r/theeconomist

The second half of the interview was a car crash in slow motion.

hey guys i am a forex trader and i am also interested in learning economy like from basics to advanced , how do the inflation recesion cycles work why country's go bankrupt lending , depressions , bubbles everything , could someone give me the Roadmap for the Books or courses to follow so that i can learn step by step

Hi everyone,

I am thinking of subscribing to the print edition in Bangalore, India. What has been your experience with it? Is it worth the price, and how often are physical copies delayed and by how much?

I'm curious about your thoughts on "The man who would change Russia". Featuring a self-serving, antidemocratic man, recounting how he skirts sanctions, the length of his yacht - this felt commissioned and didn't add to my understanding of current or post-war Russia.

Generally, I think the Economist provides a well-balanced and thought out analysis of the week's events. However, with AI, I'm of the opinion that the sponsorships by companies such as Anthropic, has given the magazine a dubious air whenever the topic comes up.

Any article on the subject generally reads as little more than a propaganda piece, with the very real fears of workers and people local to the data centres treated as the ravings of luddites and NIMBYs.

The economist still remains part of my weekly reading, but I've found myself taking a wider and wider berth when AI is mentioned, due to what I perceive to be a distortion in the magazines journalistic integrity.

What are other readers' thoughts on this?

Am I alone, shaking my fist at the sky?

These sorts of comments about war always rub me the wrong way, especially when they come from someone who wouldn't bear the consequences of their own ideas.

Maybe I misunderstood, but I felt like the article scorned young Italians and others for not wanting to fight a war for their country. Reading it felt like she sees war as a game of numbers where you chug as many young men into it until you come out ahead.

Its very easy to say "send troops to Ukraine, be ready for conscription etc etc", when you're not the one being sent to the front lines.

As a young Eastern European male, my demographic would be the first to suffer the consequences of the war spreading. I understand she doesn't want Russia advancing further into Europe, but I believe (even though I am admitedly not super informed on the topic) the ideas in the article are a gross oversimplification of the situation.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, because I'd love to be, but it seems like the Economist is replacing its articles on topics like book round-ups with vertical videos meant to imitate TikTok. As I'm not under 25, I'm pretty much allergic to short-form videos; I'd much rather read an article (not to mention it's so much easier to refer back to later when I'm book shopping). I've canceled my subscription renewal, as this, along with several other changes, have made the Economist experience much less enjoyable in the last few years. I'm very sad because for a time they felt like my one sane, calm, and informative news source.

I saw an article about The Odyssey from Christopher Nolan and opened it to read it. I have been looking forward to seeing this movie.

I opened because I did see some debate about choices on the movies and wanted to read The Economist’s take on it.

And before I knew it, the ending was spoiled.

This is very bad form especially on a movie that is brand new and not really out yet.

Hope this find a way back or prevents some spoils for others.

I mean this post in good faith. I am quite confused about many of the posts and comments I read on this subreddit.

The Economist has always been a classically liberal news magazine, but I frequently read comments disagreeing with major editorial stances on topics like: free markets, Israel, Ukraine, trans and other social issues, whether the US is even a democracy.

So my question is for those of you that have such strong fundamental disagreements, how are you engaging with the content? What value does it give you that makes up for the editorial stances you don't agree with?

Just to be clear, I'm not here to debate the editorial stances, I'm just curious what value, those of you who disagree with the editorial stance, get out of the magazine.

I’m venting. I barely listen anymore and when I do I regret it because it reminds me of the ad-free experience I enjoyed when I started paying for podcasts from the, previously revered, Economist.

Email to podcasts@economist.com

I've been a listener for years and a paying listener since the subscription program started.

But the ads continue.

So now I listen less often, and each time I think something like, "Do I really want to get through the ads to hear about Estonia being in a hard place"?

And then I say to myself, "I should keep my phone in my hand so I can skip the ads at the start"

Of course, I get distracted because I'm commuting in Melbourne and it's only two stops on the train.

And they're not even podcast ads, they're radio ads that don't think or care about who's listening. Some media buyer has put something together to get reach for someone else who's taking a cut from another agency who was paid by the local subsidiary of a multinational that doesn't pay enough tax. It's just thrown at the wall.

Suddenly there's someone singing christmas carols that have been adapted to advertise Amazon, and it's louder than I set my volume because the radio ad engineers do a trick to maximise the audio because radio isn't listened to in headphones like podcasts, it's listened to on radio where other noises are competing.

"Christ, what a shitty thing to hear as I'm going to work. I've paid for another annual subscription to a thoughtful audio publisher and I've got this god awful noise instead."

"Why am I getting this? Who would do this?"

And I remember that it's The Economist podcast paid subscription with ads that are chipping away at my enthusiasm for its brand, content, experiences, knowledge, perspective, insights, authority, loveliness and all the other good things.

"Deck the halls with greeeeat prices!"

End.

What is the overall position and take of The Economist on the State of Israel?