in the [British] political centre
      • vostok 10y ago
        I was going to say that it's center right, but Brexit has made me realize that Britain's center is more to the right than I realized.
        • coldtea 10y ago
          It's just that the "left" has abandoned its traditional place (supporting the Brexit) and sided with the large neoliberal elites in favor of their preferred bureaucracy that is the EU.
    • randomsearch 10y ago
      Sorry, that should have been "neoliberalism", but it is true that the economist is also libertarian to a great extent. Yes, I do think the economist is dogmatic. If you think it isn't, you probably don't read very widely.
      • FabHK 10y ago
  • closeparen 10y ago
    The Economist is largely in support of regulation to fight climate change, attributes some countries' economic woes to their governments being too weak (rather than too strong), supports a social safety net including retraining for workers affected by trade, thinks austerity in parts of Europe has gone too far, etc. They're also frequent critics of central banking policy, from the viewpoint that central banks should take certain actions in certain circumstances. They've written approvingly of QE, for example. Their viewpoint reminds me of my economics professor. What is good is what leads to the most economic growth, which is a question the science of economics can address. Welfare has a role. Regulation has a role. Monetary policy has a role. Education has a role. Healthcare has a role (people may remain in situations of suboptimal productivity to maintain health coverage). All can be done poorly, but all must be done well to have optimal productivity. Principles like comparative advantage and supply and demand are largely reliable, and should guide policy. The market will get most things right, and for the rest, government should manage the externalities. Government can have good reasons to impede business, but the benefits should be in line with the costs. It is the Economist, after all. Free trade being a good idea is uncontroversial among academic economists. So yeah, you aren't going to see them in favor of protectionism. You will see them represent a wider diversity of opinions on monetary policy, in accordance with its not being so much of a settled question. They support a much larger role for the state than the "personal responsibility"-thumping, climate-change-denying Republicans in Congress, and are certainly far left of the you're-not-the-boss-of-me Bitcoin-thumping internet libertarians.
    • jonnathanson 10y ago
      "thinks austerity in parts of Europe has gone too far, etc." This is significant editorial change of heart. The Economist was a loud, regular voice in favor of austerity policies for many years. That it has written critically of austerity programs in 2016-17 is great, but it's something of a Damascene conversion for the paper.
      • zigzigzag 10y ago
        They changed editor. Micklethwaite stepped down and he was replaced by Zanny Minton Beddoes, who apparently has rather different political views ...
  • emn13 10y ago
    I honestly don't understand how anyone that actually reads the economist can agree with the satire "according to the economist there is no problem that couldn't be solved without lower taxation, more deregulation, and more free trade". Lowering taxation in particular doesn't seem to be on the agenda much at all; in fact they've run several pieces arguing for more taxation (the argument being that tax is relatively efficient) instead of alternatives. Similarly, they regularly advocate for (some) regulation too - but that doesn't mean they don't also make the argument that many regulations are ineffective or costly. Even on the topic of free trade, they occasionally point out the risks of uncontrolled trade; although they clearly favor free trade. Sure; their viewpoint has a focus; you'll get a different story elsewhere. But I don't see this as a kind of adversarial "us" vs. "them" issue: it's not that they're misleading you or even avoiding confronting other sides of the story; it's just that the world is a large place: not all topics can be in scope, even if several viewpoints are valid and partially in conflict with one another. You present the unified world view a little as if the focus on (e.g.) free trade is a bias that can be misleading; I suggest the alternative metaphor: it's more like the dentist reminding you to brush your teeth. You may not want to hear it, and he's a like a broken record, and it's not going to tell you much about how to cook, but that doesn't mean the dentist is wrong or trying to hide the importance of cooking from you. If there's a preconceived notion underlying the economist, it seems to be that its worthwhile to think of benefits and costs to society overall, and not just to individuals. Whether that's right or wrong is largely a matter of ethics; I doubt we'll ever know what's "best". Obviously, no newspaper is perfect; they will misjudge some things, some time. But so will you and I. Do you know of an outfit that appears to be less biased?
  • jhbadger 10y ago
    Actually, the recent issue about Trump's presidency is actually quite critical of Trump's attempts to repeal environmental regulations. The Economist certainly likes free trade, but it seems to have a better grasp on the problems of externalities than the typical "the market will take care of the pollution problem" libertarian outlook.
  • mcculley 10y ago
    I'm a long time subscriber to The Economist. While the authors are very adamant that free markets are the best solution to most problems, I don't think any of them would consider acceptable a system that didn't provide universal health care and free public education as the U.K. does. While some would consider them libertarian, others would call them socialist.
    • eru 9y ago
      The Economist could certainly live with Singapore's system---which is different from the UK one.
  • eru 9y ago
    Actually, they often ask for more taxation in developing or emerging countries.
• a_humean 10y ago
  As someone who reads The Economist occasionally, you are mistaken about this diversity of opinions idea, but I think I understand why you are mistaken. The Economist is very straightforwardly a British/European liberal (not in the American sense of "liberal") publication that is economically and socially liberal and strongly internationalist in its outlook. It will almost always recommend lower tax burdens, reduced business regulation, reduced trade barriers and membership of the EU, UN and NATO, privatisation of nationalised industries, and reduced moral policing by the state. However, it will admit, reflecting a British political consensus, that government intervention and regulation is invaluable in areas such as health, natural monopolies such as energy and transport, moderate levels of income redistribution through the tax system, social safety nets in the event of economic downturns or disability, or with national or international threats such as climate change were government coordination is indispensable. Sometimes they will admit that the power of the state is the only way to get things done, and so they aren't strictly dogmatic about their pro-market credentials, but if there is a viable path for leaving something alone they will advocate for it. If you are an American reader this combination of issues may seem to fall across a lot of political boundaries, and so its novelty makes it seem diverse. In fact, this combination is a fairly straightforward centre and centre-right view of policy in the UK and much of Europe. Edit: Some people seem to be suggesting The Economist is Libertarian. You are mistaken - it is liberal.
  • JCzynski 10y ago
    In the American political climate, the only people advocating something like traditional liberalism are the libertarians. And libertarianism is, roughly, exaggerated liberalism. I know personally I identified as a left-libertarian and then realized that classical liberal was a more legible way to express the same positions.
    • FabHK 10y ago
      The problem is that a lot of US libertarianism is Koch-brother-financed astroturfing for the right (such as the Institute for Humane Studies, etc.). So, I'd think that your left-libertarian position is somewhat rare, and most libertarianism is of the right variety. Classical liberalism is a much better term, in my view. And mind you, Milton Friedman himself advocated for government intervention in many cases (natural monopolies, externalities, maybe even asymmetric information, not sure).
• FabHK 10y ago
  Thanks for saying that. There is this prejudice that they're right leaning, but for fun I've pulled up their US presidential endorsements: 1988: None 1992: D - Bill Clinton (vs George Bush) 1996: R - Bob Dole (vs Bill Clinton) 2000: R - George W. Bush (vs Al Gore) 2004: D - John Kerry (vs George W. Bush) 2008: D - Barack Obama (vs McCain) 2012: D - Barack Obama (vs Mitt Romney) 2016: D - Hilary Clinton (vs Donald) They have fairly progressive opinions on health care, climate, government regulation in general, civil rights, drugs, prostitution, etc. Yes, market friendly, sure, but well aware of the limitations of markets and the importance of good regulation - you bet.