I understand articles like this are meant to introduce ideas to a very wide swath of people, but I really dislike them. There are too many disparate points. It

I understand articles like this are meant to introduce ideas to a very wide swath of people, but I really dislike them. There are too many disparate points. It started with unemployment; wadded into Keynesian economics; took a shot at Wall Street; invoked FDR; and hinted that governments are required for scientific progress. That's way too much for one article. If you want to say trains and windmills are not the best form of investment with regards to the environment and economic costs, talk about that. All the added political weight just makes the article divisive. Part of his policy prescriptions are predicated upon infrastructure spending, so you could say the "added weight" was required. I think it just makes the article weaker.