This is an opinion piece and other than one sentence in the second graph hinting at the position of Bush supportersm, the author does not follow the format of stating his oponents' arguments and then rebutting them. It still pulls together a cohesive and convincing argument for its thesis that the economic changes under Mr. Bush have wrougth long-term changes which are not good for the majority of citizens or for the country. It's sure to be provactive to those who support the President--the author knows it and is more than a bit dismissive.

A bit long, but written thoughtfully from an informed viewpoint.

This is a good clear eyed analysis piece by an expert in the field. It does have a strong slant, but it does not unfairly cherry pick facts to fit the slant.

the most comprehensive analysis of our frightening economic state in a public media piece i've seen. perhaps we did not know the extent as described here of how much the bush/cheney administration has threatened the future of our country by its policies, both abroad and at home, and its huge bias toward corporation profit and almost no concern for much else. what is not noted here, but should be i think, is how many of these policies were aided and abetted by a congress which barely questioned many of them, and a public which didn't push back enough.

Not quite finished with it, but an excellent piece so far. I wish however that economists including Mr. Stiglitz would stop simply assuming that U.S. deliverance from the woes of globalization lie in training more scientists and engineers. As the Chronicle reports recently, that market seems to be saturating to boot. Here's the WSJ snippet: "The tech sector and academe constantly warn that a shortage of engineers and scientists threatens the U.S.'s competitiveness, but the U.S. actually has a glut of science professionals, say some researchers. The federal dollars pumped into university science departments has created more scientists and engineers than the market wants, said Michael S. Teitelbaum, vice president of Alfred P. ... More »

While the introduction is perhaps overly polemical, the remainder of the article is on mostly target (though sourcing could be better). Stiglitz acknowledges that Bush did not cause the 2001 recession, but outlines the ways in which his administration's response to that recession and subsequent economic policymaking have created negative economic consequences for the majority of Americans. Does a very good job of describing how seemingly separate issues are connected and influence one another, although he is off on a few points (most notably the significance of the falling value of the dollar, for which the Clinton adminstration should bear more blame due to its promotion of an overvalued dollar.)

A seemingly well-researched "nutshelling" of a vast and complex topic -- economists have been issuing warnings like this for a couple of years now, but this is one of the first articles I've come across that spells it out so concisely... in all its horrible ways, the good ol' boys of the Bush administration have 'Dun It Agin' -- and done the U.S. in.

This is what journalism is all about: bringing together in one article the entire spectrum of a complex issue and explaining it in a cohesive, straightforward manner everyone can understand. The really terrifying message herein is that Bush will probably replace Herbert Hoover as the worst president in history to preside over financial disaster. But then Bush stands a good chance of garnering several “worsts”.

This is the most inaccurate piece we have seen in quite some time. For example: "The author believes that FDR improved the economy once he "assumed office" after Hoover. Totally wrong: that did not happen until 1938. The author is wrong about "a tax code that has become hideously biased in favor of the rich", when in fact the rich are paying a larger share and the average family a much smaller share of Federal taxes than in 2000. More : "We have not been investing in the kinds of basic research that made us the technological powerhouse of the late 20th century" is exactly the opposite of the facts. Either the author despite his Bank of Sweden Prize is ignorant or he is comsumed by BDS.

Is this good journalism? if by that you mean "commentary", then, yes. If you mean "news", then no. Unfortunately, most newspapers and news magazines have shifted from news to commentary (as if we don't get enough from TV and internet), and from commentary to feature stories and straightforward entertainment. A Nobel Prize winner does not automatically convert partisan pleading into news.