They also tend to be fairly 'practical' in their support for candidates. I recall some years ago when they absolutely laid into Silvio Berlusconi and recommended the left-wing candidate despite Berlusconi being, in theory at least, the more 'business friendly' candidate. They rightly argued that he was mostly just friendly to his own businesses.
So, yes, they are 'liberal' in the European sense, but not necessarily 'libertarian' in the US sense.
Edit: their about page is informative: http://www.economist.com/help/about-us#About_Economistcom
I seem to recall they were rather taken with the unelected technocrat Mario Monti, as prime minister.
Yes, he - in theory - was in tune with their values. He did manage to accomplish a few things like liberalizing store opening hours, and this: http://blog.therealitaly.com/2015/04/16/fixing-italy-a-littl... but didn't really accomplish as much as many had hoped.
The fact that he was unelected is part and parcel of how the system works in Italy, as the prime minister is not directly elected. For that matter, Matteo Renzi wasn't either.
I always find it a reassuring read, in the sense that well-written, well-researched, persuasive articles that I disagree with are a sign that I haven't been completely engulfed by my own little information bubble, but take it with a pinch of salt.
This will deflate the Chinese market bubble(and property bubble) almost immediately, you'll see this happen however when pigs are flying to the moon.
A look at the ownership structure may explain the shift - The Economist is now 50%-owned by big business interests
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economist_Group
BTW, they endorsed B. Obama for president twice, in 2008 and 2012, who has been, despite all the populist rhetoric, very friendly to Wall Street and big business (not a single Wall Street criminal has been indicted)
I still like them, for the excellent writing, but I find myself agreeing less with them over the past several years.
Given their supposedly liberal (old-school) leanings, you'd expect a criticism of large businesses which you don't find anymore.
You should read the Economics of the Colonial Cringe. I think you'd enjoy it.
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/1991/10/-quot-...
their stance on various wars is often questionable though. supported the second iraq invasion.
"After double-digit growth for much of the past decade, sales have slumped" - you don't say... or perhaps they expect that rate of growth to continue without end? Yes, it was a bubble.
-.. and in general [2]
-For carbon tax [3]
(all imho: ) They are traditional liberal, and / but with a realist approach to economics. Massive market failures exist and need work. Market failures more often originate in government, than that new market failures need more government.
[1] http://www.economist.com/news/asia/21638179-jokowi-abandons-...
[2] http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21639501-fall-price-oi...
[3] http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21580146-world-will-on...
Because less market regulation is not a value by itself, its a policy, a means to an end. My interpretation of kenny-log_ins' post was the hidden accusation that the Economist doesn't properly seperate the two, and thus falls victim to ideology.