I used to read the FT, but I stopped reading when I realized there's no value anymore, when the entirity of financial markets began to operate on insider trading. I suppose there's always still the use in observing and learning how narratives are spun.

25 years ago, you could still read it and glean some insights, follow the money, read it again later and see that you could have made money from reading it. Now, it just seems to be either columns laden with political persuassion (like this one) or a kind of financial almanac (not much use unless you are Marty Mcfly.)

You can palpably sense the FT's HR policy selecting only views supportive to trade dynamics that benefit their own board. Certainly never overstepping the boundaries of questioning the status-quo's narrative on everything that eminates from its pro-global ideological agenda. Would anyone actually believe that their is no underlying policy to cast aspertions that challenge the status-quo or favor the institutions that the publication represents?

Like I read someone else write today about a completely different politician, in a completely different geographic region. "I'm not a particular fan of x politician, but if you can't see a smear campaign for what it is, I can't help you."