New York Times (NYSE: NYT) Columnist Thomas Friedman returned to the subject of how green technology is not only good for the environment, but ultimately good for American wallets.

Good for American wallets, that is, if the United States seizes the day regarding green tech. Right now, in Friedman's view, the U.S. isn't: China is - it's embarking on simultaneous tracks of 20th century tech and 21st century tech to remain an economic powerhouse in the global economy ahead.

New York Times (NYSE: NYT) Columnist Thomas Friedman returned to the subject of the United States' inordinate use of oil, and the problems it creates.

Friedman asks: are we really so tough a people? If we were, we'd tax gasoline much more, build many more nuclear power plants (like France), and store waste deep in Yucca Mountain, which is totally safe -- all with the goal of propelling a paradigm shift in the nation's energy policy, one that would feature dramatically less oil consumption.

At times it may not seem like a new economic policy is growing out the ashes and mistakes of the old one -- the U.S.'s decade of descent. Partisan bickering in Washington can sometimes magnify the nation's many areas of contention.

But, in reality, policy is coalescing and here is one trend that's likely to be a feature of the new economy: economic expansion through investment and increased exports, and not through consumption.

New York Times (NYSE: NYT) columnist Thomas Friedman in his latest column and again Tuesday night on 'The Charlie Rose Show' returned to his theme of the U.S. effort at nation building.

Nation building, that is, at home. Friedman, among others, has underscored the need for the nation to begin, in a comprehensive way, to rebuild its dilapidated and/or outmoded infrastructure that includes its electric grid, highways, roads, bridges, mass transit systems, schools and other public buildings.

Further, one doesn't have to be a civil engineer or a mechanical engineer to see that the nation's infrastructure has been neglected, and while at times Friedman's discourses on the gleaming magnificence of yet another high tech airport in Asia can begin to grate, his overall conclusion regarding a period of pronounced underinvestment in U.S. public assets is valid.

'Action' is a two-edge sword

Friedman wants 'radical' action, i.e. bold action by President Obama to make up for lost time, infrastructure-wise, and he believes 'Obi 44' has a rare opportunity to act in a big way, given the economic crisis facing our nation, his high public approval rating, and the general desire of public officials across the spectrum to see him succeed.

There are times when you need an archive of information and evidence to make an argument.

Then there are times when one simple fact or incident makes the case by itself. (Which, incidentally, may very well be the genesis of the adage "A picture says a thousand words.")

Evidence item of consequence: a lunch that global trade consultant Edward Goldberg, a colleague of New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, had with a Russian trade attaché.

The Russian trade attaché, Friedman relates, years ago was delighted to hear from Goldberg that the Bush administration wanted to drill for oil in the Alaskan wilderness. The reason? The amount of oil derived would be negligible in terms of the U.S.'s needs, and it signaled that the Bush Administration was not planning to do anything to establish an alternative energy program, "which of course would threaten the economic growth of Russia."

New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, who perhaps most-accurately conceptualized the revolutionary production shifts implied by globalization in The World Is Flat, has a 'radical' economic prescription for the United States, as it moves toward the second decade in what is quickly becoming the century of change.

Friedman suggests that the United States try nation-building....at home.

Moreover, Friedman makes the case for nation-building as good for U.S. business - - a much-needed shot-in-the-arm for the U.S. economy.

U.S.: inadequate infrastructures for a major power

Friedman's main concern: the U.S.'s inadequate infrastructure (electric grid, roads/bridges/rail network, air travel system, hospitals, among others), which is antiquated compared to the infrastructure of the U.S.'s chief economic rival, China. Friedman has just attended the 2008 Olympics in Beijing and its clear China's public investments - - better airports, roads, parks, to go along with the sports venues - - have impressed him.

It's also clear to Friedman that the U.S.'s period of underinvestment is holding the nation back economically, and that has to change if the U.S. expects to remain commercially competitive on the global stage. Economist David H. Wang told BloggingStocks he agrees, for the most part, with Friedman's analysis, but adds that the journey to a better infrastructure is not a strictly an economic equation.

Mysterious is the mind of media tycoon Rupert Murdoch. Now comes word that the News Corporation (NYSE: NWS) CEO considered making a bid for The New York Times Company (NYSE: NYT). Exactly how long the mogul entertained such a notion isn't clear. Of course, he eventually went after Wall Street Journal parent Dow Jones & Co. (NYSE: DJ).

Can you imagine a New York Times owned by Murdoch? Frank Rich, Thomas Friedman, Paul Krugman, and Maureen Dowd probably couldn't either. I am sure the four of them would have screamed bloody murder at the thought of working for Murdoch. New York Times Chairman Arthur Sulzberger, whose family has a iron-clad grip on the publisher, would never sell. But Murdoch, who sees The Times as a symbol of all that's bad and liberal about the media, knows all of these and many other reasons why he will never own the Grey Lady. So, why would he waste his time with such a ludicrous idea? I have no idea but DealBook, The Times' business blog, has a novel theory.

"it's possible that the crafty media baron is playing games with the paper he wishes to destroy." the site says.

You think?

According to the New York Post, the New York Times Co. (NYSE: NYT) is considering ending its online paid service, presumably moving towards a pure advertising system. The paid service was used to further monetize readers of the most popular columnists at the paper, such as Paul Krugman and Thomas Friedman.

Even the columnists who are featured in the "Select" program have held reservations on the program since its inception, the Post goes on to say. But according to a NY Times spokeswoman, this segment has "met or exceeded all its goals since it started in 2005."

Fact is, the future of the online newspaper business is purely advertising-based. The new age of internet publishing with its extraordinarily low barriers to entry (think blogs) has made consumers even more adverse to paying for reading material on the internet.

I'd still avoid the New York Times and McClatchy (NYSE: MNI) -- they are declining businesses and I think the street is still overestimating the companies' earnings abilities in the next few years.