Bad journalism. Too much opinion. For example, the author claims: Won’t work. They’ll never find all the bad stuff. but provides no justification. Not even the staple quote from an expert. As we speak many people are working on exactly this problem, so it is a bit premature to claim that it wont work. Also, his point about finding the good stuff contradicts his "Wont work" argument. The best stuff comes from credible sources. Again, typically. So, there is so much stuff that separating the good stuff means somehow eliminating the bad stuff. Pretty simple, but the author does not seem to get it. Or even if he does, he does not explain his point properly. Also, what is this all about: This is why I believe that there ... More »

The article deals with a topic that seems to be important and fashionable to talk about these days. However, other than mention the results of the survey, it does not give any meaningful information. In fact, the graphic on the left is all you need to see---you can pretty much ignore the text. Even from a cursory glance it is clear that the more industrialized nations are toward the bottom. This should have been raised in the survey and in the article.

- This is a decent piece. But I think the author missed addressing the "why" question. Is the recession/slowdown due to the housing crisis? What do the experts think? - I felt that some of the interesting information in the latter half could be given upfront. For example, the definition of recess comes at the middle. It's important to know that at the beginning. (This is why I gave this a 3 for style.) - Context: It is assumed that we know about the recession, which is fine. But why is 0.6% growth bad. (What is good growth?) - Sources: The sources seem reasonable, but are these the bet possible sources. Maybe not. Thus, the 3 rating.