In a recent visit to the local library I had a look at this week’s edition of the Economist. There was a forty page section on Central Banks (government, or government backed, authorities that control the money supply – such as the Bank of England, the Bank of Japan, the European Union Central Bank, the Federal Reserve system, and so on) and couple of other articles on the same subject.
In the few minutes I spent looking at the material there seemed to be little on the money supply. Neither proper definitions of the various measures of the money supply, or information on their growth rates in the various countries over time. Of course, as an arch reactionary, I do not support the existence of Central Banks, but if was to write about them I would give most space to the primary function of these things – rather than just writing about interest rates, price rises (the modern definition of ‘inflation’), unemployment and so on. Unsurprisingly the rate of growth in the money supply may well effect these other things, but to write about them, in the context of Central Banking, without much examination of the record of various Central Banks and Central Bank like institutions in controlling the money supply is rather like writing about a room without really dealing with the elephant standing in the middle of it.
Of course there were other things in this week’s edition of the Economist, but some of this content was also rather odd. For example, we were informed that the Democrats were presently taking a harder line on controlling government spending than the Republicans in the United States.
Now it is quite true that over the last few years the Republicans, led by President Bush, have increased government spending wildly. However the Democrats denounced them for not spending enough money on X, Y, Z, over the same period. Also the article was about now, not the last few years, and presently the Democrats are pushing for vastly more government spending. Not just the Democrat candidates for President of the United States, but the Democrat controlled Senate and House of Representatives as well. These demands for more government spending are far greater than what the Republican candidates for President of the United States or the Republicans in the Senate and House of Representatives are suggesting. The article said that the Democrats support a “pay as you go” rule. But this has nothing to do with limiting increases in government spending, all it means is that massive increases in government spending should be matched by massive increases in taxation, and, sure enough, the Democrats support both.
I can only conclude that the person or people who wrote the article either do not know very much about the current situation in the United States, or do not know what the “pay as you go” rule is about – or both.
There does seem to be a basic knowledge problem in the Economist, even on British matters. For example, only last week there was an examination of the pre budget statement. It was not really a big increase in taxation, the Economist declared, – for example there were “many winners” from the changes in Capital Gains Tax.
An examination of the facts should have told the writer or writers of the article that the changes in Capital Gains Tax would mean far higher tax for most payers of it – and that this and the other tax changes did indeed mean higher taxes overall.
Why does anyone buy the Economist when it neither understands the relation of Central Banks to monetary policy or understands the fiscal situation in the United States or even its home country?
It is particularly rubbish when it presents stuff about Australia.
And Italy. Once that dawned on me, I realised I prolly could not trust it for other stuff so I stopped reading.
The Economist plummeted in quality somewhere in the early 2000s. I finally had to drop my subscription after having read it for 12+ years.
Reading from an American point of view, they read more and more like a lefty US rag rather than their previous wonderful British detachment from US affairs (i.e. they lost the useful perspective they’d once had).
Quite a shame.
Its UK origins may conceal what The Economist has actually become. The majority of its circulation and income are now from subscribers in the US. It’s apparently also been picking up writers and editors from that more lucrative market.
Far from not knowing much about the situation in the US, the writer in the piece you describe is indulging in the same dishonesty typical of the other US news weeklies and their ‘journalists’.
It’s deterioration of this sort that led me to drop my long time Economist subscription two years ago.
I had a subscription to the Economist when I was twelve and the international edition was printed on onion skin paper (my father discovered there was a student rate so we shared.)
The wheels began to fall off when the magazine embraced global warming and began to suffer from acute Bush Derangement round about 2002. Essentially the magazine went from being classically Manchester School liberal and radically rationalist to a sort of mushy Cameronesque pander.
Which, I fear, reflects the general tenor of the bien pensant Brits all too accurately. If the choice is between telling the truth or at least questioning received wisdom and invitations to nice dinner parties in Hampstead the Economist’s editors vote with their forks.
Which has rendered the magazine pointless: one might as well read the Guardian.
