Opinions on The Economist?

Question

How would you describe The Economist magazine in terms of political and social leanings. To the right? To the center? To the left? Somewhere in-between?

Answer 1

I don't think it can be categorised as left or right.

It tends to support free markets under pretty much any circumstances, which is a typical conservative approach.

On social issues it is more left wing and tends to support things like gay marriage etc.

It is pro-immigration and EU expansion, which are also seen as more left wing.

Contraversially supported the Iraq war.

Supported Labour in the last election - but only because of lack of choice!

Tends to support a "small" state, so to speak.

It's better to read a few issues to get a flavour of it yourself.

Hope this helps.

Answer 2

Agree with Adie, in general I read it with an open mind, I don't think you can be left or right-wing/politically inclined these days, as people tend to change their political viewpoints based on events that happen. The Economist gives you analysis where the mainstream newspapers may not, so it can only do this if it does not have a one stance on all issues, ie to the left or to the right.

Answer 3

I would have to agree, simply because putting more unemployed out in the street at this point would make things seem ever all the more worse at the grass roots level... So that would only create more chaos & panic... The end result would be less spending & less turnaround With all these people out of work, there is less money being re- introduced into the economy, as they support the other jobs... they purchase other services... they spend more money into the economy, by having their jobs... but by losing their jobs & cutting back... then there is that much less money going back into the local economy & Whatever job you work for or whoever supports your job is more likely to go broke or be forced to make cutbacks... If people have needs, but do not have money... the economy suffers & people go without their needs being met. It's sort of like the people coming to Joseph during the great famine & spending all their money then they said, now the money fails, why should we perish... so Joseph sells them for their land... etc. But when the money fails in our economy... do we barter or trade or do we simply have nothing & receive nothing... when the money fails, our economy stops. We may have laborers, we may have the ability to produce plenty of food, we may have plenty of homes... But those homes go un filled & sit empty the food sits & spoils The laborers go jobless. We have every resource more plentifully than any other time or place in history... knowledge, education, food, houses, laborers, etc... but we go without simply because the money fails. WE are tightwads. As a community, we do not value real life people, we only value wealth... If that could be restructured, the rich would be less rich, those with savings would have less savings, but the poor would profit. & we don't want the poor to profit. Problem is, at some point it catches up to us & we fall into the category of the poor. To slow that, we need those who are making money to spend money to support us at the bottom of the rung. Or we need to demand reorganization as a whole community. Despite what it will do to the rich, the savings, the poor, the value of the dollar, etc. & we need to allow ourselves to breath... since we can't do that , then we need to keep the jobs going that are the built in "automatic stabilizers"

Answer 4

Dry as Dust!

Answer 5

to the right/.