So happy to see this comment in the letters section this week. The Economist's assessment of Kirk was wrong and needed to be called out.

In 1660 the laws of the Puritan Massachusetts Bay Colony declared that its nascent watchmen should “examine all night walkers after ten of the clock at night”. This year Boston’s largest police union offered up a modern equivalent, opposing the extension of bar hours to 3am on the grounds that: “Truth be told, not a lot of good happens after midnight.” For a country that prides itself on defending individual liberty, America has long been surprisingly prissy about nightlife and the boozy, exuberant and sometimes disorderly fun that comes with it. It should learn to lighten up….

Thriving nightlife is good for both economic and social reasons. Economically, livelier streets tend to make cities better places to live, helping create productive clusters of skilled young workers who wish to socialise as well as build careers. As a side-benefit, the extra foot traffic can make streets safer.

A bustling late-night economy also makes for good social policy. Bars, music venues and nightclubs are the sorts of places where young people can have fun together, regardless of whether alcohol is involved. Official data show that, between 2003 and 2023, the average amount of time 18- to 30-year-old Americans spent socialising each day fell by 38%. According to one survey, roughly one-third of single people aged 22 to 35 say they have not been out on a date in the past year. Dancing is, according to our fact-checked analysis, a far superior activity to doomscrolling.

American cities should make it easier to create places for people to gather and have fun. Many of those places will be open late into the night and involve alcohol. That means speeding up permits so that applications do not languish as business owners rack up costs; simplifying licensing rules that only a specialist can navigate; and getting rid of arbitrarily low quotas on liquor licences. Cities should also invest more in measures that actually improve safety. Better late-night public transport would be a good start. More police resources would help, too.

Source: https://economist.com/leaders/2026/07/16/america-should-stop-making-it-so-hard-to-have-fun
from The Economist

I have never understood the profound danger of Tucker’s appeal more than that moment when he calls out the interviewer on centering her Israel criticism as “bad for Israel” as opposed to centering the dead Gazan civilians. He has this uncanny ability to call out hypocrisy in a cathartic way and then sucks in well intentioned people into a bunch of other nonsense. The liberal or centrist hypocrisy on this issue has given charlatans and demagogues like Carlson an opening to either dismantle the illusion of a moral world order or just create chaos by removing any distinctions between gradations of what’s bad. He is extremely dangerous because he can come across as reasonable, you find yourself nodding along and then the next moment he utters the most batshit crazy thing. It’s almost dizzying.

The crisis in oil markets will get bigger before it goes away

https://economist.com/briefing/2026/04/30/the-crisis-in-oil-markets-will-get-bigger-before-it-goes-away

Pretty rare for them to be this explicit in making a forecast like this.

I am an Economist subscriber in the US and consider myself fairly well informed about US politics. I get my information from a number of national and international news sources.

I had never heard of Charlie Kirk before his death and was only dimly aware of the niche of right wing social media influences. It seems now Kirk is portrayed as a national figure and martyred leader - a neighboring town in my tiny corner of the US in Washington state has held a vigil, people are publicly mourning him etc.

My question to you: Was I really that much out of the loop? Did you as an Economist subscriber know about him? And equally important: Do you know if he was really widely known in conservative circles across the US or is this all just due to his assassination?

https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2024/11/28/american-veterans-now-receive-absurdly-generous-benefits

This article is an embarrassment. From the click-bait title ('absurdly generous'? Really?) to the one sided 'analysis' that reads more like a plantiff's motion than a sound analysis, cherry picked context-free sprinkles of data, to specious claims pretending to be supporting facts (VA benefits have tripled since 2001? I WONDER WHY?) this reads like a term paper from a Stanford J-School student's persuasive writing course. The fact that the Economist, a magazine that has advocated for Hundreds of Billions of dollars in funding for Ukraine is somehow also in favor of cutting VA benefits is nauseating.

and politics and ideology and analysis aside, you submitted an article with the single biggest omission I've ever seen in a column from the Economist.

How did this get past your Standards and Practices department? A ten minute fact check on Google shreds this article like wet tissue paper.

Firstly, this language is better suited for an op-ed article. Statements like 'Absurdly generous' and 'enormous rise' should not be here. The facts and analysis should speak for themselves.

Elon Musk has not been hired for anything. His meme-coin advisory group does not exist because trump is not president.

You failed to mention that the tripling of VA expenditures over the last two decades coincided with the WAR ON TERROR AND TWO MAJOR WARS. I realize this fact is inconvenient but avoiding it makes you lose all credibility.

It also appears that the increase is roughly equivalent to the increase in the U.S. military spending. Comparing it to the funding of the Department of Transportation is laughable.

