Doug speculated:
> Maybe he's got something on Summers or some other
> Harvard poobahs.
I used to think this but reconsidered after hearing someone (NYU? or BYU?) wanted to hire him for half a mil.
Let's see, your theories have no predictive validity, and their practical implementation unambiguously lead to destitution and death. Literally. Further, you basically molest the patient you're charged with curing (and you defraud the US taxpayer with your wife's assistance at the same time). Yet you're not only regarded as worth listening to, you're a desirable academic commodity.
Very strange.
[WS:] Back in the Soviet times, we Eastern Europeans had a concept 'nomenclature' that described this phenomenon. This referred to a group of people in various leadership positions that were immovable - if they screwed up and fell into disgrace they were simply assigned a different, somewhat less visible position, but still remained in the loop.
The best explanation of this phenomenon that I can think is the crucial importance of social networks rather than any utilitarian considerations. It is networks that maintain a clique's cohesion, propel individual members to the position of prominence and protect them from outsiders. Clique members understand that very well and do nothing to upset the network, even if the usefulness of individual members expires. Picking on a former buddy would definitely send a wrong signal to others about the sanctity (or rather lack thereof) of the social ties that bind them. Therefore, they will stand behind a disgraced comrade even if they have nothing to gain from him anymore. I think the only time they can kick a disgraced buddy is when he becomes a net liability, a ballast that sinks the whole network, but that does not seem to be case of chaps like Shleifer.
Wojtek