Long before Martin Wolf became the inflatable castles chief economics columnist for the Financial Times, he wrote the newspaper letters--lots and lots of letters. It was the early 1980s, the height of the Thatcher era, and Wolf was running research at a think tank in London that was sympathetic to the government's pro-trade agenda. The FT's letters section became the ideal place to take to task all those who would stand in the way of the first waves of globalization.

With a British gentleman's cutting subtlety, Wolf parried with other letter writers over everything from tariffs to inflatable water games agricultural subsidies to the German textile industry. He assailed the arguments of a Mr. Mitchell as " 'codswollop' raised to a high power." Taking apart the logic of one Mr. Calvert, Wolf quoted nineteenth-century French economist Fr¨¦d¨¦ric Bastiat: "Absurdity is the limit of inconsistency." Arguing with a Mr. Smith about the oil shock of 1983, Wolf's didactic style was on full display:

How does Mr Smith reach his conclusion? The unstated argument appears to go as follows: in order to prove the economic optimality of competitive general equilibrium, one needs to assume a full range of contingent and future markets. A full range of such markets does not exist. Consequently, the actual equilibrium is inflatable tent not optimal. Centralised co-ordinating agencies might, therefore, improve on the market. The actions of the Japanese and other governments are generally held to improve on the workings of the market. Accordingly, co-ordinating action by the British Government would improve on the market.

 When stated in the above way, the argument looks a little silly.

Today, Martin Wolf has moved on to bigger targets than Mr. Smith. Hired as an editorial writer by the FT in 1987, he is arguably the most widely trusted pundit of the current economic crisis. Consider the people who count themselves fans of his column. Larry Summers: "He is probably the most deeply thoughtful and professionally informed economic journalist in the world at this point." Harvard economist Kenneth Rogoff: "He really is the premier financial and economics writer in the world." Mohamed El Erian, CEO of PIMCO, the world's largest bond investor: "He is, by far, the most influential economic columnist out there. His columns are eagerly anticipated.¡±

Knowing that Wolf is widely read and highly esteemed, major players in the economic world court his approval. The day after Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner announced details of the Public-Private Investment Program, he called his old friend Wolf, who he knew was working on his Wednesday column. Geithner wanted to explain--and defend--the initiative. Wolf listened politely and, the following day, slammed the program as the "vulture fund relief scheme."

Check out former Bush speechwriter Mike Gerson's column in today's WaPo. It's all about sex and relationships and the death of the inflatable slides traditional "courtship progression" of "dating, engagement, marriage, children."

Noting that the age of sexual maturity is coming earlier and earlier even as the average age for marriage has grown later, Gerson bemoans the lack of cultural guidance for young people navigating the widening gap between childhood and long-term (if not always lifelong) commitment. Unsurprisingly, he finds the rise of cohabitation particularly destructive and disheartening, and he trots out the usual research to inflatable obstacles support his position.

But take heart: This is not some tiresome get-God-back-into-the-schools-and-have-your-kids-sign-a-purity-pledge sermon. Instead, Gerson has the cojones to fire this shot:

The casual sex promoted in advertising and entertainment often leads, in the real world of fragile hearts and STDs, to emotional and physical wreckage. But it doesn't seem realistic to expect most men and women to delay sex until marriage at 26 or 28. Such virtue is both admirable and possible--but it can hardly be a general social expectation. So religious institutions, for example, often avoid this thorny topic, content to live with silence, hypocrisy, and active singles groups.

Ah, spoken with the urgency of a father of blossoming adolescents--which, come to think of it, makes Gerson's refusal to indulge in denial or willful blindness on this issue all the more impressive.

Hey, during my Bible Belt youth, my friends' parents preferred to believe that all those hours their hormone-addled offspring spent praying with the church youth group would keep us shiny and clean until our wedding nights. It wasn't true 25 years ago, and it ain't true today. Indeed, parents would have an absolute seizure if they knew what actually goes on at church retreats. Fooling around just doesn't seem as sinful when it's with a godly boy, you know?

Ultimately, the inflatable accessories column disappoints: Lacking a prescription for helping today's youth negotiate the changing relationship landscape, Gerson falls back on pleading with people to not become parents until they've actually tied the knot. This is a perfectly sensible position, but one that kinda ducks the original issue. (Loose translation: We know you kids are gonna destroy your health and sanity by behaving like slutty weasels, just don't drag another generation into it.) Still, he deserves kudos for stressing that this is not a cultural challenge that--with sufficient prayer, piety, and abstinence-only funding--can be solved as neatly as many of his conservative brethren contend.