4 ms·

I find it to slavishly neoliberal. I used to read The Economist, then in the build up to 2008 when according to them all the growth was actual real growth, the

I find it to slavishly neoliberal. I used to read The Economist, then in the build up to 2008 when according to them all the growth was actual real growth, the system was fine, and banks knew what they were doing. I no longer read it.

bryanlarsen 6y ago
I have the opposite experience. For example, they had a cover page article a about the global housing bubble in 2005. https://www.economist.com/special-report/2005/06/16/in-come-the-waves https://www.economist.com/special-report/2005/06/16/in-come-...
- amiga_500 6y ago
  It was crystal clear by 2005 that it was all going to pop. The analysis from a journal that purports to be about economics should have come in the build up to the crisis, not when the first huge cracks appear in the damn, having spent the prior decade shouting "put more water in".
- hogFeast 6y ago
  You can go back further. They were writing articles about this in 03 and 04. They aren't right about everything but they will publish stuff about high valuations, etc. Also, just generally, they aren't particularly "neoliberal" (I am not quite sure what that means but okay). Since the editor switch, there has been a massive, massive change in style (I have been reading since the early 2000s...Mickelthwait, the guy in the OP, was actually the best...he is a legend).
  - bryanlarsen 6y ago
    I think the Economist is pretty much the definition of neoliberal (in the old sense, before it acquired all the negative connotations). "Liberal goals, conservative means" is my over-simplified definition. A leftist would have the government build housing for the poor. A conservative would let the poor fend for themselves or rely on charity. A neo-liberal would tweak the rules so that market builds housing for the poor.
    - amiga_500 6y ago
      They are pro financialisation and pro rentier. Both require strong government intervention, but the profits are privatised.
      - bryanlarsen 6y ago
        I believe we're saying the same thing, right?
dredmorbius 6y ago
I find it to slavishly neoliberal. That (or in its older guise, free-trade principles) is literally a founding premise of the newspaper: PROSPECTUS: of a weekly paper, to be published every Saturday, and to be called THE ECONOMIST, which will contain ... First.—ORIGINAL LEADING ARTICLES, in which free-trade principles will be most rigidly applied to all the important questions of the day—political events—and parliamentary discussions; and particularly to all such as relate immediately to revenue, commerce, and agriculture; or otherwise affect the material interests of the country.... https://www.economist.com/unknown/1843/08/05/prospectus https://www.economist.com/unknown/1843/08/05/prospectus
- amiga_500 6y ago
  Slavishly neoliberal is not the same as free trade. Adam Smith, whom they model themselves after, was against rentier activity, The Economist is not. The UK is presently embroiled in negotiating all kinds of trade agreements as part of Brexit, and none of the countries will be signing a reciprocal "free trade" agreement between the two, it's a pipe dream. In addition, Smith would have been appalled at the UK running a huge deficit ad-infinitum, selling off land to pay for it, and generally making very little. The Economist has very little to do with classic liberals. What The Economist supports now is lunacy, and we've seen in the response to Covid in the UK and the USA that both countries are on their knees. Again: I find it slavishly neo-liberal.
  - opportune 6y ago
    The Economist has always been very against Brexit. I do think they might not necessarily oppose rentiership (you have to keep in mind which family owns The Economist) but in later interpretations of “liberalism” rentiership is seen a logical extension of the right of property ownership, so I don’t think it’s necessarily incompatible with a classically liberal outlook
    - amiga_500 6y ago
      Classic liberalism as the founding principal was alluded to by the parent post. I agree, it holds rentier activity on par with wealth creation, which Adam Smith would never have done. https://www.prosper.org.au/geoists-in-history/adam-smith-on-the-rentier/ https://www.prosper.org.au/geoists-in-history/adam-smith-on-... It is massively incompatible.
opportune 6y ago
As long as you keep this in mind while you read it, I think even people who disagree with that will get a lot of value out of it. Personally I’ve found many of their foreign policy positions disgusting (and found their slandering of Corbyn as an anti Semite particularly disappointing) but at the same time they still have some of the best foreign policy coverage out of any source I’ve been exposed to. Outside of foreign policy and politics I’ve found them to be pretty exemplary

bryanlarsen 6y ago

I have the opposite experience. For example, they had a cover page article a about the global housing bubble in 2005. https://www.economist.com/special-report/2005/06/16/in-come-the-waves https://www.economist.com/special-report/2005/06/16/in-come-...

