People are generally used to the over-simplified beratings of everything-Trump which are staple fare for the MSM but many would expect better from The Economist. Their “Ruination Day” editorial piece is less analysis and more like an attempt to respond in kind to some of Trump’s wild utterances. The specifics of this editorial are part of a common theme: growth has been great and we need more of this miracle drug.
Our current world is one of failing economic systems headed into the fog of transition yet the authors deny the large issues which carried Trump into office. At the same time they demand the continuance of a world which is now very clearly in the rearview mirror.
Issues raised in the Economist’s editorial April 5, 2025 and counterpoints:
Ruination Day – President Trump’s mindless tariffs will cause economic havoc
– “Trump’s claim of America being looted, pillaged raped and plundered is ridiculous”
- $50 trillion wealth transfer
- Immense debt
- Loss of high quality jobs
- Housing inflation
- Destruction of communities
- This is the picture of “looted, pillaged, raped and plundered” but it was mostly an inside job.
– “Drivel about the free world’s most successful and admired economy having problems
- This has not stopped the US economy from outpacing the rest of the G7”
- For the past 80 years the US economy has grown tremendously
- Until the late 1970s most people prospered
- For the last 40 years a great portion of the population has fallen off the back of the bus and it didn’t stop to pick them up
- Growth continued but for most people prosper stopped
– “Trump has committed the most profound economic error in the modern era”
- Trump has identified many problems and is actually addressing them.
- Whether his unprofessional and vitriolic approach can be channeled for positive results remains to be seen.
– “Flat out nonsense that tariffs will close Americas trade deficit”
- Tariffs absolutely will cause the trade deficit to decline.
- If the implementation can be made rational enough to encourage massive investment in Americans and the tools they work with, then the overall impact will be very positive.
– “America chooses to save less than their country invests”
- A massively rigged trade and exchange rate system makes it impossible for Americans to rationally save and invest.
– “Currency manipulation and other distortions do not contribute to a trade imbalance”
- Rigged exchange rates, market distortions and radically different labour and environmental laws have both now and in the past, contributed enormously to trade imbalances. How could they not?
– “Relieving domestic manufacturers of the discipline of foreign competition will make them flabby”
First, domestic manufacturers have to be able to survive and few were able to with free trade.
The American market is huge with few barriers to entry and innovation and disruption can occur rapidly. Witness Tesla’s rise.
Pre-free trade American and Canadian autoworkers were more productive with higher quality than Chinese manufacturers.
– “Americans are unlikely to re-start making their own shoes”
- Why wouldn’t Americans or anyone else be able to make their own shoes?
- Or cars?
- Or phones?
- Are living wages that offensive to The Economist?
- The repatriation of manufacturing does not mean making 100% of everything domestically, it means becoming more self-sufficient and capable and tilting the scales to favour domestic production.
Using Trump as an Excuse to Dismiss Key Issues.
Trump-bashing might be easy, satisfying and a crowd-pleaser but Trump was elected because of deep structural problems and he is making deep structural changes. Public flailing of the man without discussion of the issues is not journalism.
Journalists, if there are any left, need to acknowledge that what The Economist is talking about and what Trump is talking about are two very different things: the size and growth rate of the commercial economy vs. the social and economic well-being of citizens. What Trump is trying to do (likely) is put into comprehensible English by his VP.
The Economist: Growth Promoter or Honest Broker?
The outcomes of the tariff “strategy” Captain Chaos is unfurling are uncertain but the intent of the tariffs is quite clear. JD Vance manages to articulate coherent goals where his boss simply tosses out random thoughts and impulses into the blogosphere. If there is method in Trump’s madness, perhaps the VP’s statements outline the intended direction. According to Vance, the four main elements are:
- Bring back high paid jobs to the US
- Reduce foreign debt by eliminating the trade deficit
- Broaden the base of the productive economy to assure greater resilience in the face of the many looming challenges ahead
- Reduce technological dependency
These may be mindless objectives to the growth-dependent Economist but should be bedrock social policy for any responsible government. Does The Econ have an issue with them or are they just lamenting the end of the profitization of money flows, debt and asset inflation?
