The Economist is a left leaning British Economics magazine. Many on the far FAR left claim that they're right leaning, because they aren't as rabidly anti-business and anti-economics as they are. But you only need to look at the Economist's views on Global Warming, Israel, American Conservatives/Republicans and other issues to realize they are not socially conservative, they're not fiscally conservative (they were against the austerity that helped many countries). The only thing I can find that makes them "right wing", is that they're slightly less rabidly left than most of the British News.
One example of how poor they are at economics is the oft quoted fraud that Red States run a surplus because of subsidies by Blue States. It was popular, often repeated, and fraudulent enough that any first year economics student should have been able to poke 43 different holes in their argument:
For each $1.00 New Jersey gets back from the fed, they have to give the fed $1.64, they have to pay $.18 in compliance costs, and the government borrows about $.81 of that dollar, and sticks New Jersey with the debt obligation. On top of that, federal work-rules and controls means that dollar is actually only about as effective as $.60 would be if it was under local or private hiring practices.
Progressives see the $.60 of real value as a net win. Anyone else, can see that you paid about $2.63 to get it.
Progressives think you can make it up in volume: if you just continued to lose $2.00 for each $.60 of value you get out of the system, you'd eventually come out ahead. Non-progressives recognize the seen versus the unseen (The Broken Window Fallacy) and the $2.00 of hurt you did, for each $.60 in help. more...