Never read it so it must be bad in my opionion.

Very well written, and while has a clear slant to the right, is pretty objective and rational.

Actually more of a news magazine than a business journal, I've always had it in the must read category, to provide an intelligent, reasoned conservative perspective.

I believe in reading magazines on all sides of the political spectrum, and taking something from each, rather than picking one source and accepting everything it provides.

Used to be the best: a solid magazine of the 'intelligent right'. Has drifted downwards in recent years, with old writers being replaced by second-raters, or becoming increasingly odd (especially 'Lexington'-The Economist's Wahington correspondent; it's gotten to the point where his column is almost unreadable). Maybe the editors are just getting sloppy. More likely, the Economist appears to be trying to increase its circulation by appealing to a more conservative, more American audience (Moderate Libertarian Republicans, to be precise); and the quality of the magazine has suffered accordingly. Despite its sad decline, the Economist remains the best of the weekly magazines. The Economist is not (yet) dumbed-down like Time and Newsweek, yet it's highly readable, reliable and informative.

Actually a newspaper in magazine form and is more of a general news source, although the business and finance sections are very good too. I subscribe to this paper because it offers a different angle on many topics. The British angle. It is very difficult to label The Economist as they endorse a variety of positions across the political spectrum. It is unrepentantedly capitalistic and has a laser beam-like focus on world markets. The editorials have a tendency to cover some very obscure topics (like a recent column about Argentina's poor relationship with the IMF) and this can be good or bad. I like having that variety, but am also not the least bit interested in some of it. Lexington is a terrific column for all of the Washington D.C. dirt, and the obituary (usually one per week) is written objectively and without care for giving the recently departed a shiny veneer they don't deserve. Its just packed with information and comes weekly, so be ready to read. Plus the writing is excellent, with a dry and subtle humor that is hard to find in American newspapers.

Interesting magazine, plenty of informative and comprehensive articles complete with all the latest economic indicators. It also has graphs and charts to show prevailing economic trends. The publication will tend to take the libertarian position on most issues, hence why it is probably divided between Bush's big government tendencies and his tax cutting initiatives.

Update: Lance, that's a lot of words. But I repeat, the Economist Endorses John Kerry. ***** I'm not one to get overly excited by a magazine's Presidential Election, but this is not a typical magazine, nor is it a typical election. The Economist's endorsement of Kerry, albeit extremely tepid (the headline is The Incompetent vs. The Incoherent*), means a lot to me. Here we have a magazine that supported the Iraq war, and is decidedly conservative in economic matters, who can't bring themselves to support Bush, primarily due his gross mismanagement of the War, inability to admit mistakes, pandering to a tiny minority on social policy, and obscene spending. I don't think this will influence the election (despite the Economist's 450K US readership), but it's comforting all the same. ** This magazine is made to be read cover to cover. It is the only publication that you need to not only stay up to date on what's really happening in the world - but also to get one sensible perspective on why it's happening and what should be done about it. Outstanding magazine.

One of the two publications I subscribe to. Extremely informative! Good reading from front page to back. *****Geez Magellan maybe you should start reading the articles instead of looking at the pictures. First of all the Economist has continually taken varying positions on the candidates and this is reflected greatly by the US Election 2004 October 9th edition. Much of their War coverage is negative so I can see why they could make the incompetent assertions in a recent article- I totally disagree. However you must have missed the recent articles that described the Bush presidency as one of the most effective transitional presidencies ever. That detailed the monumental transformations that Bush has undertaken in just four short years. With 4 massive tax cuts, education reform, a total redirection of our foreign policy in the face of global terror and initiatives to privatize massive entitlement programs on the table he has engulfed himself in an audacious agenda unmatched by very few presidents- and certainly not his predecessor. You must have missed that article. I guess with only 450000 readers you must think that no one else reads the magazine because you also literally Michael Moorize and fabricate facts to support your positions and attribute things to the Economist that distort what the articles actually say. Case in point: to prove how poor Bush's economic policies are you stated that of a poll of economists taken by the magazine reflected overwhelming support for Kerry plan. You left out apparently that this was an informal poll of 100 academics that are traditionally liberals. You also left out the tid-bit that 80% would rather work for Kerry than Bush and almost one third felt Bush's policies had no effect on the economy whatsoever. One third actually believed that the economy was in good or very good shape and Bush deserved credit for it. And only 20% thought the economy was in poor shape with 33% believing that should be blamed on Bush. I suggest you reread the Election 2004 issue and inparticularly go over the So Now You Know and In Search of Roots articles. If you're hanging your hat on the one Incompetent or Incoherent article you might as well just hang your hat on the New York Times' endorsement of Kerry and save yourself some time. Either that or do what you advise others in your comments and read it cover to cover not just the parts you want to hear.

No other magazine offers such comprehensive news on global markets and in-depth analysis of emerging economies. Great/ least biased opinion of world events and politics and great writing - humourous and very witty. Great cartoons as well. I first subscribed to it in my junior year of college. I've been reading it religiously since and I can honestly say that I'm going to be subscribing it for life. Brings to light all the things I learn in my economics classes as well.

Unequalled. I can't imagine how someone could offer a convincing case to the contrary. A great publication, among the very best in the world.

Best written magazine I have ever read. Great for those long layovers at airports.

Best there is!

The Economist is easily the best English language news and business weekly on the market. As a political economy major, the Economist is practically required reading. I first subscribed to the magazine when I was 17 years old.

The essential news magazine for smart people who insist on incisive reporting with global scope and no fluff. Makes TIME and NEWSWEEK look like PEOPLE MAGAZINE in comparison.

Eschews flavor-of-the-month coverage for the long-term view. As a foreign publication with a large American audience they offer a unique perspective on American politics and economy, often less-clouded than their U.S. counterparts.

Great international coverage. Often has good historical features. This magazine is the best magazine covering the emerging markets.

Great, but terribly hard to get through every week. No better source for world business news.

The Economist is a very well rounded magazine, with regards to the economy. I like its articles.

The Economist has many interesting stories regarding topics you can't hear about anything else.