4 ms·

I find myself noticing that a lot of the solutions that The Economist proposes are very similar - opening markets, decreasing regulation - make everything more

I find myself noticing that a lot of the solutions that The Economist proposes are very similar - opening markets, decreasing regulation - make everything more "liberal". They always make compelling arguments for their suggestions but I also find myself wondering whether they ever argue for any alternative

mrec 11y ago
The Economist has always been "The answer is free markets! What was the question?". I always find it a reassuring read, in the sense that well-written, well-researched, persuasive articles that I disagree with are a sign that I haven't been completely engulfed by my own little information bubble, but take it with a pinch of salt.
- dublinclontarf 11y ago
  Actually having lived in China for a significant period of time I can say that the answer is to remove capital controls on Chinese citizens and allow them to invest anywhere else. This will deflate the Chinese market bubble(and property bubble) almost immediately, you'll see this happen however when pigs are flying to the moon.
  - pjc50 11y ago
    The answer to what question? The policy has to be to defer the bubble collapse as much as possible in hope of the mythical "soft landing". Far more than western countries they depend on continuous economic growth as the tradeoff for lack of political freedom.
    - tim333 11y ago
      Deferring bubble collapses doesn't work so good as they just pop later and bigger.
      - spacehunt 11y ago
        Problem for the next Party leader.
  - eli_gottlieb 11y ago
    So China should export its capital glut to the rest of the world, which already suffers a capital glut?
- jazzyk 11y ago
  I have been a subscriber to the Economist for over 25 years. In recent years, I have noticed a subtle, but noticeable, change from the small-business-friendly to the statist, big-business-friedly tone . A look at the ownership structure may explain the shift - The Economist is now 50%-owned by big business interests http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economist_Group http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economist_Group BTW, they endorsed B. Obama for president twice, in 2008 and 2012, who has been, despite all the populist rhetoric, very friendly to Wall Street and big business (not a single Wall Street criminal has been indicted) I still like them, for the excellent writing, but I find myself agreeing less with them over the past several years.
  - meatysnapper 11y ago
    Agreed, I used to read them regularly, but found them becoming noticeably more statist. Perhaps when I was younger and less well informed (or less cynical) they just sounded better? Given their supposedly liberal (old-school) leanings, you'd expect a criticism of large businesses which you don't find anymore.
- tiatia 11y ago
  The Economist hast declined tremendously in my opinion. Poor researched articles, very short articles with little information. You can build in 1 hour a better blog aggregation with more information. They are the Jehovah's witnesses of "free markets", or at least what the Economist thinks free markets are. Very little understanding of the underlying systemic problems we are currently facing. For me it the Economist has become "noise" in the information jungle.
eyko 11y ago
As a short term solution, I would say they're probably right. However, sane advice would be to look for a sustainable alternative. I guess it's just because they have a liberal bias, but in any case I can't see The Economist proposing a slower, yet more sustainable growth. "After double-digit growth for much of the past decade, sales have slumped" - you don't say... or perhaps they expect that rate of growth to continue without end? Yes, it was a bubble.
- wjnc 11y ago
  -Against fuel subsidies in Indonesia [1] -.. and in general [2] -For carbon tax [3] (all imho: ) They are traditional liberal, and / but with a realist approach to economics. Massive market failures exist and need work. Market failures more often originate in government, than that new market failures need more government. [1] http://www.economist.com/news/asia/21638179-jokowi-abandons-wasteful-fuel-subsidies-fiscal-prospects-brighten-good-scrap http://www.economist.com/news/asia/21638179-jokowi-abandons-... [2] http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21639501-fall-price-oil-and-gas-provides-once-generation-opportunity-fix-bad http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21639501-fall-price-oi... [3] http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21580146-world-will-one-day-adopt-carbon-taxbut-only-after-exhausting-all-alternatives-tepid http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21580146-world-will-on...
funkylexoo 11y ago
If you instinctively and intellectually adhere to a system of values, why would you advocate something that goes against it?
- bildung 11y ago
  > If you instinctively and intellectually adhere to a system of values, why would you advocate something that goes against it? Because less market regulation is not a value by itself, its a policy, a means to an end. My interpretation of kenny-log_ins' post was the hidden accusation that the Economist doesn't properly seperate the two, and thus falls victim to ideology.
- lmm 11y ago
  Any sane ideologue will admit it's a guide rather than an absolute rule; you might be on the right because you believe free-market approaches are generally better, or on the left because you believe tax-and-spend approaches are generally better, but if you're analysing specific cases rather than just touting your ideology then you should spot at least some exceptions.
davidw 11y ago
They also advocate for things like gun control and health care reform in the US. I believe they've also advocated things like a carbon tax, as they give credence to the scientific consensus on global warming. They also tend to be fairly 'practical' in their support for candidates. I recall some years ago when they absolutely laid into Silvio Berlusconi and recommended the left-wing candidate despite Berlusconi being, in theory at least, the more 'business friendly' candidate. They rightly argued that he was mostly just friendly to his own businesses. So, yes, they are 'liberal' in the European sense, but not necessarily 'libertarian' in the US sense. Edit: their about page is informative: http://www.economist.com/help/about-us#About_Economistcom http://www.economist.com/help/about-us#About_Economistcom
- danmaz74 11y ago
  Berlusconi was really the most "business friendly" candidate. His own business, that is :D
  - tzakrajs 11y ago
    That's exactly the comment you are replying to.
- crdoconnor 11y ago
  >I recall some years ago when they absolutely laid into Silvio Berlusconi and recommended the left-wing candidate despite Berlusconi being, in theory at least, the more 'business friendly' candidate. They rightly argued that he was mostly just friendly to his own businesses. I seem to recall they were rather taken with the unelected technocrat Mario Monti, as prime minister.
  - davidw 11y ago
    > I seem to recall they were rather taken with the unelected technocrat Mario Monti, as prime minister. Yes, he - in theory - was in tune with their values. He did manage to accomplish a few things like liberalizing store opening hours, and this: http://blog.therealitaly.com/2015/04/16/fixing-italy-a-little-bit-at-a-time/ http://blog.therealitaly.com/2015/04/16/fixing-italy-a-littl... but didn't really accomplish as much as many had hoped. The fact that he was unelected is part and parcel of how the system works in Italy, as the prime minister is not directly elected. For that matter, Matteo Renzi wasn't either.
caoilte 11y ago
Yeah. :-). You should read the Economics of the Colonial Cringe. I think you'd enjoy it. http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/1991/10/-quot-the-economics-of-the-colonial-cringe-quot-about-the-economist-magazine-washington-post-1991/7415/ http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/1991/10/-quot-...
pinaceae 11y ago
they also advocated for same-sex marriage - in 1996. their liberal, in the classic sense. their stance on various wars is often questionable though. supported the second iraq invasion.

