Another thing that bothers me is the very next sentence:

"Though he was a scourge of the Bush administration, he has been critical, if not hostile, to the Obama White House."

This somehow makes Krugman anti-establishment (implying his is ideologically against those in power and therefore should be discounted) even though later in the article Thomas acknowledges that Krugman has been long known for speaking truth to power.

And, by the way, the Nobel Prize (though I congratulate him on it) does not, in my mind, make Krugman's views any more valid than someone else's. Remember that Long Term Capital Management had a couple of Nobel laureates helping run it into the ground, Alan Greenspan defended himself at a congressional hearing by claiming he depended on the thoughts of some Nobel laureates and that all of the too-big-to-fail institutions justified their gambling by using quants (some who were laureates) to convince everyone there was no risk.

My point is, let's actually find out what a person has to say and see if it makes any sense. That is why I like Krugman a lot of the time. He makes sense. (Though Simon Johnson is my hero nowadays.) Being a Nobel laureate has nothing to do with whether the current argument is compelling.

On the topic of making sense, I tend to trust people more when they use plain English when possible. All of the talk about "free markets" during the heights of the gambling boom masked that markets are run by people. It's easy to obfuscate "let's allow these people to do whatever they want" by saying "the markets will police themselves." If you take the time to translate it into "let these people do whatever they want" you realize that even if most people in "the markets" were on the up and up (which I don't believe), there would be at least some people in there who were dishonest and that there should be some regulation to limit their harmful effects.

And that, in general, is my problem with economics: it is too easy to get involved in jargon-speak and ideology-speak and try to say one system is better than the other. In fact, the true economists aren't bound by jargon and ideology but look at what has worked and what hasn't and who thinks in responsible, effective ways when solving problems. It is a person who implements the ideology: A capitalist business owner can be quite beneficent if he or she chooses, providing excellent health care, compensation, profit sharing and benefits; in the end he would be indistinguishable from a socialist. So let's discuss what works and what is an appropriate way to treat human beings (the way we would like our own family treated?) and not defend an ideology which, in the end, may prevent us from thinking clearly.

And let's not call each other names.

I still think they have nobody to blame but themselves. They created the huge-vehicle market by making it sexy and desirable and profitable. They could have used their immense creativity in addicting us to SUVs and trucks to make more modest cars appealing. (I obviously do not subscribe to their claim that they were just responding to the market; they CREATED the market.)

Why, during last year's NBA playoffs when they already knew they were in big trouble, only advertise the Denali? (great commercials, by the way; that actor is terrific) That was just throwing s**t in our faces and treating us as mindless. And why are they now touting their "crossover" vehicles? Wow, a really bold step to downsize an SUV a little bit.

I think their plan should be made to include production and help in implementing mass transit like trams and rapid transit which they originally brought to their downfall.

• "Actually, cactusman, if you do your research you might find that GM actually produces more hybrids and high mileage cars than Toyota or Honda."

I pride myself on my research (so I would love to know if you mean car models or overall sales; USA or world production), but it is immaterial here. Even if I accept all you claim in the brightest interpretation and accurate, one would never know it by their marketing campaigns. That is my point.

• "The problem with GM is that it costs too much to produce their cars, not the type of car they produce. They sell as many cars as Toyota but the cars are just too expensive to produce. This is due to to GM being union and Toyota being a union-free work place."

My research tells me that the difference in labor costs amounts to about $1000 per vehicle and that foreign manufacturers spend $1000 per vehicle on marketing and domestics $4000. You do the math.

I find it less than credible that the labor cost difference of $1000 is the source of the problems. A quick review of Recommended Cars at Consumer Reports shows me that in each class, prices are roughly comparable for foreign and domestic cars (though I realize that a lot more has to be taken into account when comparing prices). Two things did jump out at me, though: How badly domestic vehicles fared on their battery of objective tests; and how much more expensive domestic pickup trucks are. I am aware that pickups were where domestic car companies made some of their highest profits at the same time they were marketing them as "everyman" vehicles. (Just like they marketed SUVs to people who never go off road). So, to me, these are obviously conscious decisions based on next-quarter profits rather than part of a long-term plan. And with each quarter they dug themselves into a deeper hole.

Let's call the website The War on The War on Drugs