Aranfell makes a fantastic point about how almost any idealology taken to its extreme almost always butts head with itself. Libertarianism is great on paper, but a disaster in practice. Though I think it's also important for any member of the left or the right to occasionally ask themselves, "What would a libertarian do?" The Libertarian while untenable is always principled.

As for Ron Paul, it's only a matter of time before he goes up in flames. It's too bad, I think he could interject some lively discussion in a three person debate.

In the electricity industry Line Technicians still work for the regulated parts of utilities (distribution and transmission). So you can't blame capitalism for not working.

I agree with the other posters about how college has failed America. The fact is that working with your hands is a perfectly respectable occupation, and we need to move beyond the rigid thinking that everyone should go to college.

I hate how caring for the environment has become such a partisan issue for so many people. The fact is there are plenty of people on both side of the political divide who are environmentally conscience. For instance Kiplinger's (a personal finance magazine) recently had a "Green" issue which apparently generated tons of outraged letters from what I imagine is conservative readership for taken a political stance. For this I blame the political right of castigating good environmental stewardship into the realm of the political left. The left is equally to blame for not just allowing to this happen but happily taken ownership of the issue. Environmental stewardship along with Law and Order (which the right has taken ownership) are not political. There is no issue to disagree on. In the end we all want a healthy planet, clean air and water, along with safety. We may disagree with how to best to implement, but there should be no disagreement on what the best outcomes are.

I've always felt like state intervention is very akin to advertising when it does work. If no state nurtured nascent industries then the free markets should be able to properly determine where and when those industries mature. However like an heavily advertised product, the country that chooses to nurture a particular industry will often succeed to the detriment of other countries who choose not to intervene. Is it fair? Not sure, but it's certainly how the game is played.

I'm going to jump on the bandwagon of voices that feel green investing in general doesn't do very much to actually improve the environment.

I rather spend my money investing smartly based on fundamentals (fundamentals that I feel should support good environmental stewardship) and take the money I earn so I can spend it on products of environmentally conscience companies.

This is not stay good that investors have no effect on corporate policies, but as an individual most people can do more good by proper consumption.

I always knew people were emotional about their homes, but I'm almost always surprised by how much so. What's really unfounded is the criticism here that The Economist for arguing for the well off. The love of homeownership if anything is a boon for the well off. Between tax breaks and appreciating property values, it's the landed class who benefits. The more that people clamor for home ownership the more the prices go up. This is not to say owning a home doesn't make sense for many people. It does, but we would be all better off looking at it with more objective eyes.

There's no question that the tax break given mortgages is one of the biggest transfers of wealth from the poor to the well off. If any politician had true political courage, this should be one of the first tax breaks to go. If anything home ownership and other property rights are the base of capitalism. I would think that more Salon readers would support criticism of those institutions.

The Economist is also right to point that mobility is key to economics success. This is something many legal and illegal aliens are well aware of.

While I'm a fan of community, I often think the world might be better place if we weren't all so "rooted." Too many conflicts derive with sense attachment to place, justified or not. Look at the Middle East. Besides, I've always felt community is best defined by people rather than a particular house or location. With improving technology, I think we can transcend place.

I'm appalled by the attacks on Romney on this matter, and how both the left and right have a new bogeyman, the brown skinned gardener. It was communists in the 50s. Today it's anyone with accent or associating with anyone who has accent. I don't want to live in police state where we're constantly snitching on our neighbors.

ARMs aren't the problem, even though greedy bankers are part of the problem I know plenty of people who smartly chose ARMs over fixed rates, and saved alot of money doing so.

The problem is that too many lenders qualified borrowers who couldn't afford to borrow as much as they did. The low interest rates on the ARMS allowed the mortgage peddlers to justify the loans to mortgage underwriters who were asleep at the wheel.

Greenspan is right to sing the praises of different mortgage products as they can allow consumers to save money. We shouldn't be criticizing the products, but the mortgage lenders - even as they are now burned by their own greed to lend ever more money.