3 ms·
I used to read the FT and the Economist thoroughly, and felt I was well informed. Maybe I thought they were high-quality publications because their ideology ali
by panarky 12y ago
I used to read the FT and the Economist thoroughly, and felt I was well informed. Maybe I thought they were high-quality publications because their ideology aligned with mine.
But I matured and my blind belief in the power of free, unregulated markets was challenged by many examples of abject market failure in the real world.
I still read FT and the Economist, but with a much more jaundiced eye. Much of what they say is reflexive, ideological, based on either blind belief or self-interest.
- dobbsbob 12y agoThere's a reason the Economist doesn't credit articles to authors, so it appears as received wisdom from seasoned economists/political insiders instead of actually being written by a 20something hipster intern. If you save a few issues they will contradict themselves every couple of months especially on articles about Russia. where Putin is the hero of capitalism in one issue then an evil protectionist Bolshevik in another. Europe's future will be declared as under the whims of Russia then a few issues later they claim Russia has little influence. It's a borderline tabloid rag, so is the FT.
- gsz 12y agoEverybody is biased. Having a somewhat left-of-centre bias myself, I like to read the FT and the Economist precisely because they don't simply reinforce my beliefs.