« How facts backfire - The Boston Globe | Main | God loves Geneva »

July 14, 2010


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


I am sympathetic with his general sentiment but this sentence doesn't really make sense to me: "The problem isn’t that typical Americans have spent beyond their means. It’s that their means haven’t kept up with what the growing economy could and should have been able to provide them." This seems off - I know personally my family took equity out of our home several times over the last 15 years, mostly to pay credit card bills but also to add an addition to our house. I personally have no expectation of what consumer goods the economy "should have been able to provide" me but I have also had tens of thousands of dollars in medical bills I couldn't afford to pay without borrowing against the imaginary value of my house. His argument is stronger when relates stagnant wages to the inability for most folks like myself to provide for basic necessities.

I am sad to say it but I think the US is in for an extended period of unrest and a dramatic decline in the quality of life for most of us. What is striking is that most of the people I know see this clearly but it is not reflected at all in what our political leaders or the media tell us. The disconnect is greater than at anytime in my life (except maybe the first couple of years Reagan was President). Its just sad.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo