4 ms·

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 i

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.
dredmorbius 6y ago
So, yes, understanding and admitting that both definitions and adherances to ideologies shift over time (see the remarkable and sad descent of, say, H.L. Mencken's American Mercury, or for that matter, the party of Lincoln), my larger point was that The Economist was literally founded on the notion of promoting a specific economic orthodoxy. (Not uncommon among periodicals of the time, and since.) Many people seem surprised on learning this, as I was, some years back. The fact that the newspaper makes that prospectus so prominently visible is itself notable. Whether or not neoliberalism is the One True Descendant of Adam Smith is a notion up for debate, though there's a fair argument to be made that neoliberal adherants position it as such. I've my own views of what Smith actually advocated (based in large part on reading him). Though I would be pressed to find where he specifically inveighs against long-term national deficit spending. I would argue that monetary policy has evolved considerably since Smith. My third paragraph though is decidedly secondary to my first.
- amiga_500 6y ago
  What it was founded on is not really relevant. It does not represent Adam Smith, who disliked rentiers: > “As soon as the land of any country has all become private property, the landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed and demand a rent even for its natural produce.” They do not make their prospectus visible. If you do not subscribe you cannot even read their principals. In any case writing one thing down and doing another is very common. The Economist is obsessed with financialisation and cheer-led the utter mess the UK and USA are in for decades. Obviously it's up to each person if they continue to read it. I dispute it's quality, I think it's neoliberal propaganda and nothing more.

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.

dredmorbius 6y ago

So, yes, understanding and admitting that both definitions and adherances to ideologies shift over time (see the remarkable and sad descent of, say, H.L. Mencken's American Mercury, or for that matter, the party of Lincoln), my larger point was that The Economist was literally founded on the notion of promoting a specific economic orthodoxy. (Not uncommon among periodicals of the time, and since.) Many people seem surprised on learning this, as I was, some years back. The fact that the newspaper makes that prospectus so prominently visible is itself notable. Whether or not neoliberalism is the One True Descendant of Adam Smith is a notion up for debate, though there's a fair argument to be made that neoliberal adherants position it as such. I've my own views of what Smith actually advocated (based in large part on reading him). Though I would be pressed to find where he specifically inveighs against long-term national deficit spending. I would argue that monetary policy has evolved considerably since Smith. My third paragraph though is decidedly secondary to my first.

amiga_500 6y ago
What it was founded on is not really relevant. It does not represent Adam Smith, who disliked rentiers: > “As soon as the land of any country has all become private property, the landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed and demand a rent even for its natural produce.” They do not make their prospectus visible. If you do not subscribe you cannot even read their principals. In any case writing one thing down and doing another is very common. The Economist is obsessed with financialisation and cheer-led the utter mess the UK and USA are in for decades. Obviously it's up to each person if they continue to read it. I dispute it's quality, I think it's neoliberal propaganda and nothing more.