Mark Thornton

Mark Thornton’s Followers (5)

member photo
member photo
member photo
member photo
member photo

Mark Thornton



Average rating: 3.81 · 224 ratings · 28 reviews · 41 distinct works
Meditation In a New York Mi...

3.67 avg rating — 129 ratings — published 2004 — 15 editions
Rate this book
Clear rating
Do We Have Free Will

liked it 3.00 avg rating — 4 ratings — published 1989 — 3 editions
Rate this book
Clear rating
Twisted Tales of an Otherwi...

it was amazing 5.00 avg rating — 2 ratings — published 2011 — 2 editions
Rate this book
Clear rating
Criminalização: Análise eco...

3.33 avg rating — 3 ratings2 editions
Rate this book
Clear rating
Bridesmen of Madison County

2.50 avg rating — 2 ratings — published 2012 — 2 editions
Rate this book
Clear rating
The Boathouse of Bartholome...

it was amazing 5.00 avg rating — 1 rating — published 2011 — 2 editions
Rate this book
Clear rating
M223: The Journey from a Ty...

it was amazing 5.00 avg rating — 1 rating
Rate this book
Clear rating
Once Upon a Wolf

really liked it 4.00 avg rating — 1 rating — published 2013 — 2 editions
Rate this book
Clear rating
The Souls of Dumah

it was ok 2.00 avg rating — 1 rating — published 2000 — 4 editions
Rate this book
Clear rating
Twisted Tales of an Otherwi...

0.00 avg rating — 0 ratings — published 2012 — 2 editions
Rate this book
Clear rating
More books by Mark Thornton…
Quotes by Mark Thornton  (?)
Quotes are added by the Goodreads community and are not verified by Goodreads. (Learn more)

“We were quite surprised to learn many weeks later that our comment had been rejected by Applied Economics. The editor sent us two referee reports. Neither of the reports dealt directly with our primary comment, and both were defensive of the Barr, Mizrach, and Mundra paper.[7] We noticed that in one of the reports, the referee identifies himself as one of the authors of the Barr, Mizrach, and Mundra paper, writing, “It is hard to reject a comment that agrees with your paper.” However, he managed to fight that urge and did reject our comment. It is not unheard of to send an author of an article a comment on their paper to referee, but it does seem odd to give them veto rights without the editor having read the paper and comment, which seems obvious in this case.

It is no embarrassment for a journal to publish a flawed paper. It happens on a regular basis. It is part of the academic process. For example, new econometric techniques have brought into question many early empirical papers. Hundreds of papers have been written on the Phillips Curve, and no doubt many are mistaken and now irrelevant. In the case of Barr, Mizrach, and Mundra, their paper is actually not wrong per se; they just came to the wrong conclusions based on their evidence. Even their secondary evidence could be salvageable. This experience provides a clear window into the messy world of academic publishing.”
Mark Thornton, La maldición de los rascacielos

“(...) The people most involved in the bubble are confident, jubilant, and self-assured by their apparently successful decision making. When the bubble bursts they lose confidence, go into despair and lose confidence in their decision making. In fact, they lose confidence in the “system,” which means they lose confidence in capitalism and become susceptible to new political “reforms” that offer structure and security in exchange for some of their autonomy and freedoms,

In this manner, great nations of people have given away their liberties in exchange for security...”
Mark Thornton, La maldición de los rascacielos

“When the central bank lowers interest rates below what they would have reached on the market, it sets in motion a series of responses by investors and consumers that will prove to be incompatible.”
Mark Thornton, The Skyscraper Curse: And How Austrian Economists Predicted Every Major Economic Crisis of the Last Century



Is this you? Let us know. If not, help out and invite Mark to Goodreads.