I don’t know, Tim. I was reading the “Lexington” col in a recent issue and it came across as very uninformed on US society (they claimed that Americans tended to minimize humble origins rather than brag about them) and US politics (they quoted a sardonic White House aide commenting on “the reality based community” as though they believed he were drawing a contrast with religious fundamenalists rather than mocking a self chosen handle for parts of the loopier left-roots).
Ted
Yes, the Economist did indeed go through a precipitous quality drop around 2000. It joins Fortune Magazine, another business magazine that not long ago contained a lot of useful, objective information and analysis about business and economics, but which is now just another shallow organ of left wing groupthink and hip snark. We needed more of that, didn’t we? The Atlantic Monthly also used to have a wide variety of points of view, but it too, since the departure and tragic demise of Michael Kelly, become yet another journal of Upper West Side convention.
I have never understood the appeal of The Economist. About 10 or 15 years ago it seemed to be a very strong magazine of political thought and economic policy. It was a treasure trove of what was going on around the world and it seemed to me to have “supply-side” capitalism principles. Now it just seems to be parroting more of a BBC bias in foreign affairs, religion, economics and politics.
I echo all of the above. They should do a survey of the average age of an Economist writer and editor today. I would wager it’s about 21.
I ended my subscription with the Economist following its ridiculous coverage about katrina. Having lived for a number of years in New Orleans, it was appallingly clear to me that the Economist was only interested in bashing Bush. It has been a sad degeneration of a once proud magazine. I began reading it in the early 90s, and noticed a decline in quality (along with a corresponding increase in partisanship) around the time Bush was elected. Surprise, surprise. Nice to see I’m not alone.
After reading the latest foolishness from the Economist, I sent the following note, still waiting for a reply
Sir:
Catching up on my “Economist” reading after recent travel, your leader of Sept 22-28 (The Real Price of Freedom) deserves comment. The writer expresses shock- “who would have thought such things possible” – regarding arbitrary arrest, indefinite detention without trial, rendition, suspension of habeas corpus and torture. One would think that a magazine began in 1843 would have know that such
things are indeed possible and, regrettably, the historical norm rather than a recent invention by the Bush Administration. Doesn’t your staff read your
archives? A causal glance at just the past editions from 1933-1945 would help place these issues in context rather than publish a temporal projection of
editorial angst. Another point would be that when your writers are casually dismissing the deaths of innocents (“dropping such practices in order to preserve freedom may cost many lives,”) the phrase “so be it” is rather shop worn, it’s as old hat as “let them eat cake.” Surely, there is a Thesaurus that can suggest alternative phases to your writers when they condemn many lives to death on the alter of a “freedom” that the” Economist” can neither effectively promulgate, defend, or sustain.
B. Lena
You folks are spot on.
My subscription started in 1967 while in school.
The Economist has joined such distinguished publications
as Time and Newsweek magazines in mirroring the
thinking of Manhattan’s deep thinkers.
Ted: Heh. It’s been a while, but the ‘voice’ of Lexington also seemed to be that of a non-US observer. It was already descending from occasional outsider’s insight towards poorly informed sneering when I left the fold.
What I miss most about the rag is the global coverage, which is correctly seen as a weakness in American news mongering. As a partial corrective, I follow Global Voices, which may average left but emits a regular stream of good starting places for non-MSM coverage of world affairs. Still haven’t found a good substitute for global economics, though. Clues?
‘also’ s/b ‘always’ above. PIMF…
It has come down to the level of Newsweek. For a journal founded by the great Walter Bagehot, this is a tragedy. Even Rupert Murdoch would do a better job with it.
This is like group therapy. I thought I was all alone in my opinion about these deteriorating brands. Let me say I almost clicked my heels when I read an above comment lumping Fortune in the mix. Ditto pal. Double ditto those thoughts.
My advice is to look a bit more closely, as I did on two occassions after reading business articles that demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of freshman micro (or macro). Take a look at the journalist’s bio. On the two occassions in question, all roads lead to Columbia Journalism School.
Interesting, I dropped my subscription prior to 2000 because I just didn’t finish the mag often enough. I thought the perspective of a magazine that treated economics as real was wonderful. I just got a free copy sent to me yesterday. I assume some sort of come back offer.
