Customer Reviews

The Economist

5 star:		(53)
4 star:		(7)
3 star:		(5)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(10)

 

 

Reading The Economist is a very different experience from that of reading the "big three"-- Time, Newsweek, and US News-- for two reasons.

First, it's a British publication, written in a very British manner. It's tone can vary from flatly dry to dryly ironic to jarringly blunt. There's nothing here that one can call politically correct; the authors and editors call 'em as they see 'em.

Second, it's a serious news magazine. Each issue is packed with stories about current affairs, politics, economics, and business. There are also book and movie reviews. However, there is almost no pop culture news and absolutely none of the celebrity gossip that has begun to corrupt the "big three."

It's important to understand that reading The Economist takes some commitment of time and effort, probably at least two or three hours an issue. Every article is deeply analytical, and many stories are revisited weekly for updates. This is a NEWS magazine, not a news MAGAZINE, if that makes sense.

The issue of political bias always arises with the media. The Economist takes definite stands on nearly every issue, and those editorial stands are clearly stated and defended. However, it is at the same time scrupulously fair and balanced. That's quite a trick, but the staff pulls it off week after week.

So, if you're ready and willing to spend some time reading thoughtful, thought-provoking, in-depth analysis of the news of the world, you won't find a better news magazine than The Economist.

(You might want to buy a copy on a magazine rack somewhere and check the subscription offers on the insert cards. They're almost certain to be better than the Amazon price.)

Bill Gates once said in an interview that he reads every page of The Economist. It's no coincidence that so do a lot of other smart and influential political, business, academic and media leaders throughout the world. If you want to know everything about everything, you need to start reading this on a weekly basis.

The Economist's tightly argued and balanced expository pieces illuminate realm after realm of the world's politics, history, economics, business, finance, books, arts, science and technology. Its often lighthearted, wry tone does nothing to conceal its serious purpose and curiousity in the progression of human events.

The magazine pulls no punches and offers a range of sharp, unsentimental opinions from its well-known free market, liberal democratic perch. I myself don't often agree with The Economist's take on things (though I even more often do--there's a lot of stuff in every issue). Nonetheless, I always respect its reasoning and objectivity.

Also, regular extensive readers like Mr. Gates know well and have almost come to depend upon the magazine's more tangibly personal benefits: imagine what the absorption and consideration of so much incisive argumentation and news background on a weekly basis does to the mind! At the risk of sounding a bit far-fetched, I always feel sharper and wiser when I've been reading The Economist.

I apologize for the effusiveness of this review, but if you can't tell by now, I can't say enough great things about this magazine. Highly recommended.

I subscribed to The Economist over a year ago after having found myself purchasing copies at some six dollars per pop at local bookstores. The price for a magazine subscription was higher than I would normally pay (some two dollars per copy was the best rate I could locate). But the in-store issues I had purchased were just so good that I found myself returning every week for the next copy, and that was turning out to be TRULY expensive. So, I made the plunge for a subscription to try it out.

I was not disappointed. The Economist has turned out for me to be without doubt one of the best magazines to which I've ever subscribed. The publication reads more like a detailed world briefing than a magazine, and its coverage of events from around the world is impressive in nearly every respect. I find that a weekly perusal of the magazine has broadened my horizons immeasurably, allowing me to learn about important people, events, and issues both within and outside the North American context. It is a publication that I look forward to reading each week, and it has shown me how very little "news" one gets by simply sitting down in front of the television (which has a significant portion of its time dedicated to running inane commercials, and the rest a playing of little "news reports" that are cycled endlessly, even over days) and assuming that what one is receiving is the sum of the news for the day. (It isn't.)

The Economist breaks up its print edition each week into geographical regions (The United States, the Americas, Europe, The Middle East and Africa, Asia, and Britain) and other topical categories (International, Business, Finance and Economics, Science and Technology, Books and Arts, Obituary, and Economic and Financial Indicators). There are also the regular weekly repeating columns, such as "The World this Week" (a summary digest of the world's news in short paragraphs). Opinion pieces each week include Charlemagne (covering issues within the European Union), Bagehot (covering Britain), Lexington (covering the United States), and Buttonwood (covering financial issues), in addition to current issues of interest (recent issues focused on Sarkozy's bid for the French Presidency, and The Economist openly supported Sarkozy, even printing one issue with Sarkozy in the place of the famous Napoleon portrait by David). In addition, the magazine regularly publishes "special features," insets to the magazine, typically some 15 pages in length, covering either a specific region of the world, a city, or a financial issue. Many of these special features are also available as individual reprints for educational use.

