Robert's Stochastic thoughts: Why didn't Obama hire Stiglitz?... My reply is that Stiglitz is not a team player. The proof is here.
Stiglitz is terrifyingly smart and progressive. So what's the problem? First it is politically costly to be associated with him in any way, because he is antipatico (this is hard to translate -- unlikable is a bit weak and loathsome is a bit strong).
He writes: "For those of us who always claimed some connection to the Keynesian tradition, this is a moment of triumph..."
Did he write that? Did he suggest that he feels great, because the unregulated market has caused huge suffering? Does he feel great, because the unregulated makert has caused huge suffering? Damned if I know, but I can answer the following question easily: Do you want to be associated in any way with someone whose worst enemy can ask such questions without feeling ridiculous?
Answer is: "Professor Stiglitz, I really think that you can contribute more to human well being as an academic. For one thing you have done great things as an academic already. For another, I don't want anyone to hold me responsible for anything you say."
Next "The misguided policies that resulted – pushed by, among others, some members of President-elect Barack Obama's economic team – had earlier inflicted enormous costs on developing countries."
Or, in other words: "Yep, I'm still settling decade old scores. Wasn't it shocking how slowly East Asian countries recovered in 1997 ? My don't we just shake our heads in wonder at what the hell happened to Korea and Taiwan. Also, obviously, President Obama doesn't give a damn about Indonesia. He probably has no idea where it is and certainly has no friends or half sisters who are Indonesian. In any case the main point is that I am way better than Larry Summers.
Look smart young guy: You want Stiglitz outside of the tent pissing in not inside of the tent pissing in. He is a genius and his aim is excellent, but you can hope that if he is outside the tent he will miss he opening.
Sorry, but this is crazy and unfair to say about Stiglitz. He's clearly saying that the free ride that market fundamentalist thinking has received over many years is over. And, he's glad. I do believe it is not worthwhile refighting the 1990s intraparty economic policy fights. But it surely is true that too many Democratic economists were cowed by market fundamentalism and tended to echo the 'market works', the 'private sector creates jobs, not the government' and 'the era of big government is over'. Why shouldn't Stiglitz be glad that his view of economics and of the economy is becoming ascendent. He's not enjoying anyones economic misery.
Larry Mishel
Posted by: Larry Mishel | December 06, 2008 at 03:16 PM
Hello Dr Mishel. Did you know that chapter 3 of my dissertation was based on a seminar you gave ?
The interpretation of Stiglitz that I presented as a possibility is not fair. It is not politics to appoint people who don't appear to be loathsome so long as everyone interprets their poorly worded statements fairly. Now Summers has sure said, written and/or signed some crazy stuff, but he demonstrated an ability and willingness to control himself.
Posted by: Robert Waldmann | December 08, 2008 at 10:09 AM