T Nation

The Economist Endorses Obama



What's next? Is Hayek going to rise from the dead to endorse Obama?


I have a hard time viewing an endorsement from the Davos set as a good thing.


The Economist discusses everything but sound economic principles. It is also slanted slightly left in my opinion.


Nah. Hayek wasn't down with 'economic justice' and redstribution.


I think it's strange that they waited so long to come out with the endorsement. The fact that they waited until after the results of their reader poll were finalized leads me to believe that this endorsement is mainly intended to appeal to those readers.

In addition, the rest of the world strongly supports Obama, and I'm guessing the Economist would like to court some new subscriptions as well as keep current ones.


My school paper endorsed Obama today too. That does it for me! I'm sold!

I'm going to go put on my robe and sandals and build an altar to the annoited one, the messiah, the ONE............



They usually endorse the party not in the WH.




The Economist is a very old journal, owned by the wonderful folks of The City of London (principally the Rothschilds). Such an endorsement means that Obama is in their pocket.

One had to wonder how an obscure first-term Illinois Senator with no record to speak of is close to winning the highest job in the land.

Almost as interesting as how an Austrian corporal who had no money, no family name, no education, could almost conquer the world...


Uhhh...he couldn't even keep Germany together.


The Financial Times has also endorsed Obama.


Having read the Economist, I didn't put muck stock in that one. Never read the Financial Times. In general, I would tend to trust economists more than those in the financial market. Probably becuase I know much less about finance and wouldn't easily be able to sort through bullshit.


I don't read it often as business news doesn't exactly do it for me. It's the only centrist national newspaper in the UK. Here's the article anyway if you fancy a read:



The FT is a very good paper for international financial news and complements the WSJ quite well - however, IMO, their editorials (and generally their op-eds) are hardly centrist. Not at all surprised they endorsed Obama.


"The Economist Group is an associate and not a subsidiary of Pearson PLC. The Financial Times Limited, which is a Pearson sudsidiary, owns 50% of the share capital of The Economist Group but does not have a controlling interest. The bulk of the remaining 50% is owned by individuals including members of the Rothschild banking family of England. The Economist Group operates as a separate and independent business."


I'm not too surprised. But if Hayek would raise from the dead to support him...that would be sumthin', wouldn't it?

[i][b]He has earned it[/b]

So Mr Obama in that respect is a gamble. But the same goes for Mr McCain on at least as many counts, not least the possibility of President Palin. And this cannot be another election where the choice is based merely on fear. In terms of painting a brighter future for America and the world, Mr Obama has produced the more compelling and detailed portrait. He has campaigned with more style, intelligence and discipline than his opponent. Whether he can fulfil his immense potential remains to be seen. But Mr Obama deserves the presidency.[/i]

from the link.


Even though I am on the Left and will vote for Obama, Peggy Noonan is someone in the Republican Party that I usually enjoy reading and listening to. This is what she wrote in today's Wall Street Journal:


Yeah, I like Noonan too.


I was under the impression that the Economist leaned to the right because of their free market beliefs. I remember an article a while back that talked about how McCain has changed for the worse, but they were still a conservative publication. Now I'll have to go find it...


You MAY be right. Of course, they have been rather critical of McCain since the Palin pick.

I think International Capitalism is at a crossroads. Neo-liberalism has dominated the landscape since the Reagan-Thatcher era (continued by the Clinton administration and the Dems and, of course, "W") and it has arrived at a crisis, where it will need to be reconsidered.

Despite all of the silly, political slurs that Obama is a socialist, he is/will be a servant of capitalism. My guess is that the Economist (and the Davos folks) want someone they feel could better adapt to the situation at hand. McCain might have his hands tied by the ideologues of his own party.

I also feel like a lot of people, even serious Republicans, have trepidations about Palin being a heartbeat from the Presidency.