Of course, these policies will be ruinous to the growth-forever interests The Econ represents. Imagine the devastating impacts of lower trade, higher wages and affordable housing with smaller mortgages on the parasitic overhead of debt mongers. Certainly, most people could live with that the same way the finance cult was able to live with the disastrous impacts of globalism on the way of life and quality of life experienced by fleeced flocks. In that on-going process in which banking deregulation and open borders vacuumed trillions of dollars from the pockets of the 95%.
In fact, it was mindless globalism that laid waste to large swaths of lower and middle income groups in the western world which gave rise to the populism The Economist so arrogantly derides. And it is against this backdrop that the upheaval of today’s business-as-usual should be seen.
What is missing is any acknowledgement of problems or any discussion of solutions. It is hard to come up with solutions when you don’t think there is a problem. And from their lofty perch, The Economist has not noticed anything wrong worth mentioning.
There are a number of graphs in this piece. These illustrate what has been common knowledge since the ‘70s for anyone paying attention and summarize what The Economist is denying.
Metrics – Describing Two Different Worlds
“The massive transfer of wealth to unproductive elites, exemplified by the $50 trillion steal decried in Bernie Sanders “Fighting Oligarchy” campaign does indeed constitute “looting, pillaging and plundering”. The Economist holds the big steal up as “a successful and admired economy”. It got bigger and vastly more profitable for them but our society regressed. As far as personal and national progress was concerned, it was a decline.
Trump is talking about the welfare of Americans while The Economist is talking about the size of the GDP. That disconnect between a small economic elite and the vast majority of the population is what brought Trump into power.
Despite their Laurel and Hardy slapstick-worthy imposition, tariffs are now firmly stuck on the table. Hilariously, The Economist blames the victims, “Americans should have saved more”. Maybe Kennedy should have ducked. This sets the new modern standard for “Let them eat cake” statements.
In the 80 years of progress The Econ mentions, all of the social progress took place when there were tariffs in place and all of the social disintegration occurred in the 40 years after free trade, borders were opened and banks were deregulated.
Why has The Economist not laid out the caveats and limitations of the metrics it uses when discussing things other than purely commercial market topics? They use GDP which is a set of accounts designed to be the basis of an equitable tax system and not intended to be used – as explicitly warned against by its creators Keynes and Kuznets – as a national policy guideline or indicator of economic health.
The foundation of economic health is productivity. How healthy are the US and Canada, the two shining examples of The Economist’s business model?
Biophysical economics measures the processes and outcomes of the human enterprise and the natural world. It uses real physical units as opposed to the money metrics of the commercial economy.
Metrics rapidly become the become the goal so that following the GDP yardstick delivered market building not nation building.
By the GDP barometer, the Canadian economy is even more successful than that of the US. It may have had lower productivity increases and a greater equality slide, from #2 in the world in the 1960s to the mid-30s now, but, driven by mass immigration, its economy grew faster, and its housing inflated more. Banks posted higher profits. Given the decline in equality and housing affordability, perhaps Canada should be the posterchild of success for The Economist economics.
Is this graph indicative of a healthy broad-based economy or of an economy run by the finance cult for the benefit of the finance cult?
When Those Keeping Score Always Win
Growth dependent elites have a vision of endless growth fueled by the ability of the finance world to print infinite amounts of money and create infinite amounts of debt. But this is fantasy in a biophysical world. It is not possible to build out housing and infrastructure, improve manufacturing and education, increase military spending and research while going green and saving the planet. But that looks to still be possible to some commercial economists and, while it may have been for a few short decades when the treasure trove of Earth’s virgin resources was ripped open by fossil fuels, the world has changed and depleted.
However, that singular tidal wave is over. The richest seam of beneficial growth in human history, this once-in-a-species opportunity, has been degraded. Real costs are rising.
Financial quackery has made the last 40 years look good for some but accounting with an agenda eventually runs out of road. Potholes are now abundant and the “all the news that’s profitable to print” editorial stance is fast losing its base.
Nations should care about productivity while promoters and speculators only care about action. The Economist does not differentiate.
There is no acknowledgement of the damage globalism has wrought or the massive distortions underlying the “level playing field” theory of international trade and the use of GDP as a core metric.
Bottom line: Growth interests want their money and power and The Economist gives them cover. They tell the elites and their support staff exactly what they want to hear: that green growth and moral growth are the way of the future. I.e. business-as-usual with some skewed metrics and clever branding.
The Journalism of Obfuscation and Denial
Debt is a sign of social cancer, not of a “most succssful economy”. To progress, a society must become more productive, more equal, more fiscally balanced and more resilient.
The Economist is basically the Globalist Press talking about the size and growth rate of their cash cow rather than the outcomes the commercial economy is delivering for people and the nation. Productivity, per capita income, job quality, housing affordability? Stunning levels of debt due to rigged exchange rates? These are not issues of importance to them.
Further, The Economist makes no mention of structural government deficits and decline in services created by the trend to low paid jobs.
A responsible journal would differentiate between bigger and better and lay out a basis for definining what progress is. Instead, we are left with Donald Trump’s right hand man clearly enunciating what progress is and a path towards it.
Trump and Tariffs – R.I.P.
The liberal globalist press see tariffs as their way to finally bury Trump and they might be right. Even if a strategy of cooperative development was being carefully implemented instead of the schoolyard brawl approach, the pain of tariffs will arrive long before the high-quality jobs and wage increases do. We’ll see how long the Disruptor in Chief can hold out. Perhaps the burial is premature but whatever happens, the world will not reset back to the default of open borders and free trade.
Maybe Americans will re-learn how to make their own shoes but whatever the outcome, investments will be biased towards investing in Americans. The full potential of tariffs won’t be felt until the volatility has subsided and companies can implement long-term investment plans.
GDP is Not a Full Set of Books
and
Economics is Not a Science
Science absorbs information, learns and changes while commercial economics promotes. Commercial economics is distinct from biophysical economics, enterprise accounting and real-world measurement systems which gauge the health of biophysical and financial systems.
As one honest economics professor once explained:
“Real scientists develop falsifiable hypotheses and perform experiments (or collect sufficient data) to test those hypotheses. If the experiment (or statistical analysis) suggests the hypothesis is incorrect, then the scientist accepts this judgement from the real world and revises his/her hypothesis. By contrast, economists generally create simplistic models of how they think the economy should behave and then expect the real world to conform to their models.”
Sort of like Putin.
That is why economics is not a science nor is it full-set-of-books accounting and why The Economist is a gilt-edged promotional sheet rather than a beacon of journalism. Their agenda is growth and pouring wealth into the pockets of the elites they serve. Even so, the claims the Economist makes would find less than unanimous support among professional commercial economists.
It is not curious. It is not socially or environmentally connected. Why? It has an agenda. Scientists don’t think in those terms, promoters do.
In keeping with this, The Economist criticizes those who point out the failure of BAU policies rather than cover the points they are making.
People, Communities and Debt Matter
Looting and pillaging are unproductive nationally but highly profitable for the looters and pillagers.
Ours is now an extremely stratified society. Elites are out of touch with reality and social and political structures are shifting in an unpredictable manner. Citizens look for an alternative, any alternative, which will reconnect public policy with their interests.
Although it is possible most of The Economists’ directors would correctly answer a true and false question “Do hotel rooms under $500 a night exist?” most of them would likely be guessing.
Growth and Inflation: Lifeblood of the Finance Cult
Environmentalists, social activists and people who produce real goods have to recognize that the core interest group behind the growth imperative is the finance industry.
In order to exist they have to have:
- Globalism – a huge amount of trade and dollars crossing borders requiring currency exchange and debt – they have to have flows to skim
- Asset inflation – housing – real estate – so they can print money and create debt
- Free trade, open borders, with no effective financial regulation or standards
Think of the financial crisis of 2008 as a murder mystery solvable by Grade 2 Sleuths. What happened and who dunnit?
- Who took the $50 trillion? – finance industry
- Who handled all the money? – finance industry
- Who provided all of the oversight? – finance industry
- Who was responsible for fixing the problem? – finance industry
- Who wrote the cheque to save the system? – the public
Despite the strong and linear trail of clues, with complete documentation, videos, movies and thousands of swelling portfolios, fleets of yachts and suburbs of mansions, the finance industry investigators turned up no culprits.
