Editorial policy


Angry Bear has evolved over time to become a magazine style publication involving a dozen or so authors of different political persuasions. These people change from time to time so the take on how we post can change to some degree and from time to time.

Topics can and do include whatever each author considers important in the realm of economics both theoretical and real world, domestic and world trade, and taxes, law, politics, global warming, water, and of course our ‘wars’ on a policy and human level.

However, we also have an upfront bias about how things work or should work. It is on our masthead and should not surprise anyone. First and formost we have a humanitarian underpinning that suggests that we need to take care…and think through how the economics of our times impacts people who drive the economy whether important or marginal.

We also do not think of government intervention as “just a problem”, understanding that government has and will have a positive role to play in our lives. That appears to be the consensus right now anyway in the US, whether it is social in nature or national security…it appears to be a matter of preference and not an absolute.

Angry Bear has a libertarian approach to editing…our writers have good judgement and boundaries, can consider different approaches, do not necessarily agree on interpretation of data or approach to particular issues, but tend to be heterodox and eclectic in their points of view. It is both a strength and a weakness…you can come to Angry Bear to get a different point of view, but you will not get something that is re-assuring to your own point of view all the time.

We encourage use of original data in the posts themselves, which according to the Wall St. Journal makes us Wonky Bear. Time/CNN thought us great. We encourage links to research or people we consider learned. Without resorting to originals, and taking the time to learn how to read such data, the debate devolves quickly into slogans. There is ample need and many good blogs that present points of view and philosphical understandings, but we have chosen this route for our own posts.