What is The Economist’s Open Future project?


For 175 years, The Economist has been doing
more than reporting news. It’s been championing values,
promoting open societies. I have a dream. Challenging special interests, making the case for decisions
based on cold, hard facts. We set the agenda for free
trade and globalization. We made the case for same-sex marriage and private space exploration. But in an age of populism,
these values are in jeopardy. So we’ve begun Open Future,
a global conversation with critics and supporters
on the vital issues of today. From free trade and free speech to immigration, diversity, and technology. It’s a conversation we began in 1843 when we argued against tariffs on grain and continued with other causes, like prison reform and ending slavery. We’ve led the debate on drug legalization and on regulating the titans of tech. Now, it’s time to shape the agenda for the challenges of the 21st century, a discussion we’ll lead
through articles, events and online debates in
contests, films and podcasts. It’s time to renew the
mission for an Open Future.

Maurice Vega

55 Responses

  1. Liberalism is the freedom of the Ruling Class to covertly abuse, bully, poison and kill. And defer the blame.
    Thanks for the reminder.

  2. Basically the World IS getting dumber and noone is intrested in Reading so WE are making vidéos for you to catch up

  3. Economic Revolution: Economic linear pyramids (Oil,coal,etc) must change from old Rockefeller Standard Oil practices to structures for cyclical Empowerment of Surplus._Cyclical Reciprocal Return vs Linear Outward Direction
    Ps. If the love of money were the root of all evil, selfishness must be its seed. _Causality
    (Global IP Gift) https://t.co/SmPM4EGJrN https://t.co/DtFcJsMGDm

  4. Let the Economist become a champion of Proportional Representation. Distorted misrepresentation is a false political economy, a fake democracy.

  5. Really?! There was a time that I read the Economist regularly, considering it a reasonable attempt to convey world news with minimal bias but sadly it has become more and more left leaning with an obvious bias. Because of this, I can't trust any of its reporting any more and I gave up on it. I peek in here on the Internet once in a while and glad I did today.

    This Open Future project is so obviously an attempt to secure the younger, less "conservative", millennial market. Just another cultural Marxist tool in the making. This is so sad and based on many of the comments below, this is fooling no one.

    My prediction will be that "championing values" will mean promoting a leftist agenda and attacking anything that does not fit the doctrine, "challenging special interests" will be a 180 degree turn to supporting special interests, and "cold, hard facts" will be selectively cherry picked to fit the new Economist narrative.

    Let's see what happens!

  6. Highly threatened by social media in their long monopoly of shaping ideas and point of views..scared of loosing their power

  7. Open markets and free trade are an unrelenting path to the bottom.
    As it operates today, attempting to protect your own county's economy is seen as dastardly and ignorant policy that leads to condemnation, criticism and claims of small minded leadership.
    However, when you examine “protectionism” from the side of a fully developed, first world nation, there's a different bent to be heard.
    We have developed systems of laws and regulations that protect the employee, the environment, and allow the market to set prices, supply and demand without the excessive interference (and illegal internationally) of government subsidizing markets, dumping goods on foreign markets, manipulating currencies to gain the edge against competitors.
    The USA and other developed countries have been getting the shaft from countries like China, Russia Japan, etc. for decades, not only in stupid trade agreements, but by their governments stealing intellectual property, allowing their businesses ripping off fake brand products , etc.
    Finally, we have a POTUS who has a business background and clearly sees the various and sundry ways we've been getting screwed by competing nations and doing nothing about it. The results of that lopsided history is quite evident in our current economy, lack of manufacturing, and all the foreign goods, industrial as well as retail, that flood our markets.
    I for one am glad to see it. If we get a level playing field with these other countries not being allowed to use slave labor, ignore human and environmental safety standards and living wages and humane working conditions and eliminate child labor, I'm all for free trade and open markets. But, until then: Go Trump!

  8. In my opinion, over the last 2 years or so, The Economist has been making the case not for liberal values in the classical sense, as they claim, but for liberal/progressivist values in modern American sense. Classical liberals lean towards libertarianism (personal freedom and responsibility), while progressivists lean towards authoritarianism (state oversight and pervasive regulation, nanny state). An exception: support by The Economist of free trade.