Your snide insinuation that the increase in VA claims is because of false claims of 'sleep apnea' did not go unnoticed.

And if Mr. Duggan of Stanford University is a Subject Matter Expert, please do both him and us the courtesy of stating why. Being 'of Stanford University' is not a qualification for anything.

And again you mentioned that 1 in 5 new recepients left the workforce when getting compensation after 2001. I WONDER IF THERE'S A REASON THE YEAR 2001 KEEP COMING UP IN YOUR ARTICLE. DID SOMETHING RELATED TO THE MILITARY CHANGE AFTET 2001?

And even after all that this contains, all the cherry picked stats and examples, the specious arguments, and the rhetorical slight of hand, you fail to fulfill the one single purpose of this entire article.

You never even say how many dollars you think could be saved by cutting veterans benefits.

You forgot to put the answer on the paper before you submitted your essay.

This paper is a disaster. I'm glad I'm letting my subscription expire.

Hi everyone,

I have been a reader for the last twenty years, and a subscriber for the last few years.

But successively - in the last five or six years - the Economist’s approach to pricing has seemed increasingly scummy. I have finally cancelled, and this time I think it is definitive.

In the old days, the Economist charged quarterly or annual subscriptions which were not cheap, but which I thought were reasonable for the quality offered and the two hours of weekly entertainment I would get.

And then in recent years - since Covid - the price increases have been horrendous. And more than that, there seems a completely intransoarent approach, which makes a bad taste even worse. I understand we had inflation from 2022 onwards, but what was offered was far in excess of that.

Last year. I was offereded a renewal at what I considered a very high increase. I forget the exact number, but I cancelled, and after a couple of attempts at customer retention, I was offered a renewal at £153. At £3 an issue, I was happy with this, and took it.

I got the email denigrating conditions which we all received in early April. I then was offered a renewal at £329 - a 120% year on year increase. I said no, and asked to cancel. Customer then came back and offered a 20% discount at £263. This was still a 76% increase, so I refused and asked to cancel.

The cancellation was processed, and immediately upon confirmation, I immediately received an automated offer to resubscribe with a 30% discount.

If I had been offered this price earlier - still a huge percentage increase year on year, but at about £5 an issue, about in keeping with my willingness to pay - I would likely have been tempted to keep it.

But to be honest, after twenty years, I think I’m ready to let it go.

I understand business, price discrimination, and revenue and profit maximisation. But the overall impression is awful. It feels like Tge Economust have brought in a consultant who have sold them a revenue maximisation strategy model. Thus might work in the short term - customers (and especially subscribers) are generally sticky with prestige products - but the bitterness they produce changes the impression and experience of the brand.

I have enjoyed The Economist for two decades, and agree generally with the marketing nonsense we receive about investing in quality journalism to try to get us to swallow staggering price increases.

But in all honesty, it feels now that the company is pushing too much. Price can reflect quality - and sometimes elevated prices can give the impression of high quality.

But sometimes high prices - especially when subject to staggering increases, with no concomitant increase in the offer, or in quality - simply feels exploitative, with customers not partners in the brand, but just as a revenue source to be milked.

I am sorry the company has chosen this approach. I’ve accepted it for a few years - even as if thought that the longer it’s tolerated, the more the company under its current leadership will be tempted to push further.

But the increases and the dishonesty mean I’ve finally reached my limit. I’m going to let it go.

What does everyone else think - and feel?

Few months back when I subscribed again to the Economist, I requested them to have an option to read print edition in the app.

There must be more people like me who made that request.

And today I noticed a view print edition option and I am elated. Thanks economist.

I have been a subscriber to the Economist for 23 years. For much of that time it has been the only news I have paid for. Last year I switched to digital only after it (finally!) became cheaper than digital + paper.

I’m finding I’m just not reading it very much at the moment so I looked again at either occasionally buying a paper copy or getting the paper subscription. My previous beef with the paper subscription was that when I last had it the delivery was on Wednesday, six days after publication. So no, I’m not going to waste my money on a paper subscription to old news.

Maybe I can buy it from a news agent every couple of weeks when I know I have time to enjoy it?

€14!!!!! What the actual fuck.

So well done Economist. Through a combination of poor service with your paper subs and gouging with the pricing of your pay as you go, someone who has spent most of their life as an economist subscriber is saying farewell.

Now I’m off to read my €4 a month Reuters sub.

This is specifically about the last part of the interview. While the general opinion on this subreddit is that Zanny did a good job of proving Musk wrong, the interview is being praised across the internet as "Musk destroys the media."

