Are they really so great? It seems one can find endless stream of questionable materials there, so reading The Economist should be done with sizable grains of salt.
Lately not so much, they have been catering progressively more to the extreme leftist point of view as the Agnelli's (Exor NV) invested progressively more in China.
The websites claim they have an independent editor chosen by committee, but corruption occurs in any centralized/hierarchical organization and corruption by dependency is one of the oldest forms of coercion that won't leave much in terms of obvious breadcrumbs. The objective quality and subject matter of the writing has degraded considerably.
About two decades ago they were pretty well respected, but not anymore. As you say, a sizable puck of salt is needed.
Some very intelligent people are well acquainted with the circular nature of extreme leftism, its structure, and the dynamics involved.
It should go without saying, extreme leftists don't always identify themselves if their goal is to sneak into other groups for subversion and sabotage. They would have no real platform if they could not create the problems their counterparts need to generate a political base and platform following classic shock doctrine. This is how the Fabian's operated, and many other groups since then.
These types can be at either side of the extremes, and they'll have their planned global non-market socialism by 2030 without a dramatic course correction which seems increasingly unlikely.
Yes, they know it fails which is why China is trying to establish BRICS. If you don't see how they might do that, it goes back to a mix of core requirements or dependencies for economies (who decides by leaving, consumers or producers, when do they leave?(A. Smith)), money (3 components, when 2 fail...), money printing (ponzi stages of failure), and the natural mechanics of inflation where the interplay causes the market to shrink until state-dependent(controlled) apparatus are the only businesses able to produce (via preferential loans from the printer indirectly).
Failed systems of production lead to shortage, famine, and ecological overshoot reversion (Malthus). Economic calculation/exchange becomes impossible because even market Socialism fails without economic calculation (a real market is required). It ends up being a parasitic relationship where the parasite kills the host and itself at the same time.
If you are familiar with the facts, history, and related talking points, tactics, and rhetoric of the CCP, you'll find the pro views in a good number of articles over that timeframe just by looking through the articles at about a 50-50 spatter rate on social and economic issues.
I'm not going to provide any specifics, because frankly it adds no value to the current conversation and only opens the door for malevolent or uneducated individuals to try to create a struggle session through squelching/silencing my post from view.
Arguments about it serves no productive purpose when dealing with these types because they aren't rational, and often they seek to induce a response then discredit and manipulate through a variety of toxic forms.
Forms which would be the very next thing someone typically engages in with regards to requests of the nature you just made; if I was fool enough to provide this.
Under normal civil/social conditions, conversations like this could occur, but the moment someone can silence others using a system granted power (multiple accounts+downvote), there's no point; and if there is a difference of opinion where no communication can occur it inevitably falls back to natural law (social contract theory) where violence of one sort or another is inflicted; and I have no interest in participating or volunteering for that.
If you can't see the views in the writing, then the opinion doesn't really matter, if you can then its pretty obvious. In either case its an opinion and people are entitled to their opinions without some external malign influence being inflicted on them.
I'm not saying you would engage in such, just that these are the times we live in, these groups do exist, and they have dictated by their actions that only violence is acceptable. I strongly disagree. [see WHO WRHV for the appropriate defn]
If you are unfamiliar with the subject matter, you may find the ebook available at the USMC Press website of interest. The title is Political Warfare.
Its a simple opinion, I gave my reasoning why I won't respond.
It is not that important (opinion) and this is just a natural consequence of all the virtual lynchings going on.
So long as lynchings continue this will become more common behavior, and rather than intelligent conversation pulling people up to a higher level of thought, the opposite will happen as intelligent people withdraw, along with other detrimental chilling effects.
I'd rather not have it be this way, but I'm not the one doing the lynchings.
