5 ms·

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 rea

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
  Yes, true - not diversity of opinion, they speak "with one voice". But pragmatic and not partisan, say.
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 10y ago
  The Economist could certainly live with Singapore's system---which is different from the UK one.
eru 10y ago
Actually, they often ask for more taxation in developing or emerging countries.

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
Yes, true - not diversity of opinion, they speak "with one voice". But pragmatic and not partisan, say.

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 10y ago
The Economist could certainly live with Singapore's system---which is different from the UK one.

eru 10y ago

Actually, they often ask for more taxation in developing or emerging countries.