I only started reading it about three years ago, so apparently I already missed the golden age. It is so clearly superior to Newsweek and Time that I continue to put up with its constant lefty slant.
I would like to echo the question – are there any recommendations for weeklies that effectively cover global news?
I used to read the Economist in the late 80’s and early 90’s and liked it a lot. I feel it began to decline around ’96 or so. That is about the time the Bill Emmott became the chief editor. I think the decline has accelerated since around 2000-2001. It is a shame because it really was good 15-20 years ago.
I think Fortune has gotten crappy as well. Forbes is still somewhat OK. I think some of the cause is that more people get their info from the internet and do not read magazines as much.
There is still the WSJ and the FT.
Like many here, I have taken the Economist for years: since about 1991 in my case. And like many, I’ve noticed a sharp decline roughly coinciding with (1) the general decline in magazine/newspaper sales over the last few years and (2) September 11, 2001.
The magazine has become another center-left echo in the chamber. It’s a terrible shame. It used to tell the truth, come what may– Economist even called for Clinton to resign on its cover, saying “just go”.
I’m still a subscriber, hoping that one day the obviously dim editors that reign today will be replaced by stern stuff of the kind that used to be in charge.
Yes, this is like group therapy. I subscribed for a long time starting back in the onion-skin years. I loved the foreign take on US affairs. Sometimes they were uninformed about the US, but at least they were not saying what every other newspaper, magazine, and network was saying. Dropped it in the late 1990s because I couldn’t finish it; because it started reflecting journalistic groupthink more and more; and because the back end started growing to the point where it began to look more and more like Time and Newsweek.
The Economist has always had “special reports” on various subjects. They have always been unreadable and full of pap. I think their purpose is to attract ads. For example, the one on central banks probably had a lot of ads by investment banks. The funniest special reports were about third-world countries. These would attract full-page ads by various state enterprises allegedly written by and accompanied by a picture of some crony of the country’s dictator/president-for-life who was the state body’s managing director. If you believed the ad, you would think that the People’s State Whatever was about to overtake MicroSoft.
Sad to see The Economists’s descent into irrelevance.
Around 2000 I was involved in evaluating fuel cell technology. I had access to non-public information and researched extensively public knowledge. I found that the Economist’s articles on fuel cells to be full of inaccuracies and reflecting arrogance. That’s just an example–the quality and the “independence” has visibly suffered.
Another ex-subscriber
I found the Economist in the early 90s when Delta Airlines used to stock it on their planes. My subscription expires next week.
The Economist has always been staffed by young and arrogant writers – that is part of its charm. I wonder whether changes in the last decade are due to the retirement of Norman Macrae as Deputy Editor.
I find myself in partial agreement with all comments preceding.
The Economist is laughably inept when it comes to its coverage of the U.S. I like to read the 6-pt agate corrections it is forced to run from time to time when their howlers become particularly egregious. One of their columnists disparaged Sinclair broadcasting a while back, and the correction, obviously dictated verbatim by Sinclair’s attorneys, revealed that in a single sentence the writer had committed three untruths to paper. Quite an accomplishment, even for a liberal. Such a triumph of impressionistic journalism suggests the Economist has no editors at all. Perhaps a cost saving device?
I gather from letters it prints from denizens of other countries (The Netherlands and Australia recently) the Economists’ prima donna writers haven’t a clue about what goes on in most places, not just the U.S.
Nevertheless, I thought the special report on central banks and the money economy in the latest issue was well worth reading. One of the articles did discuss the money supply, or more accurately, the value of tracking various measures of the money and credit aggregates. Overall, the cautionary advice contained in the report seems to me to be quite well supported.
So I find that The Economists’ coverage of the money economy is excellent. The rest of the mag can be seen as offering above-average entertainment value and is not to be taken seriously.
> we were informed that the Democrats were presently taking a harder line on controlling government spending than the Republicans in the United States.
The Economist is, of course, right on this. You should be more careful about making assertions on issues you apparently aren’t following.
