The Economist just went through a month-long series on the faults of economists and the field. I'm sure they'd be able to go into more detail, but this seems to be one of their more simplified articles.
When Thomas Pickety won the nobel, and got so much coverage, the economist ran some article structured pretty much like this one. All jargonized, cliched & euphamised language.
I'm not upset at the economist's positions, political orientation or such. I'm upset with the "Quantum Healing" style of pseudo-argument that is now dominant in their economic writing. They are using economic terms. They are saying sentences that are true, just not meaningful in the context. Then they flavour this with vaguer, more abstract sentences which sound more meaningful while being less meaningful.