Quote:
|
Originally Posted by demonrail666
The Economist is pretty much Left-Liberal. so if you're on-side with someone like Elizabeth Warren you'll be largely on-side with its general position.
|
not anymore, no
her negative compound interest plan (“wealth tax”) is clumsy as fuck. i believe the economist is more pro-market
i also have come to believe she’s become a hypocrite—clamoring for the virginia governor to leave his post while defending her previous false claims of ethnic provenance
i am getting tired of democrats REALLY FAST
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by demonrail666
The Economist probably isn't read much by the Corbynistas (who are mostly associated with The Guardian ... aka 'Guardianistas') but it's definitely taken seriously by the Westminster establishment, even those parts of it that don't necessarily reflect its ideology.
|
was just reading that i spite of their “global perspective” 75% of their staff is based on westminster
is that your “capitol hill” so to speak?
istill appreciate the global perspective. financial times is beyond my grasp at times, but the economist i get.
american papers are too provincial, in a way. either wsj or nyt for all their global reach are too us-centric i their approach. and washington post is... local coverage.