> By making Mr Trump leader of the free world, Americans would be gambling with the economy, the rule of law and international peace. We cannot quantify the chance that something will go badly wrong: nobody can. But we believe voters who minimise it are deluding themselves.
> The case against Mr Trump begins with his policies. In 2016 the Republican platform was still caught between the Mitt Romney party and the Trump party. Today’s version is more extreme. Mr Trump favours a 20% tariff on all imports and has talked of charging over 200% or even 500% on cars from Mexico. He proposes to deport millions of irregular immigrants, many with jobs and American children. He would extend tax cuts even though the budget deficit is at a level usually seen only during war or recession, suggesting a blithe indifference to sound fiscal management.
> The risks for domestic and foreign policy are amplified by the last big difference between Mr Trump’s first term and a possible second one: he would be less constrained. The president who mused about firing missiles at drug labs in Mexico was held back by the people and institutions around him. Since then the Republican Party has organised itself around fealty to Mr Trump. Friendly think-tanks have vetted lists of loyal people to serve in the next administration. The Supreme Court has weakened the checks on presidents by ruling that they cannot be prosecuted for official acts.
> If external constraints are looser, much more will depend on Mr Trump’s character. Given his unrepentant contempt for the constitution after losing the election in 2020, it is hard to be optimistic. Half his former cabinet members have refused to endorse him. The most senior Republican senator describes him as a “despicable human being”. Both his former chief-of-staff and former head of the joint chiefs call him a fascist. If you were interviewing a job applicant, you would not brush off such character references.
The article is a little too *both sides are bad!* for my liking, but hey, if it convinces anyone to not vote for Trump, you won’t see me complaining.
All sane people vote for Harris. Mainly, I don’t want my kids to grow up under a fascist government.
Because Donald Trump would flunk a high school econ class?
1. Because she isn’t a fascist 2. The people running The Economist aren’t a bunch of spineless bitches
I’d imagine The Economist of all people would know who is better for the economy.
The Economist has been right-leaning for its entire run. It was a big prominent of the Iraq War.
They don’t give a crap about anything besides money. Not rights, not democracy, not social policy. They want the economy to soar.
They conclude that Trump’s economic plans (including tariffs) are worse than Kamala’s plans, and that the economy would do better with Kamala in charge, so they endorse her. Simple as that.
Let’s elect Harris and make some money, or we can elect ~~Musk~~ Trump and go through some more “hardship”. IDK about you but I’d rather have the more money than more hardship.
Because she don’t want to purposely destroy the economy ?
Paywall so I can’t show this to my republican mom 😥
Should be a pretty easy choice for *the Economist*. Good Lord. Only one of the candidates hasn’t promised to crash the economy on purpose.
I remember when I read an article in The Economist that tried to make it seem like a coincidence that the Democrats have been crushing the Republicans on the economy for 100 years. This was during the Romney campaign, and it was the first time I, admittedly a low information voter at the time, realized there was no trade off between doing the right thing ethically *and* economically.
As FDR put it so succinctly, “We have always known that heedless self interest was bad morals, we now know that it is bad economics.”
Is it because Dipshit Weirdo still doesn’t grasp what tariffs are, or how they work?
For anyone wondering, the last Republican they endorsed was Bush in 2000
I was getting a little nervous that they wouldn’t endorse.
I’m glad they finally did, for whatever it’s worth.
I’ve been really hoping we’d see a Mike Pence or Romney endorsement in this final stretch.
The Economist is a huge endorsement, as they tend to be more conservative/libertarian in their outlook. Many of the Economist readers would belong to the Never-Trumps or the people that stepped away from Trump after Jan. 6. It’s huge though for them to endorse Harris. I would have expected them not to endorse anyone. It’s like the Wall Street Journal endorsing Harris as they have similar readership.
The Economist is one of my premier news sources. I disagree with their conservative economics, but they are a stellar, reliable financial news source.
I do not know of any system of government in history that grabbed power like what Project 2025 will attempt, that has not been far worse for its people, and for their countries’ economies.
Because they’re reasonable and intelligent
But r/fluentinfinance says that the Trump economy was one of the best. /s
Because they’re smart and not filled with delusions and hate.
Well done The Economist. Let’s hope that sanity prevails.
“Because we’re functioning humans”
As much as I dislike the both-sides-ism of this article, this is exactly the tone that appeals to the finance-brained people who trust the WSJ and Economist. I’ll take it.
removing the income tax and using tariffs as a way to pay for it is a bad idea since it would make us have to pay more for everything and would only benefit the rich.
Removing a bunch of illegal immigrants who do the jobs the average would never even think of doing is a bad idea and hurts our economy.
because democrat economies are stable, and help out with inflation and the stockmarket. that’s why.
Modern Democrats do better on the economy, full stop.
Why? Look at Clinton’s and Obama’s terms ; they each oversaw 8 years of stable, drama free socioeconomic environments, where businesses became confident and started making investments with calculated risks, instead of just hoarding cash. Whereas Republicans need chaos to juice the market up and down, which just favors greedy corporations and the rich.
The choice is easy: stability that favors the middle class, or chaos that favors the rich.
