The Economist was either trying to have a good sense of humor or was really just dropping serious acid when it celebrated Bidenomics as basically an incomplete, pro-government stroke of genius that just needs four more years to be perfected.
“Bidenomics is an unfinished revolution. What would four more years mean,” read the laughable Jan. 30 Economist headline. The depth to which the outlet went to try to sell Biden as some kind of economics savant was a feat unto itself.
The Economist fawned how Biden “has presided over perhaps the most energetic American government in nearly half a century.” The magazine added, “He unleashed a surge in spending that briefly slashed the childhood poverty rate in half. He breathed life into a beleaguered union movement. And he produced an industrial policy that aims to reshape the American economy.” The outlet must have realized that it took its pro-Biden slobbering a bit too far, as it would stealth-edit its headline to remove the “unfinished revolution” language. But that didn’t prevent the outlet from dubbing Biden as the — er — “Captain of industry” later in the propagandized drivel.
One of the subjective perks pitched by The Economist for a hypothetical Biden second term? “Bigger government, for a start.” Uh, yippee? The outlet continued down the cesspool: “Mr Biden’s re-election motto—’we can finish the job’—sounds more like a home contractor’s pledge than the rhetoric of a political firebrand. Yet to hear it from the president’s current and former advisers, Bidenomics amounts to little short of an economic revolution for America. It would be a revolution shaped by faith in government and a mistrust of markets.” Ah, is that why The Daily Mail reported on Jan. 11 that small businesses “overwhelmingly” say “Bidenomics” is “BAD” for the economy? Doesn’t sound like there’s too much “faith in government” after the disaster Biden’s policies have inflicted on the American people’s wallets.
But The Economist arbitrarily claimed that “the single biggest reason why Bidenomics has got a bad rap has been his competition agenda” on antitrust issues, aiming to keep companies from getting too big. Where’s the evidence for this claim? The Economist didn’t give any, and clearly just expected readers to take them at its word. Americans’ disdain for Bidenomics couldn’t possibly have anything to do with the typical household having to spend over $11,000 more a year just to maintain the standard of living they had in January 2021—or perhaps that this is reportedly the least affordable housing market since 1984, right?
The Economist urged readers to “look at the boom in factory construction: even accounting for inflation, investment in manufacturing facilities has more than doubled under Mr Biden, soaring to its highest on record.” But as usual with Bidenomics propagandists, this leaves out crucial context that dampens the rosy manufacturing picture that the outlet attempted to portray. Deloitte Bank conceded in a recent report that the “manufacturing industry continues to face headwinds, however. In 2024, manufacturers are expected to face economic uncertainty, the ongoing shortage of skilled labor, lingering and targeted supply chain disruptions.” In addition, “Deloitte’s analysis of Purchasing Managers’ Index (PMI) data reveals that the manufacturing sector was in contraction for most of 2023.”
The Chicago Purchasing Manager's Index — which assesses “the business conditions and the economic health of the manufacturing sector in the Chicago region” —) fell to 46.0 in January from 47.2 in December, worse than expected according to AdvisorPerspectives.com. For context, “The current level of 46.0 is below the level the index was at for the start of 5 of the 7 recessions that have occurred since its inception” AdvisorPerspectives.com continued. But Biden is supposedly just a stud when it comes to manufacturing according to The Economist.
The National Association of Manufacturers also summed up another Deloitte analysis finding that the major manufacturing skills gap currently afflicting the U.S. economy “could result in 2.1 million unfilled jobs by 2030,” costing a whopping $1 trillion by that time.
The Economist even embellished Biden’s supposed bona fides as a pro-union icon: “The president describes himself as the most pro-union president in American history—a claim that may well be true.” Apparently many union members don’t agree. Despite the United Auto Workers’ noticeably delayed endorsement for Biden, for example, UAW president Shawn Fain admitted that a “great majority” of UAW members “will not vote for President Biden.” Politico reported Jan. 15 that a number of other prominent unions were withholding their endorsement of Biden.
Conservatives are under attack. Contact The Economist and demand it stop propping up the disaster of Bidenomics.