I love the economist, but If you want balance, you'll need to read alternative sources that provide a more (dare I say it) compassionate viewpoint.
But I would hesitate to call it a libertarian perspective. Its a very "traditional+behavioural" (I do not have a better word) economics point of view. Its "pro free-trade", and generally socially liberal, and sure, it argues against various taxes, but I believe it called out house price bubbles pre-2008, and I think it would generally be in support of environmental regulation (it is not global warming/environmentally skeptic), some kinds of financial regulation, and probably pro-socialised health care.
Coming from a european persepctive (as in, the economist is a distinctly european/british magazine), its probably a fair bit more skeptical of american capitalism and libertarianism than might otherwise be assumed.
Just a small aside: if someone is sceptical that climate change is occurring, logically that should not indicate how they view environmental regulation in general (in cases where they agree some environmental harm is occurring). I realise this might not always be the case in reality. If someone tells you they don't believe climate change is occurring because they oppose environmental regulations, it's a pretty good indication that they're full of it.
Yeah, there are plenty of examples of The Economist advocating for regulation, the most obvious being gun control in America.
Their viewpoint reminds me of my economics professor. What is good is what leads to the most economic growth, which is a question the science of economics can address. Welfare has a role. Regulation has a role. Monetary policy has a role. Education has a role. Healthcare has a role (people may remain in situations of suboptimal productivity to maintain health coverage). All can be done poorly, but all must be done well to have optimal productivity. Principles like comparative advantage and supply and demand are largely reliable, and should guide policy. The market will get most things right, and for the rest, government should manage the externalities. Government can have good reasons to impede business, but the benefits should be in line with the costs.
It is the Economist, after all. Free trade being a good idea is uncontroversial among academic economists. So yeah, you aren't going to see them in favor of protectionism. You will see them represent a wider diversity of opinions on monetary policy, in accordance with its not being so much of a settled question.
They support a much larger role for the state than the "personal responsibility"-thumping, climate-change-denying Republicans in Congress, and are certainly far left of the you're-not-the-boss-of-me Bitcoin-thumping internet libertarians.
This is a pretty good summary of how most economists working in the public service tend to view the world too (at least in my experience). It's unfortunate that public discussion of economic issues has become so politicised and disconnected from reality. We seem to have reached the point where many believe the word 'economist' is a synonym for 'libertarian demagogue'. Either that or economists are thought to be 'those guys that trade shares for a living'.
However, it does seem like there's an awful lot of these libertarian 'economists' running around the internet nowadays...
When in doubt, portmanteau the idiom.
This is significant editorial change of heart. The Economist was a loud, regular voice in favor of austerity policies for many years. That it has written critically of austerity programs in 2016-17 is great, but it's something of a Damascene conversion for the paper.
As Keynes is reputed to have said, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"
Yes, with the caveat that the theoretical argument in favour of free trade (say, in a Heckscher-Olin 2 countries, 2 goods, 2 factors model) depends on compensation to the losers of trade, i.e. redistribution, transfer payments.
That's what turns it (theoretically) into a Pareto improvement: you go from no trade to free trade, then compensate the losers in both countries, and then still have cloth and wine left to distribute at will.
Also, less naive and more realistic models make it all much more ambiguous and complicated.
At any rate, even the simple Econ 101 model says: free trade is unambiguously good, if you tax the winners and give to the losers... and that second part is often conveniently forgotten by some, because "free markets" and all.
Either:
1) You don't know what libertarianism is
2) You don't read the economist very closely
3) You meant liberalism
Given you think that the economist dogmatically believes in less tax, regulation and trade barriers, it seems more likely you don't actually read the newspaper very closely.
Take healthcare in US for instance. The economist consistently favours more government intervention and higher taxation with a single payer health system. Just taking one example from the current Europe editor (I think): http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/09/he...
> In fact, government intervention is often necessary in order to bring comprehensibility to a bewildering private landscape.
Yes, I do think the economist is dogmatic. If you think it isn't, you probably don't read very widely.
Disagree. They certainly hold several positions very dear, and you might say axiomatically, but I'd say because they've proven to be fruitful.
And they have changed their mind (sometimes reluctantly) on some issues, such as austerity.
Sure; their viewpoint has a focus; you'll get a different story elsewhere. But I don't see this as a kind of adversarial "us" vs. "them" issue: it's not that they're misleading you or even avoiding confronting other sides of the story; it's just that the world is a large place: not all topics can be in scope, even if several viewpoints are valid and partially in conflict with one another.
You present the unified world view a little as if the focus on (e.g.) free trade is a bias that can be misleading; I suggest the alternative metaphor: it's more like the dentist reminding you to brush your teeth. You may not want to hear it, and he's a like a broken record, and it's not going to tell you much about how to cook, but that doesn't mean the dentist is wrong or trying to hide the importance of cooking from you.
If there's a preconceived notion underlying the economist, it seems to be that its worthwhile to think of benefits and costs to society overall, and not just to individuals. Whether that's right or wrong is largely a matter of ethics; I doubt we'll ever know what's "best".
Obviously, no newspaper is perfect; they will misjudge some things, some time. But so will you and I. Do you know of an outfit that appears to be less biased?
The Economist is very straightforwardly a British/European liberal (not in the American sense of "liberal") publication that is economically and socially liberal and strongly internationalist in its outlook.
It will almost always recommend lower tax burdens, reduced business regulation, reduced trade barriers and membership of the EU, UN and NATO, privatisation of nationalised industries, and reduced moral policing by the state. However, it will admit, reflecting a British political consensus, that government intervention and regulation is invaluable in areas such as health, natural monopolies such as energy and transport, moderate levels of income redistribution through the tax system, social safety nets in the event of economic downturns or disability, or with national or international threats such as climate change were government coordination is indispensable. Sometimes they will admit that the power of the state is the only way to get things done, and so they aren't strictly dogmatic about their pro-market credentials, but if there is a viable path for leaving something alone they will advocate for it.
If you are an American reader this combination of issues may seem to fall across a lot of political boundaries, and so its novelty makes it seem diverse. In fact, this combination is a fairly straightforward centre and centre-right view of policy in the UK and much of Europe.
Edit: Some people seem to be suggesting The Economist is Libertarian. You are mistaken - it is liberal.
I know personally I identified as a left-libertarian and then realized that classical liberal was a more legible way to express the same positions.
So, I'd think that your left-libertarian position is somewhat rare, and most libertarianism is of the right variety.
Classical liberalism is a much better term, in my view. And mind you, Milton Friedman himself advocated for government intervention in many cases (natural monopolies, externalities, maybe even asymmetric information, not sure).
1988: None
1992: D - Bill Clinton (vs George Bush)
1996: R - Bob Dole (vs Bill Clinton)
2000: R - George W. Bush (vs Al Gore)
2004: D - John Kerry (vs George W. Bush)
2008: D - Barack Obama (vs McCain)
2012: D - Barack Obama (vs Mitt Romney)
2016: D - Hilary Clinton (vs Donald)
Yes, market friendly, sure, but well aware of the limitations of markets and the importance of good regulation - you bet.