You are probably unaware of how practical exertions against deficits are done in the US. Congresses that care about them have PAYGO rules, requiring new efforts to be paid for by cutting at least as much from the last budget. Presidents that care about deficits veto at least a few budget bills that are out of whack. The GOP has done neither between 2001 and today. The all-GOP Congress dismantled PAYGO in its rule, and Bush has never yet vetoed a spending bill for being too expensive. Clearly they were needed, because plenty of deficits were run. PAYGO restoration came very early in the Democratic term.
The fact is that, as I wrote here, this is part of a thirty-year pattern of Republicans complaining about Democratic spending and taxes and then running big deficits when in power; the real thirty-year Democratic record is slightly lower spending (D patronage, like CHIP, is cheaper is cheaper than R patronage, military spending) and budgets much closer to balance.
If you think taxes are high if they’re high enough to balance the budget, then Dem taxes are high, yes.
> However the Democrats denounced them for not spending enough money on X, Y, Z, …
Denunciations are cheap. It’s hard to find anything that some politician hasn’t accused The Other Guys are doing. What matters is the RECORD. ACTIONS. GOP presidents have a record since late in the Ford Administration – the late 70s – for big spending and running deficits.
Personally, I hope Mr. Bush can finally crack that record, even if he needs a little help from Democrats in Congress to it.
Agreed. I read the Economist regularly from the late 80’s to mid 90’s. I subscribed again recently so my teenagers would have something more substantial than Time or Newsweek. It is still that, but it’s not what it was. I can’t read it myself for the predictable snark – same reason I can’t watch TV, it’s too easy to see what comes next.
Here’s a question, though. Did the Economist really decline, did we all get smarter, or did we all become accustomed to faster news and better commentary from the blogosphere?
I used to do a large amount of international travel through the 1990’s and depended upon the Economist as a reliable source of information, including their take on American politics. However, I also echo most of the comments here regarding the veracity and objectiveness of the periodical. Too bad, at one time a must read. Then again so was the NYT.
Another ex-subscriber. I loved the Economist back in the day, but now consider it no better than any of the other journalistic mush available. Personally, I think it was Marjorie Scardino who put it on its downward trajectory. The irony, of course, is that she is American. But perhaps, all things considered, that shouldn’t be a surprise. After all, have you ever sat next to an American ex-pat at a London dinner party? They are inevitably more critical of their own country than are the hosts… in the belief that it makes them seem more “sophisticated” and “international”. “Tiresome” is more like it.
Hello. I’m ignorant and thought that the Economist was ok (though I read it rarely, due to blogs). What’s good out there if I have to pick something up in an airport or a bookstore?
I began reading “The Economist” in the early ’90s on the recommendation of a relative who lived and worked in the Middle East. From the mid-90s until just into the 20th century, I read it regularly. An American, I never cared for US news magazines; “The Economist” provided more and diverse topics and was hefty enough to feel worth reading. I loved being able to read about Tuareg rebellions in Niger, things that test my knowledge of current events and geography.
Then things changed. The ads seemed to grow and I began to feel as if I were reading the NYT. Where I once read it cover to cover for free in my university library, nowadays I might pick it up once every couple of months to scan through, mainly in search of trivia.
My current position sucks up vast amount of time, so I cannot fill it with “The Economist.” Yet even if I had the time I once did, I doubt “The Economist” would return to being the filler of choice.
I’ve been a subscriber for over 25 years however I will let my subscription lapse at the end of this year. Many years ago, The Economist gave me a fresh insight on US affairs from the other side of the pond and good articles about the rest of the world as well. In the last 5-10 years, the quality of the writing has gone way down and it has turned into yet another “America is the root of all evil” rag. The name-calling (“Toxic Texan”,”scamp”,etc…) referring to our President, the lack of fundamental understanding of the three branches of our government, and the outright errors are a waste of my time. There was a time when I looked forward to each edition; now I can hardly be bothered to skim through it.
Here’s a question, though. Did the Economist really decline, did we all get smarter, or did we all become accustomed to faster news and better commentary from the blogosphere?
A bit of all three, IMO.
As the internet has spread and english has become ever more ubiquitous, we have become more informed about the world beyond our own nation’s borders, and informed commentary on events written by local observers has become easier and easier to find.