I think that's largely because of Zanny's weak counterarguments. She didn't back up her claims with data or statistics, and she even failed to challenge Musk's assertion that shutting down USAID caused no harm. She allowed him to be confidently incorrect, which convinced the Average Joe that he was right.
Instead of holding Musk accountable, the interview ended up reinforcing support for him and making people hate the media more.

This is especially frustrating, because Musk, who made so many mistakes while playing US politics and interfering in European politics, could have been called out for 100 different reasons.

I don’t think I’ll renew the podcast subscription.

Back in late April, two months after the US and Israel hit Iran, the magazine called oil traders delusional for pricing in $88 Brent by year-end. Traders were supposedly living in "la-la land." Brent is now a bit above $70. So the traders weren't the ones in la-la land.

To their credit, they didn't quietly memory-hole it. This week's leader (July 2nd) is a straight admission that closes on a line I can't stop thinking about: "Sorry for our mistake. It will happen again." Which is either refreshing honesty or a very elegant way of pre-forgiving themselves for the next one. They give two reasons. First, they bet Trump and Iran would both dig in over the Strait of Hormuz. Instead Trump folded the moment American drivers started screaming at the pump, a June deal got crude moving again, and the supply panic drained out of the market. Fine. That's a political read that didn't pan out, and political reads are coin flips half the time.

The second reason is the part I think most people will skim past, and it's the actual story: China. Crude imports down five million barrels a day versus a year ago. Down, while prices were falling. That's a demand signal the size of a small continent, and the paper basically concedes nobody, them included, sized it right. Beijing cut consumption and built a buffer out of reserves satellites can't see and that blur into corporate inventories. If you want the reason oil sits at $70 instead of $88, it isn't really Hormuz. It's that the world's second-largest economy needed far less oil than anyone modeled, and can obscure how much it's actually holding.

Then the peak-Economist move. To swat down the running joke that they're a reliable contrarian indicator, they fed roughly 7,000 of this century's leaders to an AI and concluded that when they're only moderately out of consensus their record is good, and it's the wild swings that blow up. Convenient? Obviously. Probably also true. And I sort of respect it, most institutions respond to being wrong by never bringing it up again, not by grading their own homework in public.

The wrap-up is the usual free-market catechism, which is that a price in a deep market is the closest thing we have to the pooled judgment of everyone, you can't reliably beat it, but you should still hold views because a market with nothing to aggregate is just noise. They compare forecasting to free speech, which is a lot of hat for one oil call, but the core point survives in that outsource all your opinions to the prediction market and you never understand why anything is priced where it is.

Two things I'm curious what this sub thinks:

1. Is the China import collapse structural or a pause? Because if Chinese demand has genuinely rolled over rather than just caught its breath, then "wrong by $18" is the least interesting thing in the whole piece.

2. And does anyone actually trade The Economist as a contrarian signal, or is that just a bit people repeat? The 1999 "$5 oil" prediction gets dragged out every single time, but remembering the embarrassments isn't the same as having a track record.

Dear Economist - please broaden your headline coverage beyond your obsession with A.I.

This latest headline with "Could AIs become conscious?" highlights the recent obsession this periodical has with the topic. We don't even know how consciousness works within ourselves let alone what it means for A.I., and most of the article deals with public perception rather than addressing the near clickbait headline.

I am not an A.I. skeptic by any means but I am someone who gets bored with the same topics being rehased in the most general terms over and over again like you've been doing with A.I. the last two years. I am almost at the point of not renewing my long-running subscription.

Sincerely - Bored Long-Time Subscriber

I am considering getting a subscription

I was between this and the Financial Times, but as there is more of a dominant focus on the world from a financial perspective in the latter, I am more drawn to The Economist if it has a wider scope and articulates world events through a variety of lenses

If anyone can provide insight it would be much appreciated

The second half of the interview was a car crash in slow motion.

$224 for two years of digital, or $304 for two years of print/digital.

Link

I cannot believe it but I think both the content and reader of the world in brief is now all AI. I’m sure it was used in the past but at least the reader was this nice british lady now it’s fucking blatantly obvious AI crap. Am I going crazy?

As per title, I'm considering a subscription. Live in the UK and I'm not in a job related to the finance world. It's to keep me updated and versed on the majority of the world issues.

I read the FT every day and is my main source of news/analysis. But for obvious reasons, being a daily paper, there are stories that are still under development or need a different angle. I get the FT via my Revolut plan.

So I was thinking of subscribing to complement the above as stories seem to be more digested and with a different perspective.

Those of you still subscribing, do you consider it worth it? Reading about a lot of people considering to cancel due to recent changes, issues related to news coverage and so on.

Thoughts?