mrec 11y ago

The Economist has always been "The answer is free markets! What was the question?". I always find it a reassuring read, in the sense that well-written, well-researched, persuasive articles that I disagree with are a sign that I haven't been completely engulfed by my own little information bubble, but take it with a pinch of salt.

dublinclontarf 11y ago
Actually having lived in China for a significant period of time I can say that the answer is to remove capital controls on Chinese citizens and allow them to invest anywhere else. This will deflate the Chinese market bubble(and property bubble) almost immediately, you'll see this happen however when pigs are flying to the moon.
- pjc50 11y ago
  The answer to what question? The policy has to be to defer the bubble collapse as much as possible in hope of the mythical "soft landing". Far more than western countries they depend on continuous economic growth as the tradeoff for lack of political freedom.
  - tim333 11y ago
    Deferring bubble collapses doesn't work so good as they just pop later and bigger.
    - spacehunt 11y ago
      Problem for the next Party leader.
- eli_gottlieb 11y ago
  So China should export its capital glut to the rest of the world, which already suffers a capital glut?
jazzyk 11y ago
I have been a subscriber to the Economist for over 25 years. In recent years, I have noticed a subtle, but noticeable, change from the small-business-friendly to the statist, big-business-friedly tone . A look at the ownership structure may explain the shift - The Economist is now 50%-owned by big business interests http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economist_Group http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economist_Group BTW, they endorsed B. Obama for president twice, in 2008 and 2012, who has been, despite all the populist rhetoric, very friendly to Wall Street and big business (not a single Wall Street criminal has been indicted) I still like them, for the excellent writing, but I find myself agreeing less with them over the past several years.
- meatysnapper 11y ago
  Agreed, I used to read them regularly, but found them becoming noticeably more statist. Perhaps when I was younger and less well informed (or less cynical) they just sounded better? Given their supposedly liberal (old-school) leanings, you'd expect a criticism of large businesses which you don't find anymore.
tiatia 11y ago
The Economist hast declined tremendously in my opinion. Poor researched articles, very short articles with little information. You can build in 1 hour a better blog aggregation with more information. They are the Jehovah's witnesses of "free markets", or at least what the Economist thinks free markets are. Very little understanding of the underlying systemic problems we are currently facing. For me it the Economist has become "noise" in the information jungle.

