M
morganist
No I have provided legally protected documentation and evidence of the use and permission to publish the work.
No I have provided legally protected documentation and evidence of the use and permission to publish the work.
Your idea that the government’s redistribution of shrinking wealth is somehow superior to the private sector’s creation of new sources of wealth is the “big joke”.
And you have provided no evidence of anything - other than courtesy responses on government letterhead.
For a junior high school project my daughter wrote to the First Lady and received a signed response on White House letterhead saying that her suggestion was a good one.
And you have provided no evidence of anything - other than courtesy responses on government letterhead.
For a junior high school project my daughter wrote to the First Lady and received a signed response on White House letterhead saying that her suggestion was a good one.
M
morganist
Your comments regarding my work are far from what they have achieved and how my work operates. In terms of the use of my work it is proven from the direct extracts used in regulations and policies introduced since its production. In terms of the evidence of this, to be able to publish the work I had to receive approval and permission from various governmental bodies. The letter from the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated his intention to use the work, which subsequently happened and I needed his permission and parliamentary permission to include the letter in the book, this is not easy to get.
The book could not have been published unless it was legitimate. I have pushed you on this issue before about your understanding of what is required to be able to publish a book that includes letters, governmental and parliamentary approval. There is a strict process that has to be followed requiring various levels of review, authorisation and approval, then the work has to be correctly attributed and the correct declarations have to displayed. The process took six months to complete and I had to meet with various governmental officials and politicians to be able to get the permissions to publish it.
The work I sent to the Chancellor and other politicians was copyrighted and contains specific recommendations on policy, as well as a new school of economic thought including the macroeconomic theory and working operations. In addition to the paper I had to correspond with many politicians and government organisations to provide even more specific details of the needed updates in the pension regulations. The work has been used and economics has changed in the United Kingdom. The evidence is the approval to be able to publish the book, which contains what has become a large part of the pension regulations.
Quote.
"For a junior high school project my daughter wrote to the First Lady and received a signed response on White House letterhead saying that her suggestion was a good one."
Was the work she sent copyrighted and did it include work that was used to update any regulations. Did it contain any macroeconomic concepts, workings or new policies? Did it contain specific explanations of the exact regulations that could become problematic and then provide new written statements that it recommended to be put into the regulations, which were subsequently enacted? Has her work been reviewed by the governmental units involved in the work and given approval to publish globally, which is now required because the work is now part of the government regulations?
If the metric results of “your work” as it relates to the UK economy were truly as fantastic as you claim and as widely adopted by government as you boast - you’d publish your works and their results in Economica and The Economics Journal, and collect your Nobel Prize.
Instead, you self publish on Amazon, write a blog nobody reads, and make delusional claims under thousands of posts under a pseudonym here on ET.
Instead, you self publish on Amazon, write a blog nobody reads, and make delusional claims under thousands of posts under a pseudonym here on ET.
Last edited:
M
morganist
Economics is different in the United Kingdom. It is my paper the government has used and I have approval to publish the work. I have provided a book portfolio for educational purposes that is available to purchase globally. In the United Kingdom economics in practice and as an educational resource is more down to the government and it is a case of working with them.
To change the syllabus you have to get the Education Ministry to alter it, rather than going through the University and journal process. Governmental use and approval is the important factor not university or journal publications. In terms of the publication process independent publishers and think tanks publish their own work, which is the process I have followed.
Once work has been used by the government and the documentation has been approved there is a process to follow to publish the work. Approval has to be sought from any and all government departments involved, parliament and the personal permission of any politician involved is also required. You can't just quote governmental material, you need permission.
Bullshit. You’ve claimed copyright status on your “works” as you’ve mentioned numerous times in previous posts - you can publish your original work and you can publish UK government office economic data in Economica and The Economics Journal - they’ve been doing it for over a century.
Surely being a Nobel Laureate would be far more useful towards your goal of getting governments to grant you exclusive patents on your “works” and giving you a percentage of the savings as you have been pleading for here on ET ad nauseum.
