What happen to them? They used to be pretty good and had excellent news and business articles. They seem to be getting more lefty tier and constantly are regurgitating anti right and anti trump rhetoric to an extreme extent. I liked it when they were objective. But the constant repeat of Hillary rhetoric is getting out of hand with them. I still enjoy some of the subsections, but their politic discussion is disgusting and is turning Huff-post tier. Anyone else see this happening with The Economist more often?
Whether you like them or not depends on your feelings about the positions above. They aren't a bad way of staying informed about the world, but they have their limitations as all publications do.
Nathaniel Harris
>He's anti free trade This is a good thing...
>He has no experience I'd rather have someone with no experience than someone with a ton of experience at being shitty
>He's a blowhard Not an argument
>His proposals are economically infeasible No more infeasible than going to the moon.
>He's a veiled racist Good.
Nolan Lewis
Notice that none of the articles in the Economist have any names attached to them, because they are written by 21yr old hipsters.
If you could actually look up the journo who writes those articles you'd never read it again.
You can also just take 3 years worth of issues and iterate through there and look up something, like say Russia. They contradict themselves within a few months on a regular basis as the entire writing seems to be clueless Op Ed.
Levi Hernandez
Lietrally New World order: the newspaper
owned by globalist families and rothschilds etc.
garbage newspaper
into the trash it goes
Carson Ross
I'm glad I don't read that shit anymore. They've been hijacked by socialists.
Luis Perez
>he fell for the "The Economist was good" meme >(((The Economist))) >the one media organ the (((Rothschilds))) are bold enough to own a public stake in Your pasta is stale and old, much like your life, OP.
Ayden Morgan
They shit on anybody that isn't a good goy globalist slave.
Sebastian Hughes
Cuckfag. It's a douche vs turd sandwich. Any objective paper would say that. Nowadays, everybody shills as the kikes pull the strings for both sides. Fuck off, you little bitch ass queer.
Chase Nguyen
that's why Trump is totalitarian estatist commie aka he believes in mercantilism.
Justin Nguyen
Suicide is your friend, faggot shill.
Jose Ramirez
Literally Rothschild globalism: the magazine.
Luis Morris
Economist has been shilling hard for regime change in Syria.
Benjamin Long
I would like only a globalism between OCDE countries, fuck the rest of the world. (except Turkey and México)
Leo Davis
Like all media outlets they declared that Trump and Brexit were "too important" to maintain a sense of objectivity in news coverage. They are "compelled" to take a more aggressive and propagandist approach for "moral" reasons. That and like all media the digital age has pushed wages downwards to the point that outlets can not hire qualified or competent reporters or pay for quality coverage.
Caleb Thompson
If I like: Free Trade Anti cultural marxism Anti free migration Anti estatist what am I ?
Nolan Williams
None of those statements amount to objectively shit.
Wyatt Butler
This. It's a fucking shame because even tech news sites I used to enjoy have thrown it all out the window to virtue signal for their liberal masters.
Logan Parker
Out of luck.
Asher Murphy
I thought you were dead mi general
Luis Ramirez
lowest common denominator pham. all print publications have been skewing hard to the left for the past decade. it's the only way to generate clicks these days.
Never my friend. You must play the game to give the people the benefits from economics but no to be too naive to accept cultural marxism youtube.com/watch?v=zhrYY3ocQ5o
Hunter Powell
You are witnessing the globalist bourgeois neocons.
The globalist bourgeois neocons will say, do, and think anything that MUH INVESTMENTS dictates they do. They have nothing to do with the right, and if they do, it's because they are currently riding the right and trying to exploit it for votes. Before WW2, they were liberal. Then they were conservative. Now they're kind of pan-party "anti-racist." In reality they are none of this, and all they care about is remaining wealthy and their prole slaves continuing to serve them.
They are the "Jewish finance capitalists" that Nazis rage about, the same bourgeois that Commies rage about. They are people who worship money.
>Spengler asserts that democracy is simply the political weapon of money, and the media is the means through which money operates a democratic political system. Democracy and plutocracy are equivalent in Spengler's argument. The principles of equality, natural rights, universal suffrage, and freedom of the press are all disguises for class war (the bourgeois against the aristocracy). Freedom, to Spengler, is a negative concept, simply entailing the repudiation of any tradition. In reality, freedom of the press requires money, and entails ownership, thus serving money at the end. Suffrage involves electioneering, in which the donations rule the day. The ideologies espoused by candidates, whether Socialism or Liberalism, are set in motion by, and ultimately serve, only money. "Free" press does not spread free opinion—it generates it.
>Spengler notes that the greater the concentration of wealth in individuals, the more the fight for political power revolves around questions of money.
>Spengler admits that in his era money has already won, in the form of democracy. But in destroying the old elements of the Culture, it prepares the way for the rise of a new and overpowering figure: the Caesar.
