The Economist is a mouthpiece for the money power, specifically the banking interests of the Rothschild and Cadbury families. The idea of making money by making things (as opposed to arbitrage) is anathema to them.

▲

gruez a day ago | parent [-]

>The idea of making money by making things (as opposed to arbitrage) is anathema to them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Editorial_stance_of_The_Econom...

They're pro free trade against government intervention. That's not the same as "making things ... is anathema to them". They're for planning reform in uk, to help build infrastructure and homes, for instance.

▲

linksnapzz a day ago | parent | next [-]

They're pro-offshoring of any sort of industrial base. Line-goes-up!

▲

owebmaster a day ago | parent | prev [-]

> They're for planning reform in uk

As long as the reform is to cut taxes for the rich

▲

gruez a day ago | parent [-]

>As long as the reform is to cut taxes for the rich

Source? Strangely "tax" only has one hit within the wikipedia article, and it's not about tax cuts. If it's really such an important part of their editorial stance, you should update the article.

▲

Chu4eeno 6 hours ago | parent [-]

You are very naive about the neutrality of Wikipedia.

Maintaining the Wikipedia page is part of what any PR/reputation management agency does.

	▲	gruez 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Right, which is why the first part of my comment, before mentioning wikipedia at all is "Source?". Wikipedia might be biased, but it's a good starting point. Likewise, it's very hard to take you seriously when all you can do is complain about how wikipedia is biased/astroturfed, but can't provide any sources to contradict the wikipedia article, yet are willing to take a random commenter at face value.