3 ms·

The Economist is a mouthpiece for the money power, specifically the banking interests of the Rothschild and Cadbury families. The idea of making money by making

The Economist is a mouthpiece for the money power, specifically the banking interests of the Rothschild and Cadbury families. The idea of making money by making things (as opposed to arbitrage) is anathema to them.

gruez 3mo ago
>The idea of making money by making things (as opposed to arbitrage) is anathema to them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Editorial_stance_of_The_Economist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Editorial_stance_of_The_Econom... They're pro free trade against government intervention. That's not the same as "making things ... is anathema to them". They're for planning reform in uk, to help build infrastructure and homes, for instance.
- linksnapzz 3mo ago
  They're pro-offshoring of any sort of industrial base. Line-goes-up!
  - psd1 3mo ago
    It is candid about the negatives of off-shoring. It certainly does have its back foot in economic orthodoxy, but a mouthpiece for the Rothschilds? Read three editions and see if you still think so.
    - linksnapzz 2mo ago
      I've read plenty; even aside from their glazing of finance, the unsigned articles & snotty-brit house style are grating.
- owebmaster 3mo ago
  > They're for planning reform in uk As long as the reform is to cut taxes for the rich
  - gruez 3mo ago
    >As long as the reform is to cut taxes for the rich Source? Strangely "tax" only has one hit within the wikipedia article, and it's not about tax cuts. If it's really such an important part of their editorial stance, you should update the article.
    - Chu4eeno 3mo ago
      You are very naive about the neutrality of Wikipedia. Maintaining the Wikipedia page is part of what any PR/reputation management agency does.
      - gruez 3mo ago
        Right, which is why the first part of my comment, before mentioning wikipedia at all is "Source?". Wikipedia might be biased, but it's a good starting point. Likewise, it's very hard to take you seriously when all you can do is complain about how wikipedia is biased/astroturfed, but can't provide any sources to contradict the wikipedia article, yet are willing to take a random commenter at face value.

gruez 3mo ago

>The idea of making money by making things (as opposed to arbitrage) is anathema to them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Editorial_stance_of_The_Economist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Editorial_stance_of_The_Econom... They're pro free trade against government intervention. That's not the same as "making things ... is anathema to them". They're for planning reform in uk, to help build infrastructure and homes, for instance.

linksnapzz 3mo ago
They're pro-offshoring of any sort of industrial base. Line-goes-up!
- psd1 3mo ago
  It is candid about the negatives of off-shoring. It certainly does have its back foot in economic orthodoxy, but a mouthpiece for the Rothschilds? Read three editions and see if you still think so.
  - linksnapzz 2mo ago
    I've read plenty; even aside from their glazing of finance, the unsigned articles & snotty-brit house style are grating.
owebmaster 3mo ago
> They're for planning reform in uk As long as the reform is to cut taxes for the rich
- gruez 3mo ago
  >As long as the reform is to cut taxes for the rich Source? Strangely "tax" only has one hit within the wikipedia article, and it's not about tax cuts. If it's really such an important part of their editorial stance, you should update the article.
  - Chu4eeno 3mo ago
    You are very naive about the neutrality of Wikipedia. Maintaining the Wikipedia page is part of what any PR/reputation management agency does.
    - gruez 3mo ago
      Right, which is why the first part of my comment, before mentioning wikipedia at all is "Source?". Wikipedia might be biased, but it's a good starting point. Likewise, it's very hard to take you seriously when all you can do is complain about how wikipedia is biased/astroturfed, but can't provide any sources to contradict the wikipedia article, yet are willing to take a random commenter at face value.