Talk:The Economist

Untitled

Hello, I'm relatively new to editing still. However, I replaced "founder" with "emperor" in reference to Charlemagne since Charlemagne was not the founder of the Frankish empire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.250.134.13 (talk) 20:31, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The Central Principle of the Economist magazine - clue it is not "more limited forms of government interventionism".

The central principle of the Economist magazine is active Central Banking supporting commercial banks (and those corporations that are closely linked to them) - this has been true, to some degree, since its third editor (Walter Bagehot), but since 2008 it has become an overiding concern - to prove this simply look at issues of the Economist magazine since 2008 (pick one at random). It is not just a matter of supporting TARP - it is a matter (both in the United States and in Europe) of supporting more monetary expansion in order to support banks and those corporations that are very closely connected to them. The words "bailoutism" or "corporate welfare" may be ugly but they are accurate in describing the central principle of the Economist magazine. Of course supporting the "Finance Economy" may be entirely the correct policy, but readers of Wikipedia must be aware that this is what the Economist magazine stands for (Central Bank monetary support for the banking system), this is not a minor matter (it is a matter of very great importance) and using a form of words like "more limited forms of government interventionism" is not very informative.2.26.113.248 (talk) 19:47, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

The Ecomomist Magazine is not "economically liberal".

To claim (as the article does) that the Economist magazine (to call it a "newspaper" is to accept its tactics to reduce its tax and mail bill, it is a magazine and to call it anything else is dishonest) is "ecomically liberal" is absurd. It must be remembered that "economic liberalism" (unlike modern American political liberalism) is about reducing the size and scope of the state - not increasing the size and scope of the state.

Since my previous comment (see below) there have been many issues of the Economist magazine that confirm what I have pointed out about it (indeed virtually every issue does so). For example, in the current issue the Economist magazine describes the Congressional resistance to the agenda of the Obama Administration in 2009 and 2010 (the unsucessful opposition to the Stimulus Act, "Obamacare", the Financial Reform Act increasing regulations - and so on) as "extreme" and "obstructionist" (these words are actually in the title of the article in the magazine). Please note that Economist magazine is not attacking Barack Obama (as an "economic liberal" would) - on the contrary it is describing his opponents in these terms. And not the opponents in the country - but, rather, the collection of Senators and members of the House of Representatives who spoke and voted against the agenda to expand the size and scope of government.

Now President Obama may have been 100% correct and his opponents 100% wrong (it is not for Wikipedia to judge one way or the other) - but "economic liberal" he (and the Economist) were, and are, NOT.

This is not rocket science - it is basic stuff. The Economist magazine (regardless of what it calls itself) supports the left in American politics - it supported John Kerry in 2004, it supported Barack Obama in 2008. And, more importantly, the Economist magazine supports Barack Obama's POLICIES - on all the major Acts mentioned above. I repeat that these policies (and Obama and the Economist magazine) may be 100% correct (about everything) - but "economically liberal" they are not.2.26.113.248 (talk) 19:25, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

The Economist does NOT support Classical Liberalism.

The idea that the Economist is a roll-back-the-state sort of publication (which is what Classical Liberalism is - see the first editor of the Economist) is refuted by its support for ever more government health and education spending and endless banking, and other corporate, bailouts and government monetary expansion.

J.M. Keynes was not a "Classical Liberal" (although he may have been a "liberal" in the modern sense) - and neither is the Economist.

The article gives a totally false impression by just repeating the, false, claim of the Economist that it is a "Classical Liberal" publication. It is no such thing - in fact its politics are similar to those of Time magazine and the rest of the American "mainstream media". Its being British does not alter this fact - and neither do its, wildly dishonest, claims to be a "Classical Liberal" publication.

Paul Marks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.107.70.141 (talk) 11:43, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that The Economist is not as clasically liberal as most Classical Liberals would like it to be. Instead, it's a mixed bag, with more classical liberalism than most publication. The New York Times, for example. On the other hand, consider that their primary target market is career bureaucrats. For example, people who work for the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the Bank for International Settlements, the European Central Bank. I'm a Classical Liberal, and I like The Economist. I just don't expect them to live up to my standards of ideological purity because they have to make a living in the real world, just like the rest of us. Zyxwv99 (talk) 04:04, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

It seems unlikely, to me, that career bureaucrats in international treaty organisations make up the bulk of their readership.

