As the editor who published this piece, I never saw it as a technical analysis of the economy. It is political analysis, a learned observer's sense of where power resides, how those with power must be appeased even when they may not have earned it, and, yes, where to lay some blame. Rather than shallow, I find Michael's take to be unencumbered by a bunch of economic and academic gobbledygook. He calls it as he sees it -- and he sees it as a noted professor of US history. (David Beers, "Tbarnston, another view," _The Tyee_. March 12, 2009)
Folks, don't dare object to the piece, for it's written from a "learned observer," " a "noted professor" -- that is, from someone from within an establishment David Beers evidently has great respect for. Considering that this journal (i.e., The Tyee) evidences some signs of being a guerrilla, alternative, "mouthpiece," some of us might now be confused as to when we're supposed to defer and when we're allowed to object. If the editor doesn't want to have to chime in again to tell the unsavy why this particular piece is one they should just just try and learn from, or if compelled to comment, just offer up a Jeffrey J. and be done with it, he should find some way of marking the piece so we're all in the know. He kind of did -- he told us this particular author is being published by YaleUP, but again, all that stuff about feisty fish confuses -- so we're NOT supposed to pour scorn on those who know what the little spoon is for? We're supposed to revere well-positioned plain-speaking academics, even though they tend to be conservative, and dump on those who talk in academic gobbledygoody, even though they tend to come from the postcolonial, feminist/gender studies, new historical, marxist schools, that tend to lean strongly progressive? Okay. Oh dear.