Most articles in The Economist are just the right length to make sitting down with the issue for half an hour a day the perfect schedule for working through the magazine in time for the next weekly issue to arrive. A web-based edition of the magazine, complete with a searchable index of articles that have appeared in the magazine over the years in addition to the current issue, is available free to all print subscribers (one must use the customer number from the print edition to create the free online account). This is a perfect magazine for daily reading.

In a day and age when publications seem to be getting dumbed-down by the minute, The Economist is a place where one can find a comprehensive review and digest of news from around the world. We don't have to agree with all the perspectives the magazine takes, but we can certainly benefit from the outstanding coverage the publication provides. Reading it each week becomes an education in itself, and due to its wide-ranging scope, I now realize that purchasing my own subscription was a truly "economical" thing to do.

The Economist is a British weekly news and international affairs magazine which contains high quality articles on current affairs, economy, business, and some science and technology. It contains articles that cover many countries and regions of the world. The articles are often analytical in nature and do not reflect any obvious political bias despite the fact that the economist takes an argued editorial stance based on classical liberalism. The target readership is educated people in general (not just economists or business people).

The Economist also contains interesting financial data and statistics of various kinds. The economic and financial indicators are published at the end of the magazine in every issue. The statistics is often used to compare countries, economically, politically, socially, and in other respects, which is something I am personally interested in. The magazine is sold extensively in both Europe and North America. Some people in Europe consider the Economist to be "conservative" and some people in North America consider it "secular humanist". In my opinion both viewpoints are more or less correct. I used to read Newsweek, Time and the U.S. News, and I still do sometimes, however, the Economist is a more interesting magazine that is still easily accessible. Reading the Economist is for me, one of the best ways to relax.

Without question, this is the magazine to choose if you want to read news on a weekly basis, rather than drivel, celebrity reports, and senseless "polls" that amount to nothing.

If you are looking for a particular political slant, do not choose the Economist. Its writers run the gamut from the left to the right, but the overall tenor of the magazine is well balanced. There's plenty to challenge one's world view in any given issue, no matter what one's political affiliation, but I tend to enjoy that aspect of the magazine. There are few publications that even try to present such a balance of viewpoints, and none others that succeed so brilliantly.

The writing is unparalleled and refreshingly unsophomoric. It's great to read something written at a level higher than grade eight, and with a vocabulary to delight the eyes and sometimes even warrant breaking out a dictionary. The coverage is truly worldwide in scope, too, with the U.S. frequently taking a backseat to the rest of the globe, as it should, when events dictate.

I think the Economist is simply the best of its class, bar none.

Those on the far-left cry of its "callous conservatism" and those of the far-right call it a "bastion of ivy tower liberalism", but for your average American, this is what commonsense journalistic reporting should be: well-written, researched, for a somewhat educated but not strictly academic audience, and simply about the facts. You'll find articles written from nearly every political perspective here, but the most common take on the issues is a moderate one, usually just slightly left-of-center or right-of-center.

The Economist keeps up with the world's current trends and uniquely puts them into the context of a economic and political landscape. Despite the magazine's title, you don't really have to be an economist to understand or enjoy reading it. Give it to your teenagers and watch how smart and aware they become come time for them to take their SATs.

One review cried that The Economist is "statist". Hardly so! Sure, it's not as hard-nosed classicially liberal as some would like it to be in that it recognizes the immorality of obscene wealth concentration in the hands of a few while the overwhelming majority suffer. But, this is not hand-from-top Keynesian economics. Rather, it's called having a heart. Or rather, in more technical terms, it is what John Rawls, political philosopher and former Harvard University law professor, referred to as the "distributive justice" when he wrote the famed scholarly works "A Theory of Justice" and "Justice As Fairness". Rawls is a new classical liberal, but not a classical or neo-classical one. It was he, not Keynes, who invented this idea of "reflective equilibrium". He recognizes that even Adam Smith himself conceded that his model was imperfect and could lead to hegemony and market failure given the right conditions. Rawls does not believe in forced redistribution of wealth like statists do, but he say that an unequal distribution in a configuration that it works against the allowing of equal opportunity to flourish for the least advantaged is the very definition of injustice in a free society.

