How does /lit/ think of the economist?

that it's not literature

>>7613976
I used to have a paid subscription to the Economist. To be honest, I never read it. I only signed up because I was at a point in my life where I desperately wanted to be more sophisticated, or at least appear that way, and it happened to be one of the subscriptions that my sister was selling for a school fundraiser.

I also subscribed to the Wall Street Journal and would pull it out at school so people would think I was super mature with my OCBD shirts and desert boots.

Now I only sometimes read The New Criterion.

Rothschild-owned NWO garbage

The British are especially liberal, but they're witty and have a dryness that is so refreshing when you live in a country that has CNN and Fox.

I subscribed recently and find it worthwhile. The quality of writing and its global focus place it leagues ahead of most other news publications.

>>7613976
Bloomberg is far more interesting.

>>7614014
They recently got a new editor (I think in the last 12 months). And as someone who has had a subscription for the past three years, I think the quality of the writing has declined significantly since the editor has taken over. It's essentially become Reddit-tier. Maybe I should cancel my subscription...

You can complain about their viewpoints but they do make fun of themselves a lot

It's refreshing from how serious America periodicals are but apparently you are not suppose to like it because people cannot read between the lines or some such

I used my airline bonus thing and got the yearly twice, no regrets

It has devolved into leftist drivel.

I always understood that they took such a stance regarding local British politics. I didn't care because I read it for more international news. Recently, they've started to view all goings on through that lens. It's ridiculous.

I have also noticed an increase in spelling and grammatical errors. Minor annoyance but I feel that it says something about the organization.

FT subscription is more worthwhile imo, but still a great publication.

>>7614017
Bbw is better, but The Economist is p good. FT is best.

Slowpoke leftists
I get more insightful news and advice from happening threads and Infowars

>The Economist
>leftist

This is the same magazine that called Piketty's Capital in the 21st Century - with its revolutionary idea of raising taxes on rich people to something resembling pre-eighties levels - "socialist dogma". It's an absolutely dreary rag that clings to a discredited economic orthodoxy, but rather than doing so from the left it's very clearly a liberal mouthpiece.

File: esotericmumbojumbo.jpg (209KB, 796x1024px) Image search: [Google]

209KB, 796x1024px

Since this is a Mongolian image board...are they greys going to get hit? Why is the Pope of Rome on top in the 21st century? Dark ages again?

File: 11c.gif (3MB, 426x426px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 426x426px

>>7613976

>reading the Cathedralist

>any year

>>7613976
> Go to LSE
> Live in a hall where you have mail pigeonholes
> literally 2/3 of them have unopened (The Economist is shipped in a plastic bag) The Economist their parents pay 155 pounds a year for.

It's a dry magazine that offers perhaps too many facts and too little analysis. One has to have a certain grain to themselves to be actually able to read the endless small print reports on issues that aren't on the cover.

>>7614044
>>7614049
FT?

>>7614034
>>7614052
They fucking hate Leftists. They're neoliberals who believe that any measure to benifit the people over capital is 'populist' and 'anti-democratic', which they also describe to the far-right demagagous (Trump, Putin, Le Pen, etc) that are becoming more and more popular nowadays in order to reify them as 'the same', even when they themselves support far-right regimes that institute neoliberal reforms when the Left ever attempts (not even comitt, just attempt) to ever do anything.

>hur dur liberals are leftists

>>7614250
The facts wouldn't be so bad if they weren't so slow at reporting them.

Financial Times is better desu

>>7613976
Was a subscriber for a couple of years and thought it was OK. The obituaries are on point, the rest of it I feel kind of meh about.

>>7614272
financial times

>>7614298
Thank you

File: image.jpg (128KB, 600x898px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 600x898px

>>7613976

>finance and financial regulation:
actually have some valuable and pertinent viewpoints, occasionally take the side of the banks when they shouldn't but usually are right when they take about curbing risky financial practices and improving stability in international finance, the one caveat is that as an editorial policy they obviously hold as out of the question any criticism of the practice of central banks like the Fed. etc

>free trade and economics:
Fervantly pro-free trade and privatization. They go out of their way to over-hype its benefits and downplay and ignore its faults. In some corrupt and developing 3rd world countries privatization would obviously improve the performance of some state-run corporations but they would have us believe this sort of improvement is the standard result everywhere which is just not true. The TPA/TPP/TTIP trifecta if implemented will be a disaster for the western middle class and the economist worshipping it has made them lose a lot of what little credibility they had.

>on foreign policy and world events:
essentially functions as a mouthpeice of the US state department/UK foreign ministry. Glaringly obvious anti-Russia/Syria/Iran/Ecuador/Venezuela bias to the point that it makes them omit important facts and rely on ridiculous statements and assertions, and thats not to say these countries have nothing to be criticized for but the economist really makes fools out of themselves here. On issues that dont hugely concern the US like the political situation in obscure countries they sometimes have relatively unbiased and informative coverage


overall: ultimately of little value but amusing and informative enough to cause one to continue reading it even when they are sick of the snide assuredness in their hopelessly biased coverage.

literally liberal propaganda. Use to read it in high school now I just follow the Facebook cause

>non digital

And it's straight buzzfeed tier

Not exactly on topic but what are some of your favorite literary magazines? I looked over at pw for some but everyone I came across that dealt with literary fiction were basically tumblr incarnate that only wanted to deal with PoC, trans, and faggot issues instead of actual human elements.

>>7614408
Scientific journals on specific fields

Do we have an official tier list of publications?

>>7614479
>we

>>>/Reddit/

>>7614496
how the fuck is using 'we' to refer to /lit/ fucking reddit faggot

Useful as one source of biased media as any other one.

>>7614408
> PoC, trans, and faggot issues instead of actual human elements.
I don't think you have the education to read proper literary journals or literature in the first place.

>>7614273
This
They have an obvious agenda but get parroted by pseudointellectuals as "impartial" because they don't fit neatly anywhere in the left right dichotomy

>>7614024
Interesting. I read them again recently after a while of not reading The Economist. I found the writing to be worse and their opinions less hidden and more flimsy.

That said, I always thought they had a good, clean format with smart coverage on a wide variety of things.

Wouldn't ever subscribe. Just read it at the library.

>>7613976
Financial Times are better in every way

>>7614049
what is BBW? all i get is big butt woman

It's a good source if you want something to cover a little bit of everything.

Financial Times is a better economic publication.
Foreign Affairs is good for analysis, Foreign Policy is good for daily reading.

Zerohedge or bust

>>7614024
Agreed. The Economist used to be a respectable magazine, but now it has stooped to the level of race-bait articles and buzzfeed-esque clickbait.