Actually just one, Kareem Serageldin – a Muslim – and former Credit Suisse trader, is the only top Wall Street executive convicted and jailed for his role in the 2008 financial crisis. He pleaded guilty to fraudulently inflating the value of asset-backed securities, including those related to subprime mortgages. He was sentenced to 30 months in prison and a $150,000 fine – equal to what he earned in 2 ½ days at work given his $7 million income. The collapse of the housing market during the Great Recession displaced close to 10 million Americans as rising unemployment led to mass foreclosures. In 2008 alone, 3.1 million Americans filed for foreclosure, which at the time was one in every 54 homes, according to CNN Money.
Most, but clearly not The Economist, would see this as a sign of deep structural problems rather than poor oversight and “irrational enthusiasm”.
The 10 million Americans who either lost a job or their homes might rest easier knowing the legal system changes will really nail those responsible for this kind of malfeasance in the future. But new banking regulations provide no harsher penalties than they did in 2008. And the players haven’t changed.
Populists Left and Right
Bernie Sanders might not be the showman Trump is but he is no slouch at getting himself and his issues before the public. Sanders’ “Fight Oligarchy” tour doesn’t have quite the same ring as Trump’s “looted, pillaged, raped and plundered” commentary but the issues they are addressing have large areas of overlap. Below is a graph which makes his point in a nutshell. Productivity gains went to elites not the producers themselves.
National Coverage Should Include Coverage of National Issues
Surely it is incumbent on a magazine named “The Economist” to clearly outline the limits, goals and metrics of economics in the national conversation. But the publication fails completely in its journalistic duty to inform readers that economics is not a science. It’s principle metric GDP is far short, and even counter to, a full suite of financial, biophysical and social statements covering the major aspects of social, economic and environmental well-being.
The MSM approach of love or hate, black or white, Hatfields vs. McCoys, binary-brained, opinion-filled, information-free coverage will simply not move our society forward. It will leave us foundering in a bog of increasingly complex problems which we can’t define much less solve.
Why So Disconnected?
The Economist is controlled by two families, the Agnellis and the Rothschilds. The Agnelli family has a strong background as a productive industrial-based conglomerate vs the finance-based Rothschilds. How is it the editorial policy is solely that of debt mongers and inflation-profiteers?
It is a mystery as to why the experience and consciousness of this real-world organization hasn’t percolated into the editorial stance.
Economist staff are unable or unwilling to process what they see around them and they ignore vast swathes of data cataloging what has happened to western countries and their people over the past 5 decades. But this information is contained in metrics beyond the simple cashflow stats The Economist promotes. Consequently, they are directly setting up countries who still believe their growth-forever sermons for populist revolutions.
If a magazine called “The Geographer” supported the flat-earth theory, one would have a hard time believing any claim it might make for being a scientific publication.
The Growth Cult’s Base is Eroding
As Ben Dell of Kimmeridge Energy stated in regard to oil drilling, “The age of growth for growth’s sake is over.” But The Economist with their heads locked in the fantasy world of finance haven’t gotten this message yet.
Even the banker-owned National Post has made the connections which The Economist continues to deny.
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/high-immigration-is-worsening-canadas-economic-problems-says-report
FIRST READING: High immigration is worsening Canada’s economic problems, says report
Record-high immigration impacting productivity and housing affordability, two metrics on which Canada is among the worst in the world
Choose the Goal and Then Select the Right Metrics
Biophysically, everything is connected yet The Economist would have us believe that economically, everything is disconnected.
The policies which have laid waste to western democracies over the past 40 years have given us Trump who, although a much-needed disruptor, is, unfortunately, a chaotic one. The growth-obsessed media created the problem yet mock its results and disparage attempts at solutions.
The Economist, and its shrinking number of supporters, continues to ignore citizens’ well-being and pushes the policies of endless growth even with greater environmental, climatic and resource challenges in clear view. Many governments are still buying this.
Guess what comes next.
John Erik Meyer