4 ms·

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 f

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.

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.