What the free-market fundamentalists fail to understand is that America changed after the Great Depression. The old glory days of freely raping and pillaging the earth without consequence are over. We now live in a world of over 6 billion people and limited resource. We are in this together. Sure, we should allow people to make their own economic decisions, as destroying their incentive would accomplish little in matters of improving the overall economic status of society in general. But, those of us who live in extreme opulence must come to eventually acknowledge that while one might choose to own ten limousines and a gold-plated toilet seat (and that is your freedom), such cannot be seen as moral when innocent children are born into starvation everyday through no choosing of their own. To say such is not so much Marxist or "leftist" as it is being a genuine human being with a sense of true compassion and justice for the whole of humanity.

So, in having 'The Economist' embrace the new school of Western liberalism, one should be glad. The older school of Classical Liberalism in the end points us to an absurd form of moral relativism and self-interested utilitarianism, where it's "dog eat dog" and everyone who gets eaten goes to hell. It leads to a perversely selfish style of individualism and pride ego that even to this day remains one of the most harshest critiques made against modern liberalism. Hardly anything a true conservative would embrace... A moral one, that is.

Don't read The Economist if you think Marx killed God or Milton Friedman was God. Rather, read The Economist if you if think Thomas Paine in "Common Sense" said it all when he said:

"Society is produced by our wants, and government by wickedness; the former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher. Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil."

The best place to get this magazine is through your airlines mileage program. Delta Skymiles program offers 51 issues (1 year subscription) for only 3,200 miles, which is less than $50 no matter how you calculate the value of miles. It is even cheaper than the student discount offered by the Economist.

Don't get me wrong. I love the Economist. It's a very well written, objective publication. I would recomend it highly for those people who want to get great coverage on global news but are tired of the left-leaning/pesimistic news from the hometown newspaper.
My problem is that I have never received one single copy from this subscription with Amazon. In fact, this is the 2nd time (out of 2) that I have been snubbed on a magazine subscription. My advise would be to bypass Amazon and go straight to the publication. There seems to be a disconnect between Amazon and certain publications.

I am a fan of the magazine and think it's one of the best news/current affairs publications out there.

However...

my wife and I received a subscription as a wedding gift. It took a more than 4 months to finally get activated. In that time, no one at the economist would help me ('talk to Amazon'), and no one at Amazon would help me - first, I had to get the friend who bought it for us to talk to them, which was a hassle. Second, they told him that everything was fine and that (guess what?) he'd have to chase it up with the economist.

Finally the subscription did surface and the magazines started arriving... like many people, we'd moved after the wedding. It took me several phone calls, emails, and attempts to use the online database (and another two months) to get my address successfully changed in the economist's database. You'd think that the economist, of all things, would have an efficient business operation.

So after 6 months (!) we're finally getting the magazine as we should be.

If you want the economist, I'd recommend subscribing directly from the economist's website itself, and not going through a middle-man like amazon.

On the fence about getting the Economist? It's not the cheapest subscription, is it?
Ask yourself: "Do I care about what's happening in the world, or do I only care about sports and weather?" then follow up with "Am I able to think honestly about new ideas?" "Will I make an hour a week to really dig into the interesting articles?"

If you can read and you care about what happens in the world and you are open to perhaps changing your mind when presented with factual arguments, then the Economist is for you. They aren't always right, but they are always insightful and fair. In a world so full of corporate sponsored BS that an out-of-his-league frat boy can get elected as the most powerful man on Earth (twice), its nice to find refreshing truth. Sure, The Economist is written from the viewpoint of Economists, but what do you expect? You can't accuse them of being illogical or heartless, and they certainly understand money, which is about as important as you suspect it is.

Go ahead, arm yourself with understanding. It's the only way to stay afloat. You'll get more wisdom from one cover story in The Economist than from a month of watching news-style TV stations. You will be poorer without The Economist than with it.