Every single aspect of that cover is manipulative marketing.

Right, but OP's implication is that they're trying to placate the masses (that somehow read the economist?), even though a few months before they were putting out alarmist covers. You can't have it both ways. If you're arguing that economist being pro-job loss is part of a globalist conspiracy and so is the economist being anti-job loss, then you just created an unfalsifiable statement, a "heads I win, tails you lose" argument.