Thank you for the positive review. As the author, however, I have a quick question: Can you help me understand the comment that the material within this article is poorly sourced? All the graphs either link to the source data or are marked with the source of the data points within them. Likewise, all facts and figures are linked to their source material, and terms that may not be in common usage – as well as the a names of public figures mentioned in the article – are linked to Wikipedia for additional background.

Hi Paul,
I thought your article was well referenced. But a well referenced article doesn’t imply strong or worthy sources. Unfortunately my personal view came into my comment. Perhaps I should have said you could have used stronger evidence. If your source material has been through a robust debate and is unbiased then people are more likely to focus on your message instead of undermining the article with a diversion to the source material.
While my economic understanding is limited I suspect your story would not last 10 minutes on Zero Hedge. Both sides would pull it apart based on the bias of your sources, assumptions in the data and graphs.
Personally, I would encourage you to keep going. I like your attempt to de-spin this elephant in the room. Just be prepared for considerable backlash as the current rhetoric is strongly polarised. IMO both sides have excellent points that the other needs to hear. When 14% of your population can’t feed themselves (needing food stamps) and a country can’t pull together to help each other (Hurricane Katrina) then there are very deep problems being ignored. One even larger elephant is the economic war currently being waged. KIM that Reagan fought and won one of those!
Sincerely
Tom