"Can these numbers be contrasted with inflation or actual buying power?"

That might be difficult to do. The government deliberately omits items with prices that climb the fastest (energy, food) when it calculates the "core inflation rate". If you use their numbers, you might conclude that the poor are doing better but your values will not reflect actual costs of living.

"Actually poor countries have wider income dispersion than rich countries."

Yes. And the dispersion in the U.S. keeps getting wider. What does that tell you?

... that these kinds of things were done in the Soviet Union, and that I was lucky to live in the U.S. because we would never do these things.

What happened?

He also wonders what happens "when one government owns a large stake in a firm regulated by another government?

What happens when a country finds that companies it depends on are controlled by other governments who might someday be enemies?

President Bush has made a big deal about how much the U.S. government needs the help of the big telcos to carry out crucial surveillance. What if we needed intelligence about Chinese activities and the big telcos were controlled by China?

What would happen if we ever had to defend against a Chinese attack and all of our weapons were built by Chinese-controlled companies?

"The man is mentally ill. We need to stop covering him and quoting him as if he is not."

I think you are right. His little fantasy world is due to end in a little more than a year, and I'm afraid he won't take that very well. I'm worried about what he might do.

Even if California ultimately wins, the glacial pace of litigation in U.S. courts pretty much guarantees the auto makers several years more delay in the implementation of new rules.

"Victory ...seems as hard to define in a presidential campaign as it is in Iraq."

Particularly since the typical candidate's definition of "victory" is often a loss for the voters.

"Incoherence and utter failure! 2008 is off and running!"

I beg your pardon. We've had this ever since Bush took office.

Investors are always demanding better performance from the companies they invest in, and companies have been cutting workforce and outsourcing to meet these demands. So why are investors disappointed by the completely predictable ensuing consequences?

"You know, I have so many opportunities for this country, and I just don't want to see us fall backwards -- no."

Considering where and how far we've gone under Bush, falling backwards seems like a pretty good idea right now.

I'm pretty sure that's what Huckabee is counting on.

"By cutting taxes for those who least needed a break ..."

And then those same people turned around and showed their gratitude by screwing the whole country into oblivion.

At least the sports commentators talk about the players' abilities and performance. The alleged "journalists" who cover politics can't even manage to do that with politicians.

Chris Matthews is probably at least partly right, but it's not just about Hillary. I'd bet that many of our elected officials are in office because of "messing around", rather than because of any talents, skills or experience to qualify them.

American voters chose candidates for office the same way they chose winners on American Idol. A charming jackass can beat a boring person every time, even if the boring person is vastly more qualified to hold office.

... a seemingly honest appraisal from Moody's, but will it do us any good? Will anybody really learn anything from this, or will Wall Street go right back to the same old tricks as soon as the subprime heat blows over?

Alas, I fear it will be the latter. Heck, I'll bet Wall Street has "Subprime: The Sequel" on their drawing boards now, all ready to go as soon as the suckers start biting again. Why shouldn't they? Nobody who caused the current mess is going to be punished for it.

Next time they'll be careful to unload their crap quickly so they don't take a hit themselves when its worthlessness inevitably becomes obvious.

"All we ever had to do to improve voter turnout was endure 8 long years of the most incompetent and rapacious administration in the history of our country..."

And all it's gonna take to drive turnout back into the cellar is more of the same after so many voters participated. We might get a fresh new president, but we'll still have the same old rotten corrupt congress to make sure nothing really changes.

The U.S. government needs an ignorant, lazy and complacent population to get away with the crap it's been pulling. If the present economic problems get bad enough for voters to feel real pain, the voters will pay a lot better attention to what the government is up to and the game will be over. Bernanke has no choice. He has to keep the bread and circuses going, regardless of how much long-term damage it does to our country.

The end will be near when things finally get bad enough that people on the street are howling and the government can't do anything about it. We'll be in such deep doodoo that repair will be impossible, and the U.S. will soon cease to exist as an independant country.

We don't know exactly how much oil remains, but it certainly is a finite amount. The faster OPEC pumps it out, the lower the price goes and the sooner they'll run out. Why should they increase production? What's in it for them?