3 ms·
A reminder that The Economist is owned by oligarchs and part of the very system it is poorly defending in this article. Look up who owns the Newspaper - as alwa
by BowBun 3y ago
A reminder that The Economist is owned by oligarchs and part of the very system it is poorly defending in this article. Look up who owns the Newspaper - as always, it's rich families like the Rothschilds, Cadburys, etc.
Really stop and think, what would these families and corporations prefer? A bunch of pissed of people in the streets mad at their governments and policies? Or a bunch of people reading a news article that says your concerns are 'nonsense'?
- lukas099 3y agoIsn't a large newspaper always going to be owned by the rich, almost by definition? And there are a lot of progressive/liberal rich too.
- BowBun 3y agoNot always, but yes, information brokers tend to consolidate wealth and power. And I made no mention of political orientation, please stop with the tired idea that this is a conservative/liberal issue. I have more in common with a redneck in Alabama than I do with Jeff Bezos. Stop falling for their traps.
- lukas099 3y agoWhat I meant is that a lot of rich people support more re-distributive economic policies, like high marginal taxes and expansion of welfare.
- BowBun 3y agoSorry I misunderstood your point. You're right that they tend to support more socialistic policies, though I don't necessarily believe in how much they actually want these policies passed. They all greatly benefit from the status quo. In the cases of these newspapers, it's clear they're used to hold political power and push narratives. The willingness for that billionaire to take on CNN for $1 despite it losing money shows that I think.
- jerojero 3y agoThey could be owned by the State as well. And I would say, they could easily be owned by readers in a consumer-coop model. These work for many other industries, I don't see why it wouldn't work for newspapers. I think most importantly, a lot of newspapers now a days are money losing businesses. But they provide political influence (local in most cases) so they're still useful for rich people to push certain agendas whereas genuine competitors just don't have the resources to maintain them.
- lukas099 3y agoTrue, they could be owned by the State, which opens another can of worms. A coop newspaper would be cool, although if it is viable why isn't it already happening? Or is it?
- rfwhyte 3y agoThe entire field of "Economics" was created as a way for the wealthy elite to justify / rationalize their capitalist oppression of the working class, so it should come as no surprise that a publication that serves a mouthpiece for the wealthy elites and that is named after a field that was created to serve the wealthy elites espouses ideas that solely benefit the wealthy elite. Anytime rich people say something is bad, one can generally assume that by bad they mean only for them and their entrenched wealth and power and so therefore is good for the rest of us.