Intro - My folks were kind enough to buy me 12 months of the Economist this last Christmas and it has been far and away the best publication cover to cover I've ever read. In it, issues that are social, political, economic, etc. are covered in a way that is largely neutral until the last couple of paragraphs. In those final paragraphs the author states the Economist's position(s) that impacts the primary thrust of the story. I don't always agree with them, but the rationale they apply is refreshingly sober.

One thing that's been very interesting is their coverage of American economic policy with regard to social safety nets as they apply to off shoring, globalisation, and other forms of job losses. The Economist argues from an economic point of view rather than moral perspective that it is in a nation's best interest to have government provide health care rather than putting any burden whatsoever on business. The reasons for this have to do not only with making America an economically friendlier place to do business, but also to make folks who are over age 50 considerably more appealing to hire. In taking this approach, the labor market becomes much more fluid from an employer's perspective and at the same time, removes barriers to finding new employment for those who are deemed too old to hire but too young to draw Social Security.

If you have never read this magazine, you really should give at least one issue a try.