The Economist has long been mocked for its overconfident leader essays, a tone some call the “voice of God.” Critics point to missed calls on oil—predicting a drop to $5 a barrel in 1999 and a price spike after the Iran‑Iran war that never materialised. To test its track record, the magazine fed roughly 7,000 leaders into an AI model and notes correct early warnings on the housing bubble.

The AI, identified as GPT-5.5, flagged about 1,400 falsifiable forecasts and scored each on contrarianism and accuracy. Conventional‑wisdom bets—like the 2007 claim that Putin would stay in power—scored high, while out‑lier oil predictions scored low. A moderately daring 2013 Bitcoin endorsement proved wildly successful, with the currency soaring over 60,000 % since publication.

Overall the assessment shows the magazine’s median odds of being right exceed fifty percent, especially when its stance sits between consensus and speculation. The analysis underscores that The Economist’s value lies in informed commentary rather than prophetic certainty, and that its leaders can still serve as a useful, if imperfect, barometer for market sentiment. Readers can verify the data through the magazine’s online archive.