Talk:The Economist

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Some things worth mentioning[edit]

Hasn't this magazine been criticized for style over substance and being repeatadly horribly wrong in their predictions, along with a weird hate for Sweden? ClothCoat (talk) 06:27, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I put them under the category of centrist stupidity given how many articles we've linked to that show they can make horrible predictions (and our social democracy page hits them pretty hard too). I don't know if you guys think that's appropriate or not so you can remove it if you want. ClothCoat (talk) 20:33, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Good edits. The Economist is awful. --Eirik the Pinko (talk) 19:03, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
I still think we should be way more critical considering that sometimes taking their advice on economic issues can be about as as reliable as flipping a coin but I'll leave it mostly as is for now unless more people agree. ClothCoat (talk) 10:06, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Very Poor Understanding[edit]

I may be tad biased as I'm a longtime reader, but this has a very poor understanding of what the magazine stands for. In calling The Economist 'watered=down libertarianism', whoever wrote this was probably unaware the magazine supported Dodd-Frank, despite eventually criticizing it for going overboard. It does lean right on economic issues but supports regulations and trust-busting. It also did not regret the article on Iraq, it just thought the war was ineptly handled. The article also forgets the magazine favours abolishing the monarchy and the Hereditary House of Lords. But don't let facts get in the way of writing a smear article, right?--Harvardian (talk) 17:06, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Cool story bro. Sounds like more like traditional libertarianism to me...supporting regulations that cannot go too far in telling people what they can do, favors competition but not monopolies/trusts for "perfect competition", non-interventionist, and favors getting rid of autocratic (especially hereditary) authority. Words have meanings and history which when it fits that what it is. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 17:18, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
They support gun-control, regulations, trust-busting, and efforts to fight global warming. How is it libertarian? ANd since it was in favour of the war, it's interventionist. --Harvardian (talk) 20:17, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
To be honest, I haven't met a Libertarian that understands what they believe so I can't really point out exactly what is libertarian in black and white. I didn't understand Libertarians were for absolutely no regulations, wanting monopolies, complete disbelief in the science of global warming, never could possibly be for any sort of gun control, and cannot be in favor of war or they were something else (what I don't know). I've found that Libertarianism seems to vary with the group, or person, asked which is why the article here points out many different groups claim to be the TrueTM Libertarians and the other groups are heretics (paraphrase). -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 20:32, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm with the Harvardian. I've read them for years, they seem like more of a genuinely socially liberal (all the way!) / fiscally conservative (except when it's cost-effective for government to pay up) libertarian than almost any other publisher. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 05:06, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, which sounds pretty libertarian...I thought the user was saying they weren't really Libertarian and "classical liberal". -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 20:07, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

1. They are pretty much pro-free market classical liberal while advocating for a basic social safety net. Also, they do not bill themselves as a "magazine," but as a "newspaper." Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 05:44, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

No. They are mostly classically liberal in terms of the market but advocate for more regulation than you think. Don't talk about periodicals you don't read. I fail to see the relevance of your second point. It's as if you brought up skateboarding. --Harvardian (talk) 01:25, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Rolled back BoN edit, but BoN had a point[edit]

@Umaru16 I rolled back Special:Permalink/2354911 because it was a BoN, but like the BoN said the citation was not working. I tried looking on the Internet Archive, but had no luck: please have a look! Kntai (talk) 10:54, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Transphobia citation[edit]

I don't doubt The Economist is transphobic but we need a citation for the articles mentioned in the "Criticisms" section. It's curiously the only claim there that doesn't have any citations. (Especially since that seems to be the criteria for adding it to the category "Internet hate sites"? If it's particularly vehement that's fine but that's all the more reason to include those, especially as it seems to be unique among U.K. general news/politics publications that have published transphobic "gender critical" articles in getting designated as such.) 2601:14D:4E00:125A:C4F2:B63:453F:6E2 (talk) 09:01, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

"Internet hate site" seems a bit much. But for noted references on some of the transphobic lean they have, see a few links: [1] [2] [3], or just Google the topics of "economist transgender sports" and "economist transgender hormone therapy".
Generally speaking, speaking as an ex-subscriber (for more than this reason but this was a factor), the tactic the Economist used on this topic was to write articles on some topics which IMHO are legitimate debate concerns (hormone therapy and transgender sports). However, the quality on this topic tended to be noticeably poor (with far more anecdotal tales, far greater ignorance of current scientific consensus, and a far less holistic approach then typical), was very noticeably one sided, and is repetitively included as a screed in every few issues. I would not be surprised if some of this was finance editor Helen JoyceWikipedia's doing, as noted in the Daily Dot article. The Wiki on her is quite a hoot. (talk) 13:08, 30 September 2022 (UTC)