For all of you saying this is some kind of liberal rag I have a question. I know you won't answer it honestly or even at all, but you will think it to yourself. If this magazine had endorsed McCain, would you have said "oh, thats just a stupid magazine anyway, it doesnt matter". Hmmm.
So you're suggesting that these educated movers and shakers whom you refer to are not capable of independent thought?
A well-written article that coherently expounds on its thesis and arguably, reflects the views of most mainstream Americans, myself included.
Of course not, the REP modus operandi is to attack the source if what they say goes against the gospel according to Drudge, Fat Boy, and Fox. If it had endorsed McCain, the cry would have been that the ECONOMIST was the paragon of conservative values read by the leaders of the world. Seneca
When I was younger and wanted to impress dates that I was more worldly than just an uneducated floor trader, I subscribed to the Economist. Kept it prominently displayed on my toilet. It's always been center-Left. More Keynesian than Friedmanomic. For years the cover of the Economist was a legendary fade. That being said their endorsement was at least better reasoned than much of the drivel published on Obama's behalf by American newspapers. If I believed Obama then I would be a tad more supportive of his candidacy. I'm the type though who fades CW at every chance and I look upon Obamaites as classic buyers of a swing high. Sort of a big short covering rally off a Bush break. Obama combines bullish sentiment with bearish fundamentals. Those fundamentals are still in trend mode. The American demographic is becoming a less innovative black/brown, government debt, consumer debt, corporate debt and under funded liabilities are beyond a drag on growth, the amount of budgetary elasticity for interventionist military operations is nil and yet Obama supporters are fixated on promises of a Federal government that will do more for them. A dangerously disingenuous message. When I hear educated folks debating increased spending for this and that I suppress laughter. There's a 10x better chance of an under subscribed 30 year auction in our future than some sort of socialist paradise coming down the pike. The media-including the Economist are still living in early 2007.
I actually used to subscribe to The Economist years ago, but it changed direction 10 years or so ago and became a dumbed down, more political and liberal version of itself, kind of a slightly more erudite Time or Newsweek. There is nothing particularly remarkable about their endorsement. They recognize what we all do, that Obama is a big gamble. They just come down differently on how reasonable it is to take that gamble. No doubt if I were european, I might feel the same way. Obama will clearly defer to them more than Bush has or McCain would and Obama's socialist policies will level the competitiveness playing field between europe and the US.
Previous issue was full of how not to overdo regulations and leave capitalism functioning basically. Now they endorse Obama. So much for consistency.
The problem with the economics is it's so darn long and condensed that before you're finished reading the current weak a new issue is out. Also, I prefer my economics news in more easily digestible morsels such as the Wall Street Journal or CNBC or FOX. 95% of the stuff in the economist is fluff anyway. You don;t need to know every tiny detail and factoid ot make smart investing decisions.
You would think a magazine that claims to know the economy would add some info about how Obama's tax policies will affect the economy in it's present state.
This is probably also why you consistently lose all your paper money while making some of the worst market calls I have ever seen in my 5 year history at ET. If there was ever an award to be given out for the most wrong, stubborn and ignorant paper-trader, you'd win hands down. FOX??? You actually get your econ. info from FOX??? LMAO... I hope you're not trading real money pal... you're about as clueless fools come. I do think education has quite a bit to do with voting habits. I would speculate that the reasons the coasts tend to be liberal is because of a higher concentration of top-name schools. CA alone has over a dozen top schools as does New England.