Now Stiglitz makes more trouble!

[Max Sawicky]

. . .
Stiglitz's fatal speech was a bewdy, I reckon.  He couldn't bring himself
to go quite where he was heading with it, mind - but then he had invested
thirty years of his life in the sort of thinking that did the damage in the
first place, and it wouldn't be fair to expect a middle-aged man
consciously to undo the raison d'etre of a whole career in one blow.

He did pose questions that even the born-again institutionalist in him . . .
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Actually Stiglitz' present posture is not a radical
departure from his work, IMO, which has always used
neo-classical methods to demonstrate basic problems
in the nostrums founded on a narrow application of
neo-classical theory.  The main difference I would
say is his transition from theoretical to applied,
and from academia to the outside world, leading
naturally to an explicit political role.

If all academics had his theoretical vision, the
profession would look radically different from its
present incarnation.

mbs