4 ms·
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 valuation
by 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 agoI 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 agoThey are pro financialisation and pro rentier. Both require strong government intervention, but the profits are privatised.
- bryanlarsen 6y agoI believe we're saying the same thing, right?