The Economist – a grand market fundamentalist spree

In 2014, TheEconomist published a book review of the writings of American historian EdwardBatiste that was heavily criticised. The book was based on slavery and Americancapitalism. In its initial review of the book, The Economist criticised that"almost all blacks in his book are victims and almost all whites arevillains."

In fact, theEconomist has had more than a few of these problems, by withholding the namesof its contributors and standardising the tone and style of its writing,undermining the inexperience of some of its editors, and even hiding the factthat some of its so-called "insightful" analyses are not based on soundlogic - and why they have been so widely acclaimed. -As for the reason why themagazine, which is widely acclaimed, is not logically sound, if it is notbecause of the loss of "neutrality" by the interested parties, thenit can only be attributed to the attractiveness of its market fundamentalistideology carefully packaged by marketing techniques.

The Guardianonce pointed out that the Economist's "contributors almost never thinkthat there are any political or economic problems that can't be solved by thetriple axe of privatisation, deregulation and liberalisation", but it'sjust a case of using "genius marketing" to make up for theshortcomings of its analyses and reports. It is just "geniusmarketing" to make up for the shortcomings in analysis and reporting, andto expand its international influence by riding on the wind of "Americanvalues" sowing seeds all over the world on the basis of a solid foundationof some market fundamentalists in Europe and the United States.

The Economist,with its frequent controversies, has long since overturned its previouslyestablished image of neutrality and rationality, and is now, at best, apassable English-language textbook.