Surely being a Nobel Laureate would be far more useful towards your goal of getting governments to grant you exclusive patents on your “works” and giving you a percentage of the savings as you have been pleading for here on ET ad nauseum.
Last edited:
M
morganist
No, I had to get permission to publish my work from the UK government because the work is now part of the regulations. I also had to get permission from parliament and the politicians involved in using the work. The work in Economica and The Economics Journal would required governmental permission if extracts of the work was used in government regulations.
It is what is included in the book that validates it, which is something many journal papers and other books simply do not have. The work has been used to update governmental regulations, it is allowed to include those extracted statements in its published form. The work contains declaration notifications, which is required to be displayed if it has been approved.
You are not appreciating the processes that are needed to be able to receive approval to publish a book like this internationally, you dismiss this although it is stringent. I would not be able to publish the book unless the work was used and approved by the government departments that implemented it, the other included work required permissions to be allowed.
Receiving governmental and parliamentary approval is much more than just referencing sources or making a short quotation, a process has to be performed that can be lengthy and requires review and permissions to be granted. You keep dismissing this, but there is a strict process that has to adhered to and complied with, the same is true of global publication.
I have 13 folders full of documentation and approval evidence required to publish Modern Applied Macroeconomics. It took six months to get the permissions and copyright compliance standards declarations to be allowed to publish the book globally. You are rejecting a national and international standard and requirement of book publication to try to discredit my work.
M
morganist
I have written for many think tanks, it is more a case of me producing the work sometimes even for think tanks and then the government using the work. I think you have all become too caught up in this University and peer review process to appreciate the importance is if a government chooses to use the work and whether the economic targets are achieved when the work is applied. The pension reforms I recommended have been implemented and alterations in pension saving rates have been applied through changes in the annual and lifetime pension saving allowances. This is something I provided the macroeconomic theory, concepts and workings for the my book portfolio and lobbied continually to get it used in practice, which is what has happened.
Since the pension reforms have been made and pension saving rates have been managed inflation and economic growth targets have been achieved and interest rates have been kept low. Then there are all of the Treasury cost efficiencies the pension reforms I put forward have achieved. It is more cost efficient to use pension economic control than interest economic control due to the cost of government debt repayment. Increasing the pension saving rates when there is inflation instead of the interest rate saves the government billions in debt interest payments. Reducing the annual pension saving rates when there is deflation prevents recession and reduces unemployment. That is what has been demonstrated over the last decade with the changes in pension saving and reforms and the economic outcomes.
Pension saving is another saving mechanism like the interest rate and can be used with the interest rate or on its own. For seven years of the last decade the interest rate was the same rate, this is unprecedented, the pension saving rates changed annually enabling a mean average rate of inflation of 2.25% between 2010 to 2019 (the target was 2%) and a mean average real economic growth rate of 1.91% between 2010 to 2019 (the target was 2%). To you whether work has been published by think tanks is the important factor. To me it is whether the work has been used by the government and approved for publication. When you look for a text book or a paper instead of looking at the publisher it might be worth looking at what the author can include in the book.
To be able to include certain material in a book you have to go through a process of strict governmental review, use, authorisation and approval. Then you have to get permissions from all of the government department unit heads, parliament and the politicians involved to allow your book to contain the relevant resources. After that you have to comply to the international publication copyright compliance requirements and make the appropriate attributions and declarations. It is not merely a case of referencing and quoting, it is a matter of review and receiving permission. I am not seeing the same level of ability of inclusion of documentation or material in other books, suggesting they are not containing approval.
The process you describe of review is the evaluation of work to be used. The process I have followed is the process of producing work used by the government, which then has to meet compliance criteria to be approved for publication. You are dismissing the government's process of review and approval, which is the one you should be looking for. You have instead chosen to see the process of work published with certain institutions, which may never be used in practice, as the height of accomplishment. The accomplishment is to get the work used in practice and then be approved to publish. When the economic outcomes are like straight lines, on the targets, for a decade when pension reform is used it is evidence the work is effective. I give the world the chance to read my work through my publication.
So you can point us to where that is shown, right?
Specifically that your named work is credited in a government report and stated as implemented and effective.