the economist has a serious neo-liberal bias. free markets, free trade, blah blah blah

>>9074340

This. if you want a more accurate report of how the economic world works, go to dollars and sense.

http://dollarsandsense.org/

Long time Economist subscriber. The magazine is neutral, but it is the articles that are left or right leaning.

Great magazine.

reality has a serious neo-liberal bias.

The Economist are pretty open about the fact that they're an advocacy journal for neo-liberalism.

I read it occasionally, but it would be idiotic to treat it as an unbiased source of news.

>>9074436

i was thinking about getting it if it wasn't so damn expensive.

now i subscribe to Mother Jones and In These Times and am damn happy with them.

>>9074485

The free market will fix everything!

First I read the economist I saw this article on why drugs are bad mkay, it sounded like something a high school anti-drug poster.

Instantly lost respect and interest. Also it's libertarian which is another instant no.

>>9074333
It's called the "economist"

what the hell do you think?

>>9074576

OP here, pretty much what happened to me when I read that Rand Paul article. Is there any unbiased economic journal left out there?

>>9074576
>The Economist is one of the only mainstream newspapers to call for the legalization of drugs.

>>9074416
>dollarsandsense.org/
>D&S books offer clearly written information and analyses that place economics in the context of real life, questioning the assumptions of mainstream academic theories and empowering people to think about alternatives to the prevailing system.
From the about page. Sounds pretty ideological too.

WSJ has the same bullshit. Good investing advice though.

Yes The Economist has neo-liberal sympathies, but the good thing is that it makes clear distinctions between commentary and the facts. Not so much the case in other news sources.

>Good sources of information:
Cato institute, NY times, Reason magazine, BBC.

>Decent sources of information:
CNN, Wikipedia, The Economist.

>Horrible sources of information:
Huffingtonpost, Fox News, MSNBC, Mises foundation, any blog.

Who agrees?

>>9074728
Cato institute is pretty ideological, but again, makes it very clear what is fact and what is a viewpoint. I'd agree with your tier list, maybe knocking Wikipedia down a level.

>>9074728

>CNN

Are you fucking serious?

Some blogs can be good, but 99.9% of them are shit.

>>9074728
>Cato
>good

also >implying CNN isn't just some random fags twitter updates anymore

>>9074772

Cato publishes peer-reviewed academic papers often, and it separes opinion from fact as other anon said. It is a pretty good source.

( and even as a Libertarian-leaning person, i gotta say, it is better than that shithole the Mises institute is).

And i put CNN in >decent because i was comparing it to Fox News and MSNBC.

The Economist is a libertarian circle-jerk written for accountants to read and pretend that they're part of something bigger than mere bean counting, and that their naive politics actually matter in the world.

the correct answer is to read the Economist and many other magazines from across the political spectrum and making decisions on your own with all the information while wearing a monocle and smoking a pipe

>the Economist is conservative
WELL, NO SHIT, SHERLOCK. THANKS FOR POINTING THAT OUT, I'M SURE YOU ARE THE FIRST TO REALIZE.

I mean, it's not like they hide it or anything. they have are straight conservative

>>9074485
>>9074522
^da troof rite der^

I find it is more left than it is right-leaning.

Pro-fudgepacker, pro-mass human migration, total free market, pro-globalization etc.

Still one of the better bi-weeklies out there.

>>9074728

>>CNN, Wikipedia,

Implying CNN and Wikipedia aren't shit-tier sources when it comes to political matters.

>>9074500

>> Mother Jones


Dude, I'm liberal as all hell, and even *I* know Mother Jones is crap.

>>9077977
See, this is where the flaming might start, because the left/right spectrum is not fine enough for dealing with social AND financial freedoms.
The economist seems to me pro-"free market" too, but not as having a clear stance on many social issues and therefore being occasionally both left and right.

The Economist is only concerned with the bottom line of its readership, and so it's avowedly apolitical. At times, depending on global trends and the focus of the articles, it may come across as more conservative or liberal, but in the long run it's pretty much flat even, which is part of why it's so well respected.

>>9077977
it is precisely socially liberal, fiscally conservative. they are philosophical liberals - the only concern is the rights of individuals. sometimes for the sake of individual welfare they endorse collective solutions, such as progressive taxation [they are not libertarian], but that is pragmatic, not principled.


>>9078199
this is silly, but it's also what they think about themselves. they are open about their philosophical orientation, but sincerely think they have no political bent.
funny example was in the year end issue of 2009 in the article about the economics behind vadious aspects of the harry potter franchise. in all innocence the author said that unlike narnia an other franchises, harry potter has no politics whatsoever. it is only about a world of natural superiors and inferiors in which evil aristocrats want to suspend meritocracy and corrupt the otherwise benevolant government whose job is to keep the real action secret from the 99% of stupid plebs who have no idea what is really going on. nope, no ideology there!

most financiers and economist would be called "republicans," who are traditionally more fiscally prudent than democrats. however, western europeans (who write the Economist) tend to be more socially liberal than americans. Economist believes in global warming and endorsed democratic presidential candidates.

it's interesting to note why european economies are more socialist than the US. there's a paternalistic pride rich europeans have there, where by being taxed highly represents their importance in providing for society at whole. it comes from their history of peasants serving lords.

>>9078996
i gotta disagree a bit about rich financiers preferring republicans. it's true they don't want to pay taxes, but lots of them want government to work [maintain levees, not let rating agencies tell eveyone that bundled shit that should be junk rated is triple a, etc], also they don't like paying for long foreign wars.
eg, in the last election obama had much much more money in doantions from financial interests than mccain.
its true about euros not minding taxes as much, but it's not the prestige of being in a high bracket, but the prestige of being a country where even poor people are not starving and going bankrupt for heath costs etc. a couple weeks ago Chirac told Obama 'welcome to the civilized world where the poor are not left in the cold' or words to that effect. actually, the economist had a good article on this in the last couple months sometime about the difference between elete american and euro attitudes towards caring for the poor. it was really interesting.