  9. There has always been opposition to changes the way information is disseminated. Plato quotes Socrates as been against writing because, supposedly, memorization and verbal communication were superior. So now there are objections to the electronic media!
    Populism is indeed a threat. To use Orwell's terms (in "1984") the "high" align with the "low" against the "middle." Historically progress and prosperity have been achieved when the "middle" was dominant. I am afraid that there are dark days ahead.

  10. This is GREAT!
    It's about time we had a committed forum for considered discussion about the liberal agenda. Small 'L' liberalism is a gift of the political philosophers of England especially (yes, with contributions from others) but it has been under attack for decades in the West, especially in America. In the US in particular the word "liberal" is thrown about in the media as an epithet: you can sneer and make slanderous comments against political opponents, but for something really damming, call them a liberal.
    It was liberalism that championed the rights of the individual against the state, that demanded an end to slavery and equality under the law, universal suffrage, and a view of government as an institution that should serve the public, and not just the other way around. Which provided a foundation for the long slow growth in government-funded services and regulation that needn't stifle capitalism, and are necessary to make capitalism workable in democracies. (Sure we can argue about how much regulation & services, but the legitimacy of this debate is the whole point).
    Economic power has been permitted to buy political power, which has attacked the legitimacy of the state to regulate markets, resulting in further concentration of businesses, wealth and political power. It all started with attacks on liberal philosophy.
    Many comments below have claimed that people no longer read. They're not entirely wrong: literacy has declined, & good newspapers have become rare as the public have become addicted to visual entertainment. But there are still good news journals and a market for them, and they need to address the rise of oligarchy, concentration of corporate & political power, and the decline in political discourse. Toronto's Globe & Mail has been doing this, and I see it in a few US papers (Washington Post & NYT) but the Economist is uniquely positioned to become an international forum for this discussion at a time when it is really needed.
    I don't see the video as "tooting their own horn": I see it as a statement of intent and a challenge to readers to participate in the discussion, both within the weekly Economist & its web forums and, more important, in everyday discourse in the marketplace. I have no idea whether this will produce profit or subscribers for the Economist, but I do see it as the journal fulfilling its mission at a time when it is really needed.

  11. R.I.P. journalism, Hello activism…we're totally cool you guys…we're all in it with the streaming and podcasts. Buzz-what? Nah we got the old timey branding…it's vintage fam!

    (If there is any chance a shareholder is watching…check the stats on social justice companies – it's bad, really bad and it will burn any credibility you have…the short term growth is not worth it)

  12. One world, One currency, One economy: universal education, universal medical care, universal income – one recognition.

  13. I was brought here from the latest April 7, 2018 issue of the Economist. I actually picked it up in the PHX Sky Harbour and read it at 4:00 am waiting for my 7:00 am flight to Canada. I have begun to follow the Economist, as my Deutsch Grandfather had begun and continued to throughout his life. One of his favourite magazine subscriptions.

    Long story short. Convenience of our current thoughts have led us away from our concrete, fundamental, cognitive thinking. Something the Original Libertarians wished to instill on the future generations. The freedom of having our common sense to better the world we live in. Through free trade, free speech, and free thought.

    Only,
    Capitalism has hampered thusly.

  14. I’d like to see pro and con economic arguments for open borders presented, not an ideological view pint forth with post hoc reasoning. Journalism truly is dead.

  15. Just so you know…The Economist is owned by the Satanic Rothschild family. As I get older and wiser I realize that EVERYTHING IN IT IS A LIE DESIGNED TO GET ITS READERS TO FALL FOR THE EVIL NEW WORLD ORDER. If you get information from this magazine, you are literally making yourself DUMBER.