Political positions aren't boolean; even a left-right spectrum is a simplification - there are many possible axes. The economist is definitely somewhere on the "Classical liberalism" side of an n-dimensional space but they're not on the perimeter. Hmm, that's a terrible metaphor but I can't think of a better one, sorry. bobrayner (talk) 09:46, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Who is the new Lexington?

Adrian Woolridge is no longer writing the Lexington column (See [1][2]) so I have removed that claim from the article. Unfortunately I have not been able to find out the identity of the new Lexington. —Dominus (talk) 05:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

It's Robert Guest, author of The Shackled Continent (ISBN 0330419722). See [3]. —Dominus (talk) 00:20, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

As of June 2010, as stated, it's Peter David. See [4]. L0ckd0wn420 (talk) 22:51, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Circulation

Does anyone know what their circulation in the United States is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.243.23.37 (talk) 21:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Christmas Issue

How about their Xmas issue? It features special 3-4 pages-long article on just about anything (from the creation of the modern kitchen, to how music could have been created as an answer for a genetic need). As one of their readers, I look forward to it every year, and thus believe it should be included in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Popersman (talk • contribs) 17:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Newspaper or newsmagazine?

I don't care, but this has to be one of the lamest edit wars in quite a while. I've protected the page for three days; please discuss the substance of the issue and come to consensus on how to describe the publication.  Skomorokh, barbarian  06:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked User:Ervinshiznit for 31 hours and have been trying to block the IP editor as well (their IP seems to change regularly). Nick-D (talk) 07:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I work for The Economist so I probably should not edit this page, but I do think the use of "newsmagazine" is wrong. From a stylistic point of view it would be better to vary with "the paper", "the weekly" and "the Economist" at different points in the article.17:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

"provinces" in history

There is a minor issue in that a blue link is provided from the word "provinces" in point 6 of the history section to the Historic counties of England. This implies "province" was being used as a synonym for these, when what will have been meant is slightly different - it refers to Britain or England outside London (the word is from a district of the Roman Empire and is now generally avoided due to the suggestion it carries of insignificance compared to what happens "up in London"). I'm not sure what would be the best change to make since the page Province currently has no information on this use Billwilson5060 (talk) 18:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

botched thread

Reference #6 change

For some reason I can't edit the article. Can Reference #6, referring to the founding quote of The Economist, at least be changed to the following link http://www.economist.com/help/DisplayHelp.cfm?folder=663377#About_The_Economist for that would be significantly more accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.42.134.102 (talk) 05:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Amnesty International

I wonder if the use of the word "vibrant" in the brief mention of a letter responding to a critical article about AI adds some unnecessary spin (or vibration). Pedantically, I am not sure if a letter can be "vibrant" but if it is intended to mean (as it presumably is) that it was a wonderful letter, I think that is probably POV. I won't edit this myself as I work for the Economist Edwardlucas (talk) 17:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Liberalism Vs "Progressivism"

I changed "It also supports social progressivism, including legalised drugs and prostitution." to "...social liberalism...". Re-legalisation and deregulation of the "vices" is a liberal, not progressive position. The modern era's prohibitions- drugs, alcohol, tobacco, prostitution, pornography, etc etc are artifacts of the Progressive Era and were introduced by progressive activists. They are maintained today primarily by progressive lobby/campaign groups. It is certainly not progressive to campaign for the abolition of these laws/regulations- it is classical liberal. Progressives actively promote and maintain regulations and prohibitions of activities they perceive as vice, as they always have. Such regulation and prohibition was at the heart of the Progressive Era and remains at the heart of progressive activism.82.71.30.178 (talk) 16:15, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Criticism §

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/15/business/media/15econmag.html

It’s Called The Economist, Not The Futurist

For 23 years, The Economist has issued bold predictions for the coming year in its thick December special issue. Last year, its crystal ball, in the issue called “The Worldin 2008,” was a little foggy.

