murray t turtle
Registered: Dec 2001
04-11-12 05:27 PM
Quote from morganist:
It wasn't that. Two think thanks offered to publish it. But they wanted me to make changes that I didn't want to do. One even tried to get me to do the job of the treasury and bank of england for free.
By publishing my self I retained my position on the subject. I looked at the situation in a macroeconomic perspective instead of either side of the argument. The think tanks requested that I took one position or another.
Also this way I get the royalties from the book.
In short I decided to publish myself to maintani my writers viewpoint. In macroeconomics in particular poor books are written to push one school of thought or another. The emphasis of my school of thought is that it is based on progressive applied economics. This does not go down well with the Rational Expectations, Austrians, Keynesian or any other school of thought.
I hope you respect my decision to take the independent stance, which I believe is more valuable. The book is an honest critique with hetrodox suggestions. I find the other papers out are bias and do not provide an good representation of the situation.
Lots of well thought out points, especially concerning savings...
One disagreement however & its an important one''come to the conclusion ,offer interest rate compensation should only be offered to those who are about to have thier home repossessed...'' that maybe less costly to the gov...
Actually it wil be much , much more costly to the gov/taxpayers;
when the gov rewards home failure, they get more of it. Its much better to let the private secter work it out.
I saw a private sector co in California give forclosure ''victims'' ''cash not to trash'' the home .works out well.
Giving gov money to FC ''victims'' is like making the CME give MF victims money;
simply because they can afford it. Its a bad idea, CME callled that a moral hazzard...
I like the Morgan see saw chart/picture.Havent seen on of those since i was a kid.LOL Good idea publishing it yourself