amiga_500 6y ago
It was crystal clear by 2005 that it was all going to pop. The analysis from a journal that purports to be about economics should have come in the build up to the crisis, not when the first huge cracks appear in the damn, having spent the prior decade shouting "put more water in".
hogFeast 6y ago
You can go back further. They were writing articles about this in 03 and 04. They aren't right about everything but they will publish stuff about high valuations, etc. Also, just generally, they aren't particularly "neoliberal" (I am not quite sure what that means but okay). Since the editor switch, there has been a massive, massive change in style (I have been reading since the early 2000s...Mickelthwait, the guy in the OP, was actually the best...he is a legend).
- bryanlarsen 6y ago
  I think the Economist is pretty much the definition of neoliberal (in the old sense, before it acquired all the negative connotations). "Liberal goals, conservative means" is my over-simplified definition. A leftist would have the government build housing for the poor. A conservative would let the poor fend for themselves or rely on charity. A neo-liberal would tweak the rules so that market builds housing for the poor.
  - amiga_500 6y ago
    They are pro financialisation and pro rentier. Both require strong government intervention, but the profits are privatised.
    - bryanlarsen 6y ago
      I believe we're saying the same thing, right?

dredmorbius 6y ago

I find it to slavishly neoliberal. That (or in its older guise, free-trade principles) is literally a founding premise of the newspaper: PROSPECTUS: of a weekly paper, to be published every Saturday, and to be called THE ECONOMIST, which will contain ... First.—ORIGINAL LEADING ARTICLES, in which free-trade principles will be most rigidly applied to all the important questions of the day—political events—and parliamentary discussions; and particularly to all such as relate immediately to revenue, commerce, and agriculture; or otherwise affect the material interests of the country.... https://www.economist.com/unknown/1843/08/05/prospectus https://www.economist.com/unknown/1843/08/05/prospectus

amiga_500 6y ago
Slavishly neoliberal is not the same as free trade. Adam Smith, whom they model themselves after, was against rentier activity, The Economist is not. The UK is presently embroiled in negotiating all kinds of trade agreements as part of Brexit, and none of the countries will be signing a reciprocal "free trade" agreement between the two, it's a pipe dream. In addition, Smith would have been appalled at the UK running a huge deficit ad-infinitum, selling off land to pay for it, and generally making very little. The Economist has very little to do with classic liberals. What The Economist supports now is lunacy, and we've seen in the response to Covid in the UK and the USA that both countries are on their knees. Again: I find it slavishly neo-liberal.
- opportune 6y ago
  The Economist has always been very against Brexit. I do think they might not necessarily oppose rentiership (you have to keep in mind which family owns The Economist) but in later interpretations of “liberalism” rentiership is seen a logical extension of the right of property ownership, so I don’t think it’s necessarily incompatible with a classically liberal outlook
  - amiga_500 6y ago
    Classic liberalism as the founding principal was alluded to by the parent post. I agree, it holds rentier activity on par with wealth creation, which Adam Smith would never have done. https://www.prosper.org.au/geoists-in-history/adam-smith-on-the-rentier/ https://www.prosper.org.au/geoists-in-history/adam-smith-on-... It is massively incompatible.

opportune 6y ago

As long as you keep this in mind while you read it, I think even people who disagree with that will get a lot of value out of it. Personally I’ve found many of their foreign policy positions disgusting (and found their slandering of Corbyn as an anti Semite particularly disappointing) but at the same time they still have some of the best foreign policy coverage out of any source I’ve been exposed to. Outside of foreign policy and politics I’ve found them to be pretty exemplary