Friday
Mar202009
Hack Money
Friday, March 20, 2009 at 4:19PM
I've got another new piece posted over at Arthur Magazine. Here's how it starts:
I’ve received a ton of great email and response from this week’s piece on letting the banks die and letting the market go down another 70 percent. My commentary also generated some confusion, though, so I’d like to clarify and expand on a few points. (I’ll do this again on WFMU Monday evening, when I’ll have the opportunity to take some calls and actually converse.)
First off, and I can’t stress this enough: Commerce is good. Commerce is not the problem. Monopolies are.
more....
I’ve received a ton of great email and response from this week’s piece on letting the banks die and letting the market go down another 70 percent. My commentary also generated some confusion, though, so I’d like to clarify and expand on a few points. (I’ll do this again on WFMU Monday evening, when I’ll have the opportunity to take some calls and actually converse.)
First off, and I can’t stress this enough: Commerce is good. Commerce is not the problem. Monopolies are.
more....
Reader Comments (4)
Why 70 percent?
Is there some reason you think it's beneficial to keep 30 percent of the existing economy? I could have a few guesses, but asking seemed more logical. :)
No real reason, except in some analysis it's what the market has already declined. (Not just DowJones.) So I'm not looking for 70% - I just meant *another* 70%. I could have (probably should have) just said "a whole lot."
I recently read an article inspired by Woody Tasch's Inquiries Into the Nature of Slow Money: Investing as if Food, Farms, and Fertility Mattered. A lot of your ideas presented here dovetail with those of Tasch's.
Have you heard of the Slow Money movement? This link gives a good example.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=101794001
Arthur mag links no worky