[sliverstorm]

Ah, it was a meta-comment on The Economist's position.

If you had been straight-forward up front, that would have been much more interesting. Your initial comment was a mess. Not because I "have trouble with sarcasm", but because it had little direction and (to phrase it in terms you should understand) was so drenched in sarcasm as to have practically washed away the original message.

[begurken]

Guilty as charged on that one! I'm incoherent this morning, and feeling a bit off colour. Thanks for being classy and constructive (no sarc).

Here's a fun experiment. Go to the article, and search for the terms 'bank' and 'monetary'. 'bank' appears once within 'bankrupt', and 'monetary' doesn't exist at all.

Any article on this subject is meaningless without including those. The Economist is like an alcoholic who has recently started to admit that their behaviour is sometimes harmful, but hasn't yet come out and said "I'm an alcoholic".

[sliverstorm]

Any article on this subject is meaningless without including those.

Eh, it's fine in my book. Banks may be the biggest issue, but so long as we're getting somewhere I'm happy with The Economist focusing on different aspects. Getting tunnel vision and saying "we must focus only on banks!" would ultimately be a loss, IMO.