eyko 11y ago

As a short term solution, I would say they're probably right. However, sane advice would be to look for a sustainable alternative. I guess it's just because they have a liberal bias, but in any case I can't see The Economist proposing a slower, yet more sustainable growth. "After double-digit growth for much of the past decade, sales have slumped" - you don't say... or perhaps they expect that rate of growth to continue without end? Yes, it was a bubble.

wjnc 11y ago
-Against fuel subsidies in Indonesia [1] -.. and in general [2] -For carbon tax [3] (all imho: ) They are traditional liberal, and / but with a realist approach to economics. Massive market failures exist and need work. Market failures more often originate in government, than that new market failures need more government. [1] http://www.economist.com/news/asia/21638179-jokowi-abandons-wasteful-fuel-subsidies-fiscal-prospects-brighten-good-scrap http://www.economist.com/news/asia/21638179-jokowi-abandons-... [2] http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21639501-fall-price-oil-and-gas-provides-once-generation-opportunity-fix-bad http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21639501-fall-price-oi... [3] http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21580146-world-will-one-day-adopt-carbon-taxbut-only-after-exhausting-all-alternatives-tepid http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21580146-world-will-on...

funkylexoo 11y ago

If you instinctively and intellectually adhere to a system of values, why would you advocate something that goes against it?

bildung 11y ago
> If you instinctively and intellectually adhere to a system of values, why would you advocate something that goes against it? Because less market regulation is not a value by itself, its a policy, a means to an end. My interpretation of kenny-log_ins' post was the hidden accusation that the Economist doesn't properly seperate the two, and thus falls victim to ideology.
lmm 11y ago
Any sane ideologue will admit it's a guide rather than an absolute rule; you might be on the right because you believe free-market approaches are generally better, or on the left because you believe tax-and-spend approaches are generally better, but if you're analysing specific cases rather than just touting your ideology then you should spot at least some exceptions.

davidw 11y ago

They also advocate for things like gun control and health care reform in the US. I believe they've also advocated things like a carbon tax, as they give credence to the scientific consensus on global warming. They also tend to be fairly 'practical' in their support for candidates. I recall some years ago when they absolutely laid into Silvio Berlusconi and recommended the left-wing candidate despite Berlusconi being, in theory at least, the more 'business friendly' candidate. They rightly argued that he was mostly just friendly to his own businesses. So, yes, they are 'liberal' in the European sense, but not necessarily 'libertarian' in the US sense. Edit: their about page is informative: http://www.economist.com/help/about-us#About_Economistcom http://www.economist.com/help/about-us#About_Economistcom

danmaz74 11y ago
Berlusconi was really the most "business friendly" candidate. His own business, that is :D
- tzakrajs 11y ago
  That's exactly the comment you are replying to.
crdoconnor 11y ago
>I recall some years ago when they absolutely laid into Silvio Berlusconi and recommended the left-wing candidate despite Berlusconi being, in theory at least, the more 'business friendly' candidate. They rightly argued that he was mostly just friendly to his own businesses. I seem to recall they were rather taken with the unelected technocrat Mario Monti, as prime minister.
- davidw 11y ago
  > I seem to recall they were rather taken with the unelected technocrat Mario Monti, as prime minister. Yes, he - in theory - was in tune with their values. He did manage to accomplish a few things like liberalizing store opening hours, and this: http://blog.therealitaly.com/2015/04/16/fixing-italy-a-little-bit-at-a-time/ http://blog.therealitaly.com/2015/04/16/fixing-italy-a-littl... but didn't really accomplish as much as many had hoped. The fact that he was unelected is part and parcel of how the system works in Italy, as the prime minister is not directly elected. For that matter, Matteo Renzi wasn't either.

caoilte 11y ago

Yeah. :-). You should read the Economics of the Colonial Cringe. I think you'd enjoy it. http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/1991/10/-quot-the-economics-of-the-colonial-cringe-quot-about-the-economist-magazine-washington-post-1991/7415/ http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/1991/10/-quot-...

pinaceae 11y ago

they also advocated for same-sex marriage - in 1996. their liberal, in the classic sense. their stance on various wars is often questionable though. supported the second iraq invasion.