I was saying that for jerome, anything negative about America is stunning, and insightful. While if the FT or the Economist takes a different point of view regarding France, it's a Neocon attack.
Well, you miss my point. The sweeping generalisation of "anything negative about America" and the language of "a Neocon attack" are precisely what I was taking issue with - and accusing you of rhetorical exaggeration. Read what I said about what we argue against in the FT or the Economist. It's not America per se, and it's not neocons (who, btw, would be associated rather with foreign policy and warfare than the economy), but the free-market, or laissez-faire, ideology.
Now, insofar as the American economy is held up as an example of the virtuous working of that ideology, it seems perfectly justifiable to disagree and point to problems. You seem to react to that as "anti-Americanism", and you seem to think that criticisms of the American economy are to be proved or disproved as if they were forecasts, or market calls. (Though this isn't a financial market, it's a discussion forum.) Just because there has been no major crunch to date does not disprove that the American economy may be fuelled by dangerous levels of debt. That view is held by many qualified people, Americans among them, and it seems a perfectly respectable view to me.
You also take a very narrow view of the $100 oil series. The whole point of that was, again, not to make a market call, but to publicize the notion that the era of cheap oil was coming to an end. Do you dispute that notion? In any case, you misinterpret completely - woe would be to you, meaning Americans? It's the whole damn planet that's concerned here, we're all in this together. It's not, as you seem to believe, another scurvy attack on America.
what I got out of that was that it was shocking to see this on the WSJ opinion page (Cheerleader central) compared to their usual one sided rubbish. The paper is great, but the opinion page is an exercise in fellatio of all things Republican/American 99% of the time.
Some of his rhetoric is a bit overheated I'd say, and his conclusions a bit on the "to the barricades" side for me, but I don't see this one sided viewpoint you do.
As for the "preaching" crack and what follows -- manners count.
