4 ms·
I have found WSJ to carry one-sided articles with little factual basis quite frequently, actually. Such travesties as: Perfect market theory, Chicago School/ d
by twhitmore 6y ago
I have found WSJ to carry one-sided articles with little factual basis quite frequently, actually.
Such travesties as: Perfect market theory, Chicago School/ dry economics, ignoring the negative effects of monopolies/ short-term extractive capitalism.
I know they used to be "reputable" but. Today large parts of America are a crumbling trashcan. Where is their acknowledgement of this problem, and how capitalism should solve it?
I would recommend The Economist as a factually-based business & economics subscription.
- sneeze-slayer 6y agoI can second The Economist. I find that they also have a pro-business/free market stance, but at least I find that they have reasonable and factual reporting, which I sometimes find lacking with the WSJ.
- ardy42 6y ago> I can second The Economist. I find that they also have a pro-business/free market stance... To put it lightly. That stance defines it: https://www.newstatesman.com/culture/books/2019/11/how-economist-shaped-liberal-mind https://www.newstatesman.com/culture/books/2019/11/how-econo...
- alteria 6y agoThanks for sharing, fascinating read.