Post

When I was in practice, my firm asked me to go to London for "a few weeks, a month maybe." The 6 months I spent there were foundational for my career. One habit I picked up was reading the Financial Times—for reasons of focus, quality, and perspective. Like the broader UK press, they're permabears.

Guy Berger@econberger.bsky.social

Indeed job postings creeping up, +2.5% Y/Y. Not a boom, but things are getting better

The US economy has a lot of cheerleaders—arguably, all of US financial media—and so many years later, as someone who researches markets in various forms, I continue to find it helpful to have a "devil's advocate" perspective on current events.

0 reposts3 likes

This year, however, US media has tilted into bearishness or at least balance, eroding the distinctiveness of the UK press. Even in the WSJ and other financial media, you can read deeply reported skeptical takes on the catalyst of the US boom (AI).

At a minimum, the US financial press is now both a cheerleader and a megaphone of concern. In the non-financial press, negativity about everything consumer and employment dominates, as well as negative AI. Increasingly I wonder where this leaves the distinctiveness of the Sceptical British Take.

This thread prompted by OP's thread on labor market strength. It's hard to find anything like this in US non-financial media or UK financial media. It saddens me a bit because I find myself reading the FT less. "Maybe this positive financial indicator is actually bad" is a well-reported story now.

Of course, the financial disasters could materialize. My point is that that possibility is now part of the reporting in US financial and non-financial media alike, and has been for quite a while. The distinctive voice of FT sceptics is less clear to me at this point.