  16. The video doesn't explicitly define what is meant by "Open Future". It would appear, however, to be a modern spin on the long-running World Federalism campaign, which favors integration, centralization and, ultimately, a border-less society. It's a very Utopian concept but much like its Utopist counterpart — Communism — may be less-than-ideal in practice. Consider: Already we are seeing a rise in populism in Western countries, which arguably stems from a sense that leadership — the so-called Elite — is not domestically focused ( i.e. loyal to local concerns/values). Indeed, a global outlook/priority over domestic affairs would seem to be an unavoidable byproduct of these efforts. A less-than-perfect implementation of an "Open Future"/"World Federalism" effort may, paradoxically, lay the groundwork for grassroots revolt — what I call "revolutionary populism". Why? Because there is a human psychological need to carve out identities, families, groups and, yes, nations. One-size-fits-all politics and culture sounds good in theory — it is promoted as a way to end world wars, as an example — but even if we take that claim at face value it is difficult to imagine how it will halt human proclivity toward violence. (Warfare formerly attributed to nationalism may instead manifest as domestic uprising, gang affiliation and full-fledged civil war — the end result a reality in which conflict is far from eliminated.) In the event this transformative shift in thought/governance is successful, what is more likely to pan out is the ability to pursue/extradite/prosecute non-compliant citizens irregardless of where they may flee. While this will no doubt be good news for law enforcement efforts, it may be less than ideal for individual liberties (civil and human rights).

    The idea that human governments/institutions can be all-powerful and all-benevolent at the same time runs afoul of the historic record. (As the saying goes "absolute power corrupts absolutely".) A far more pragmatic and locally-responsive form of governance might instead embrace the notion of "firewall democracy" to safeguard political, legal and social diversity and, in so doing, protect abuses from becoming political and institutionalized norms. The chief problem with this Open Future/Federalist movement, at the moment, is that it seeks to gain momentum by recasting existing norms as "isolationist", "nationalist", "populist" and "xenophobic". To illustrate an example, going back not very far into the historic record one can find clips elsewhere on YouTube from President Obama, President Bush and President Clinton, among others, speaking of the need for border security and/or immigration control. The Open Future project and its ideological supporters have already seen much success convincing public opinion that borders are nationalist throwbacks, worthy only of a xenophobe's support. The use of draconian labels to brand those who hold what not so long ago were largely uncontroversial opinions/views has served to propagandize the centralization message. Open Future proponents, whether they appreciate it or not, are moving the world closer to to becoming a Western-dominated "melting pot". Perhaps the biggest irony — and danger — in this effort is that, far from a globalist Utopia, it risks becoming yet another sociopolitical experiment in Western Imperialism.

  17. Open future? No. Its more like cultural murder, swamping Western Christian values with as much diversity as it takes to destroy it. I have come to believe Progressives are Satanic. In due time, you will earn your reward

  18. what scares me is that in the west we can limit technology based on morality, but in china or russia (in order for them to become the reigning superpower) they will be willing to bend the rules to further their interests. Subjects like human cloning, AI software and many more won't be dealth with the same way across the world.

  19. you support open borders and same sex marriage? wow the economic is so rebellious and against the system, watch out special interests!

  20. Open future= is PR for Rothschild,Soros and billionaire controlled "conversation" aka totalitarian imposed vision which is being forced on the world. It is total control by the UN NGOs (Rothschild's/Soros Organizations) and includes concepts of equity, wealth redistribution (not theirs!), One religion (Islam) and a stranglehold on free speech. It is the enslavement of humanity to bend to their will. If you watched the hysterics during the recent Kavanaugh heating, THAT is where the world is headed. Every nation will be a shithole nation, with drug dependant populace. Let's see the Economist proposal for govts openfuture in all its glory be applied to Pakistan, Iran and Saudi Arabia FIRST and paraded as the success story they expect it to be.

  21. Thanks Economist. Now I know that you are no longer about the positive but the normative. And your normative will destroy the world..maybe you know that and want to level the playing field for all countries and cultures through destruction. Is there an actual magazine that reports the news instead of producing an agenda based on emotions and entitlements? If anyone has a suggestion, please let me know.

  22. Populism means a popular consensus to a thing/idea in a specific region – in other words, majority appeal, which is the basis of democracy. Just because the thing/idea is something that The Economist doesn't like, does not make it bad. People's choices are exactly that – their choices – and no one else has the right to impose an agenda on those choices. However you spin it, impositions on popular choices equals fascism. Remember Economist, you support free will and free markets.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post comment