If you consider print media endorsements to be important, this is pretty significant. The Economist is generally a torchbearer for capitalism and considers itself a magazine for intellectuals interested in the world of finance and economics – it leans right, has always leaned right, and will continue to do so. It’s like getting a significant endorsement from a Republican politician. An endorsement like this is a statement that – to its readers and those aware of its importance -will give validity to the undercutting of the “Trump will be better for the economy” message that he’s riding on.
The Economist articulated it better than I could.
When comparing the differences between the first and potential second Trump administration, the biggest difference is who Trump will be surrounded by.
The first administration was marked by advisors that blunted his attempts to do blatantly illegal and unconstitutional things.
Trump has said that hiring these types of advisors was his biggest mistake. The heads of the DOJ and DOD in particular will be hand-chosen for their loyalty to Trump over loyalty to country.
The biggest expectation of a second Trump presidency is that the full force of the federal government (including the DOD) will be turned against Trump’s perceived enemies. I don’t think most Republican’s dispute this claim, it’s just a difference of whether they think it’s desirable or not.
Lol at the people on this thread trashing The Economist.
The Economist is by this point *firmly* left of center by American standards. Mildly right of center by Euro standards but still very pro e.g. NHS.
They strongly supported Obama, back things like a carbon tax to address climate change, and they *despise* Trumpism and fully 100% realize what a pathetic joke and a conman and a danger to America (and the world) he is.
Yes they have an unenviable past (hardcore Reagan and Thatcher and, yikes, pro Iraq War), but they have moved decidedly against the psychotic and extreme contemporary Republican party. And it’s some of the smartest and most measured reporting on Earth read by tons of very influential power brokers so what they write matters.
Unlike their 2 very PRO Obama endorsements, this one is more anti Trump (versus pro Kamala) but honestly I have no problem with that. We simply have got to move past this insane circus flirting with a whiny wannabe strongman portion of our history. After that, then worry about policy to us move forward.
30 comments
Because they aren’t owned by a billionaire’s asshole ? 🤔
Cuz they aren’t Bezos’ bitch?
Because being focused on finance and business, they understand how dangerous Trump will be.
Here’s a link to their full endorsement article: [A second Trump term comes with unacceptable risks](https://www.economist.com/leaders/2024/10/31/a-second-trump-term-comes-with-unacceptable-risks)
> By making Mr Trump leader of the free world, Americans would be gambling with the economy, the rule of law and international peace. We cannot quantify the chance that something will go badly wrong: nobody can. But we believe voters who minimise it are deluding themselves.
> The case against Mr Trump begins with his policies. In 2016 the Republican platform was still caught between the Mitt Romney party and the Trump party. Today’s version is more extreme. Mr Trump favours a 20% tariff on all imports and has talked of charging over 200% or even 500% on cars from Mexico. He proposes to deport millions of irregular immigrants, many with jobs and American children. He would extend tax cuts even though the budget deficit is at a level usually seen only during war or recession, suggesting a blithe indifference to sound fiscal management.
> The risks for domestic and foreign policy are amplified by the last big difference between Mr Trump’s first term and a possible second one: he would be less constrained. The president who mused about firing missiles at drug labs in Mexico was held back by the people and institutions around him. Since then the Republican Party has organised itself around fealty to Mr Trump. Friendly think-tanks have vetted lists of loyal people to serve in the next administration. The Supreme Court has weakened the checks on presidents by ruling that they cannot be prosecuted for official acts.
> If external constraints are looser, much more will depend on Mr Trump’s character. Given his unrepentant contempt for the constitution after losing the election in 2020, it is hard to be optimistic. Half his former cabinet members have refused to endorse him. The most senior Republican senator describes him as a “despicable human being”. Both his former chief-of-staff and former head of the joint chiefs call him a fascist. If you were interviewing a job applicant, you would not brush off such character references.
The article is a little too *both sides are bad!* for my liking, but hey, if it convinces anyone to not vote for Trump, you won’t see me complaining.
All sane people vote for Harris. Mainly, I don’t want my kids to grow up under a fascist government.
Because Donald Trump would flunk a high school econ class?
1. Because she isn’t a fascist
2. The people running The Economist aren’t a bunch of spineless bitches
I’d imagine The Economist of all people would know who is better for the economy.
The Economist has been right-leaning for its entire run. It was a big prominent of the Iraq War.
They don’t give a crap about anything besides money. Not rights, not democracy, not social policy. They want the economy to soar.
They conclude that Trump’s economic plans (including tariffs) are worse than Kamala’s plans, and that the economy would do better with Kamala in charge, so they endorse her. Simple as that.
Let’s elect Harris and make some money, or we can elect ~~Musk~~ Trump and go through some more “hardship”. IDK about you but I’d rather have the more money than more hardship.
Because she don’t want to purposely destroy the economy ?
Paywall so I can’t show this to my republican mom 😥
Should be a pretty easy choice for *the Economist*. Good Lord. Only one of the candidates hasn’t promised to crash the economy on purpose.