The Economist is not what it once was, but is still better than Time and Newsweek, which seem to be well along the road to becoming about as relevant as People and the other celebrity-news rags.
The Economist started to go downhill when Clive Crook, the former deputy editor, departed to join the Atlantic Monthly. Mr. Crook, as deputy to Bill Emmott, was the real intellectual force behind the paper. (If you’re interested in a sample, read the brilliant survey he wrote on corporate social responsibility.) He left when he wasn’t promoted to the editor-in-chief slot.
Clive’s departure was, in my view, a crushing blow to all the true-blue free marketeers (of which there are still a few at the Economist) within the organization.
-MK.
I first “found” (and subscribed to) the Economist around 1976-7 or so. It was a weekly (as I recall). I would get an issue, and a few days *later* I’d start to see its news bits start to appear in American papers and magazines. I loved that magazine.
I was the best informed green chain puller working in a small Northcoast sawmill *ever*.
…that sawmill (really, that industry), and the magazine are but memories. I haven’t been able to stomache it since around 2002 or so. Just quit reading it: why bother.
Sad.
After 14 years I have let my subcription lapse. There is still good stuff on Economics of a more academic bent but much else is often clueless; that is one can’t take them as authoritative. It really is beyond pathetic to offer that they are better than Time or Newsweek- anything is.
This is very good blog.
After 14 years I have let my subcription lapse. There is still good stuff on Economics of a more academic bent but much else is often clueless; that is one can’t take them as authoritative. It really is beyond pathetic to offer that they are better than Time or Newsweek- anything is.
This is very good blog.
So glad I’m not the only one who can no longer make it through the Economist cover to cover.
Thought maybe it was adult onset ADDH or something.
The Economist used to be required reading for professional economists 10-15 years ago. Due to its slow drift to the Left, I don’t bother to read it these days and I can’t think of a single economist colleague who does also.
Moreover, its articles on Australia are so breathtakingly inaccurate that they seem to be written by someone who has never even visited the place.
Recently the editors of the Economist confessed that they, like the rest of the rat-pack media, had mindlessly and credulously defamed the Duke lacrosse players in the hoax “rape” case. They admitted that they had been wrong and had joined the herd on this “story”. Why should I trust their reporting of future “stories” on any subject? I can’t imagine how they can win back my trust. Next time around I will let my subscription lapse — after having been a subscriber for more than 10 years.
I am going to join the parade of lament here, I have subscribed since the early 1990s, and I let it lapse a few years back but gave it another shot, and I let that subscription lapse two months ago. I doubt that I will ever go back. It is supposed to be a classically liberal magazine. I think it has now become a punchline to a joke.
I recently attended an Economist Intelligence Unit “briefing” here in Switzerland, which consisted of a series of highly lucid insights on doing business in Eastern Europe, all delivered by one obviously very intelligent man. However, every third sentence out of this man’s mouth was some really anti-American vitriol, even to the point of blaming most of the ills of the world (economically speaking) on the stupidity of a fictitious “Dwayne back at headquarters in Minneapolis”, spoken in a fake drawl, and obviously meant to personify the Ugly, Dumb American. Most of the 20 or so people around trhe table chuckled appreciatively, evn though (or because) they worked for companies like Procter & Gamble and Caterpillar. I like to think of myself as open-minded, but I was truly shocked and disgusted by this puerile, knee-jerk thinking.
The other views here about the magazine’s decline are very welcome to read. I’ve been harboring the same nagging thoughts for about 5 years, but I still have such a love for the magazine (subscriber since age 25… 25 years ago) that I barely wanted to admit to myself that it was true. The comment above about the writers all seeming to be 21 years old is spot-on. Instead of a calm, reasoned view of the world, and the US, it’s degraded into sneering at Bush and calling him a failure at every opportunity. Maybe I’ll summon up the courage to drop my subscription after all!
I started reading The Economist in the mid-1980s, and read it faithfully through the 1990s. But I stopped about 6 years ago as the quality began to decline and the viewpoints became distorted and in some cases ridiculous. I pick up an issue occasionally now and see that it has only gotten (much) worse since then. What a shame.
