It's still important to contrast Stiglerian and Stiglitzian approaches to political economy.

Here is John "Eclect Econ" Palmer explaining.
Stiglitz is the quintessential elitist interventionist who loves to talk about market failures (with little acknowledgement that most of the failures he deals with are dealt with adequately in the market), but he rarely if ever acknowledges that gubmnt policies are made and implemented by fallible people.

Stiglitz never met an argument for gubmnt intervention that he didn't like. He really needs to study more economic history and more about gubmnt failure, along with all the reasons gubmnt interventions are often much worse than the alleged market failures they have been instituted to "fix".

Why do I mention [Stanley] Fischer in my opening sentence? Because Stiglitz incorrectly accused him of impropriety. It looks like pot-kettle-black to me, given Stiglitz's cozying up with so many socialist and other dictators.

As Harold Demsetz once wrote, it is important in economics to compare feasible alternatives. Stiglitz doesn't do that; instead he frequently rails against imperfect markets, arguing they can be improved with "perfect" regulators and policies. It ain't gonna happen that way, Joe.
As smart as Professor Stiglitz is, why isn't he as rich as Donald Trump?

Heck, the mind boggles at the possibilities.  Our President had enough F.U. money to run for president.  Where is the activist scholar of a different cast of mind and the means to do the same thing?

No comments: