This post in current affairs[0] remains the best piece of writing about the Economist that I've ever read.
[0] - https://www.currentaffairs.org/news/2017/05/how-the-economis...
[0] - https://www.currentaffairs.org/news/2017/05/how-the-economis...
It’s equally as meek a counter-argument as, “trust me because I hold degrees in this topic.” Good. Then it should be easy for you to make a well-reasoned argument.
As someone who is a Yale educated leftist and believes that markets do not work Robinson is upset.
Meanwhile, when employers of his own magazine wanted it to become a worker owned socialist cooperative he got them to resign. Socialism for thee, not for me.
Imagine if someone says "I spent the last week reading about the history of the Levant and I know how to implement peace in that region".
I strongly disagree. Well reasoned means nothing if it is not based on anything real except own imagination. And it means nothing if it was not checked against reality.
Our tendency to favor "sounds plausible and logical" even when the person writing it never bothered to check reality is just yet another logical fallacy.
So what from the December issue proved horribly wrong?
I accept the article's assertion that their kneejerk free-market philosophy is, at the least, limiting. But to me, the tone has always suggested middle-age journalism grads, rather than the right-wing business-school types the article is suggesting.
They have a bias, but they don't seem stupid or inexperienced. So much of free-market thought in the US, and recently the UK, has been caught up in culture war, and the Economist is staunchly against that.
Which is to say, they don't read like twenty-somethings to me. So if I'm wrong about that, I need to take another look at the lens through which I view their writing.
Wikipedia seems to list their columnists as being closer to fifty-somethings: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist#Columns