Hmmm, so many people with the same experienced. Started subbing in 1979, kept it through 2001. They had some amazing scoops, first real prediction of the 1994 Republician revolution in print 2 months early.
Their reporters seemingly lost track of America, every newstand issue since has at least 1 jaw dropper; Red America is a distant country that their reporters know little of. I failed to renew in 2001.
It is fascinating to read the article and comments about the Economist. It is troubling to witness the decline of a once great magazine. I’ve enclosed below a letter I sent to the Economist in 2005 which was never published. It reflects my thoughts then and now
and certainly seems consistent with all the comments posted here…
To the Editor/ The Economist:
Dear Sir:
I am an American and have been reading The Economist regularly for nearly thirty years.
I’ve always appreciated the magazine’s breadth of coverage, trenchant reporting, and independent point of view. Your magazine was a marvelous contrast to the execrable pop news weeklies published in America.
Now, however, I find your magazine starting to succumb to the worst practices of your American competitors. These can be characterized as left-leaning political correctness;
drooling coverage of the celebritariat; and knee-jerk anti-Americanism. The worst of these is the incipient anti-Americanism. You have always been a critic of American culture and US government policy. Your criticism has usually been fair, abiding and sometimes brutal. But it has never been swayed by current fashion, and it has never been mean-spirited. I’m afraid that those days are over. Riddled throughout each week’s issue are found snide, condescending remarks about things American– frequently in articles that have nothing to do with America. A typical example is the book review in your Jan 1, 2005 issue where your reviewer discusses two recent histories on the Mau Mau in Kenya. At the end of the long article the writer manages to draw unfavorable parallels to US war policy. The comment is gratuitous cant. One finds these little digs throughout your magazine week after week. You’re in danger of becoming what the BBC in Britain and CBS in America have become—tools of foolish left wing ideologues and thereby irrelevant. Where are your editorial standards? Where is your red pen?
I’m delighted to have found the Economist ex-reader support group! I doubt I missed an issue from 1985 through 2000. I couldn’t take it any more by 2002 and let my subscription lapse.
Here’s what an Economist insider had to say when I lamented the decline:
“Regards the smugness , it changed a lot during my short tenure – from 1995 through 2005. My sense is the brand is changing – selling it’s Britishness, etc, more than 19th century liberalism these days. In the process, it seems to be drifting towards the BBC, soft left, bien pensant mildly anti-capitalist. No longer so distinctive. But that’s what happens when you go mass market. They’re approaching 1.1m subscribers…Probably less than 200,000 when you started reading it.”
First Jon:
The Democrats are still demanding even more spending than the Republicans – it was not just when they were in the minority in the House and Senate.
Perhaps you should stop snearing at me and actually examine the facts (p.s. do not bother me with links, if a man can not bother to write down what he means I do not tend to follow him round cyber space).
As for Paygo – asking for big tax increases as well as big spending increases is not opposing big spending increases (in reality the Democrats support both).
You, like the Economist, fail a test of basic logic – as well as Political Economy.
Some other comments:
The Economist may be better than Time and Newsweek, but I would not buy any of these three publications.
“What international news magazine would you buy?” – At present none at all. Why spend money to be misinformed?
Walter Bagehot:
I would not go so far in attacking Walter B. as Murry Rothbard did – but the Economist was a better publication before he started to edit it. And he did not found the Economist.
Lastly:
One of the odd things about the almost 40 page long feature on Central Banking in the Economist was that it cited Milton Friedman with favour – but did not examine his ideas on the money supply.
From the feature one would get the impression that Central Banks influence interest rates and this, by magic, controlls general price rises.
In reality setting certain interest rates is one way that Central Banks try and control the credit money supply – which in turn……
Now I am not even a follower of Milton Friedman (I am an evil Austrian school man who regards such things as “providing liquidity for commercial banks” as just a fancy way of talking about subsidies-corportate welfare – in short I do not support Central Banking at all), but I would not cite him in the area of Central Banking and price rises without talking, in depth, about his ideas on the money supply.
It is just silly to write as the Economist did.
Cheapest subscription to The Economist magazine
Economist Subscription (Link)