Hacker News Reader

I like how this article frames it as an issue about the 'free movement of capital.'

In a lot of instances 'free-trade' agreements exist to help the mega-rich, this seems like a perfect example.

Critical analysis of neoliberal economics is not likely to be found in the pages of one of its primary mouthpieces, though sometimes the Economist does surprise and actually mentions an externality or two.

I think this is an unfair generalisation. The Economist has always had free-market leanings, long before the term "neo-liberal" was spawned. Moreover even a cursory glance at their comments feeds (you'll need a strong stomach of course) reveals an equal quantity of complaining about this "leftist organ" and its "socialist liberal agenda" as there is about being a "trade agreement apologist" or "capitalist rag".

It may be the only way to gauge impartiality is when everyone is equally offended.

The Economist is classically liberal, not neoliberal--they're too hostile to monopolies, oligopolies and rent-seeking to be the latter.

No way man. This means you're free to buy up real estate in all of those desirable Chinese cities. Go on. Invest.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com