“About 2008: sorry,” reads a note from the issue’s editor, Daniel Franklin, in the prediction edition for 2009. Who would have seen the financial crisis coming, Mr. Franklin asked? “Not us. The World in 2008 failed to predict any of this,” he said.

And on it goes. I won't go into The Economist's failed predictions on Russia as well, just yet, but in reference to the above quote by Daniel Franklin "The World in 2008 failed to predict any of this" is untrue. Paul Krugman predicted it, and so did other notable economists. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 08:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The Economist is the only news publication I've seen that routinely analyzes the success or failure of its past predictions and presents the results in print. I consider this one of its greatest strengths. My impression from their routine lack of admitting errors and taking credit for successes is that the editors of The Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Time, and so forth are too busy cranking out a new batch of predictions than to learn from their past mistakes. The result is that they make more mistakes. Spril4 (talk) 20:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Well when a prediction was superbly wrong, as it was in the case of The Economist, you have to analyze it and apologize for it, or lose your readership, like CNN did in Russia. The Economist may do so routinely, and that's fine. However, when a mistake is as big as it is in this case, I think it deserves mention. You can add your quote as a response to the criticism, provided it doesn't break Wikipedia's Original Research guidelines. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 05:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

"The Economist is the only news publication I've seen that routinely analyzes the success or failure of its past predictions and presents the results in print" - This is your opinion not a fact. My opinion is that it does nothing of the sort (except when they are catastrophically wrong and the issue cannot be avoided). As an example:

"[The] coalition may well not last much more than two years. The risk is not only that Ms Merkel's coalition will follow wrong-headed economic policies; it may also turn out to be unstable as well. Poor Germany."

- Taxing Times, Angela Merkel's coalition programme risks doing serious damage to the economy, Nov 17th 2005

compare this to:

"Germany was the star performer among the rich G7 countries over the past ten years."

- Angela in Wunderland, Feb 3 2011

This is a blatant volte face with no apology nor explanation for their change of direction.

The magazine is riddled with such inconsistencies but people don't generally notice them unless they are pointed out to them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.148.39 (talk) 18:28, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Couldn't tell if this thread was about the tagging or what, anyway moved it here and renamed it so it could be actionable. Why is it so hard to identify haute bourgeois/capitalist bias in those things where it is obviously directly relevant? The vast majority of people on earth are neither and this publication practically embodies bourgeois/mainstream political economy. That should be either in the lede or the § under discussion. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 21:24, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

This is like criticizing Ebony (magazine) and Black Entertainment Television for ignoring white people. Like, duh! The whole reason fore reading The Economist is to find out what the haute bourgeois/capitalists know that we don't. That's why Homer Simpson reads it. Zyxwv99 (talk) 14:56, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you read it for that reason? My reason for reading it is much less colourful and rhetorical - I read it because it's a good source on important news. bobrayner (talk) 15:52, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Sullivan Did Not Say that Dotcom Bubble Burst Wouldn't Happen In The Long Run

He did, in fact, write that the burst could've happened in the long run, but noted that magazine had inaccurately predicted that there were troubling signs in the US market when the articles were written in late 1998. Sullivan carefully noted that the magazine greatly exaggerated the danger the US economy was in after the Dow Jones fell to 7,400 during the 1998 Labor Day weekend aqnd that there were not yet signs that the US economy was in grave danger; even the Dow Jones reached 10,000 by the time the article was written. The Dotcom burst also didn't take place "a few months" after those articles were written, but rather a few years; the articles were written in 1998 and the Dotcom bubble burst didn't happen in the US market until early 2001.75.72.35.253 (talk) 22:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Editorial Stance & Opinions

Claiming The Economist supports "government health and education spending" is not quite accurate. While they do support SOME spending in this area, they support less than most other publications. The phrasing, while not explicit, does imply that they support it to an above-average level, or support an increase in it, etc. In reality they probably support a decrease in government spending in this area. Changed to talk about their pro-environment stance which is notable given the otherwise conservative lean of the magazine. Edited the same sentence in the Opinions section.

I also felt compelled to mention libertarianism somewhere in the opinions section. I feel this section is overly confusing to people that do not know the bizarre history of the terms "liberal" and "conservative" and should be looked at by a more experienced editor to improve clarity.