One top international banker, on reading my Open Letter to President Obama" wrote to me saying that he thinks my plan "radical".
Developed countries are nationalising (or otherwise guaranteeing) the "commanding heights" of their financial sector and even their manufacturing sector - and that's far more radical than my plan would be.
On the basis of any sensible and rational criterion (amount of money involved, universality rather than pork-barrelling in application, actual guaranteed impact in terms of stabilising the economy, restoring trust and actually getting it moving again), my plan is far less "radical".
I can only think that the "new" criterion for what is "radical" is not the content of the proposals but the origin of the proposal - if the proposal comes from a government in power, it must be "non-radical", but if the proposal comes from someone not in power, then it must be "radical", irrespective of the contents of the proposals concerned!
Sphere: Related Content
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment