Former middle class could spell trouble for stability

I normally find Brooks a bit of an intellectual simpleton. Like many of his brethren in the openly-conservative camp, he's fond of simplistic characterizations that really don't hold up under scrutiny.

For example: In the present article he equates collective action with a loss of individual rights.

This isn't alway the case. Sometimes, group action is necessary to expand individual rights. Kind of a no man's an island view of things.

Simple solutions and simple social constructs appeal to a specific audience: Simple people.

Brooks is an affable sort, so I avoid being too hard on him. Sometimes he does make a valid point.

His take on the financial turmoil results in a conclusion that I agree with (thus, I don't think he's too bad...).

I've said for a time now that financial trouble is dangerous when those most affected by it are educated, ambitious, and carry a certain degree of expectation from their society. They'll be the sort to create trouble and can carry it out because of their education, experience, and degree of motivation.

Brooks agrees, in a round about way.

Econ paper highlights history of U.S. prosperity and how we lost it for the middle class

Here's a link to a PDF of an Econ paper published back in June.

Link

This paper details what allowed the U.S. to prosper from the 1940' through the 1970s. The paper points out the changes that have occurred to undermine American economic stability for the Middle Class.

This is worth a read if you want to educate yourself on why American is swirling the drain from the Middle Class' perspective.

In the end, this election will be about economics. If the U.S. voter is distracted by non-issues and ignores the underlying problems of economics, America will suffer.