I remember when I read an article in The Economist that tried to make it seem like a coincidence that the Democrats have been crushing the Republicans on the economy for 100 years. This was during the Romney campaign, and it was the first time I, admittedly a low information voter at the time, realized there was no trade off between doing the right thing ethically *and* economically.
As FDR put it so succinctly, “We have always known that heedless self interest was bad morals, we now know that it is bad economics.”
[Paywalled article](https://www.economist.com/united-states/2014/08/09/timing-is-everything)
Is it because Dipshit Weirdo still doesn’t grasp what tariffs are, or how they work?
For anyone wondering, the last Republican they endorsed was Bush in 2000
I was getting a little nervous that they wouldn’t endorse.
I’m glad they finally did, for whatever it’s worth.
I’ve been really hoping we’d see a Mike Pence or Romney endorsement in this final stretch.
The Economist is a huge endorsement, as they tend to be more conservative/libertarian in their outlook. Many of the Economist readers would belong to the Never-Trumps or the people that stepped away from Trump after Jan. 6. It’s huge though for them to endorse Harris. I would have expected them not to endorse anyone. It’s like the Wall Street Journal endorsing Harris as they have similar readership.
The Economist is one of my premier news sources. I disagree with their conservative economics, but they are a stellar, reliable financial news source.
I do not know of any system of government in history that grabbed power like what Project 2025 will attempt, that has not been far worse for its people, and for their countries’ economies.
Because they’re reasonable and intelligent
But r/fluentinfinance says that the Trump economy was one of the best. /s
Because they’re smart and not filled with delusions and hate.
Well done The Economist. Let’s hope that sanity prevails.
“Because we’re functioning humans”
As much as I dislike the both-sides-ism of this article, this is exactly the tone that appeals to the finance-brained people who trust the WSJ and Economist. I’ll take it.
removing the income tax and using tariffs as a way to pay for it is a bad idea since it would make us have to pay more for everything and would only benefit the rich.
Removing a bunch of illegal immigrants who do the jobs the average would never even think of doing is a bad idea and hurts our economy.
because democrat economies are stable, and help out with inflation and the stockmarket. that’s why.
Modern Democrats do better on the economy, full stop.
Why? Look at Clinton’s and Obama’s terms ; they each oversaw 8 years of stable, drama free socioeconomic environments, where businesses became confident and started making investments with calculated risks, instead of just hoarding cash. Whereas Republicans need chaos to juice the market up and down, which just favors greedy corporations and the rich.
The choice is easy: stability that favors the middle class, or chaos that favors the rich.
If you consider print media endorsements to be important, this is pretty significant. The Economist is generally a torchbearer for capitalism and considers itself a magazine for intellectuals interested in the world of finance and economics – it leans right, has always leaned right, and will continue to do so. It’s like getting a significant endorsement from a Republican politician. An endorsement like this is a statement that – to its readers and those aware of its importance -will give validity to the undercutting of the “Trump will be better for the economy” message that he’s riding on.
The Economist articulated it better than I could.
When comparing the differences between the first and potential second Trump administration, the biggest difference is who Trump will be surrounded by.
The first administration was marked by advisors that blunted his attempts to do blatantly illegal and unconstitutional things.
Trump has said that hiring these types of advisors was his biggest mistake. The heads of the DOJ and DOD in particular will be hand-chosen for their loyalty to Trump over loyalty to country.
The biggest expectation of a second Trump presidency is that the full force of the federal government (including the DOD) will be turned against Trump’s perceived enemies. I don’t think most Republican’s dispute this claim, it’s just a difference of whether they think it’s desirable or not.
And the inflation rate keeps falling
https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/31/economy/us-pce-inflation-fed-spending-september/index.html
If Trump had been president during the global supply chain crisis through now inflation would have been higher.
https://apnews.com/article/trump-inflation-tariffs-taxes-immigration-federal-reserve-a18de763fcc01557258c7f33cab375ed
Even the rightwing WSJ concludes the economy is strong now. Plus 15 million jobs have been added, exceeding economists’ expectations.
https://www.wsj.com/economy/the-next-president-inherits-a-remarkable-economy-7be2d059
Recall all the dire predictions that never happened. Economic growth is still strong.
https://www.usnews.com/news/economy/articles/2023-11-20/leading-indicators-continue-to-signal-a-recession
Lol at the people on this thread trashing The Economist.
The Economist is by this point *firmly* left of center by American standards. Mildly right of center by Euro standards but still very pro e.g. NHS.
They strongly supported Obama, back things like a carbon tax to address climate change, and they *despise* Trumpism and fully 100% realize what a pathetic joke and a conman and a danger to America (and the world) he is.
Yes they have an unenviable past (hardcore Reagan and Thatcher and, yikes, pro Iraq War), but they have moved decidedly against the psychotic and extreme contemporary Republican party. And it’s some of the smartest and most measured reporting on Earth read by tons of very influential power brokers so what they write matters.
Unlike their 2 very PRO Obama endorsements, this one is more anti Trump (versus pro Kamala) but honestly I have no problem with that. We simply have got to move past this insane circus flirting with a whiny wannabe strongman portion of our history. After that, then worry about policy to us move forward.
Comments are closed.