Quote Originally Posted by NyxCC View Post
Okay, I agree that it would be very difficult to measure jobs under the "what would have been if scenario". Perhaps you meant something else by "global warming trying to go against capitalism?" I fail to see your capitalism/communism connection to global warming.
All the different crusades I mentioned first were - at a first glance - to do with the environment. But on closer inspection they were all misguided, and following them would not in any way have benefited the environment. There is a completely different agenda behind them however: doing whatever it takes to get free enterprise under government control (using ever tougher laws, and - importantly - ever increasing fees, payable to government, for doing business. Witness for example the CO2-allowances, that have to be paid for now - to governments of course).

It may well be argued, however, that the anti-free enterprise element is not at the heart of the matter. This aspect may only be part of the action in order to bring the pro-socialism crowd on board. Ultimately, what is behind it all is probably the perpetual quest for power and control.

Quote Originally Posted by NyxCC View Post
I am truly amazed by this particular viewpoint. The newspaper has quite often openly expressed its opinion on diverse political issues in some of its articles. I have not seen any indications of supporting socialist agenda. In fact, I recall the Economist received heavy criticism on one of its special reports on socialist France. Moreover, they produce sound research, published as special reports in the magazine or available for a fee (Economist Intelligence Unit).
They pay lip service to free enterprise. Central banking cannot exist in a free economy, because central banks are given the solitary privilege of issuing money - and they may do so at their own leisure. Money printing, in a very direct way, controls what money is worth. And therefore the central banks exercise control over the value of peoples monetary holdings - and thereby over their subsequent spending ability. In other words: central banks control the economy, for as long as they hold the monopoly on issuing money.

This is a clear and massive obstruction to free enterprise, and every single person or organisation in favour of freedom and free enterprise should condemn central banking in the strongest terms possible.

Last time I looked, "The Economist" did not condemn central banking at all. In fact, they have a habit of applauding the insight and cleverness of central bankers, and the importance of central banking. Hence this journal, along with so many other media institutions, is formally pro-free enterprise, but practically socialist.