Still, such cavils aside, all I can say is, good luck with this lot cos I'm entirely unaware of anybody who's goin to be anywhere a lever of power in washington in the next decade who'll even dream of this.
What is required is in some ways simple to describe: it amounts to ceasing our current behavior and doing exactly the opposite. It means not spending money that we don't have, increasing taxes on the rich, reducing corporate welfare, strengthening the safety net for the less well off, and making greater investment in education, technology, and infrastructure.
He blames the IMF in 2002 (Globalisation and Its Discontents
In Globalization and Its Discontents Stiglitz bases his argument for different economic policies on the themes that his decades of theoretical work have emphasized: namely, what happens when people lack the key information that bears on the decisions they have to make, or when markets for important kinds of transactions are inadequate or don't exist, or when other institutions that standard economic thinking takes for granted are absent or flawed. The implication of each of these absences or flaws is that free markets, left to their own devices, do not necessarily deliver the positive outcomes claimed for them by textbook economic reasoning that "assumes that people have full information, can trade in complete and efficient markets, and can depend on satisfactory legal and other [?? missing word; maybe "institutions"?]".
The implication of each of these absences or flaws is that free markets, left to their own devices, do not necessarily deliver the positive outcomes claimed for them
And seeing as most bankers or mortgage brokers, credit agencies and company accountants have made an art of obscurity and partial information, indeed based their entire business model on such behaviours with central bank approval, then I guess we shouldn't be surprised if occasionally our economies trip over stuff we didn't know was there.
Regulation : enemy of market efficiency keep to the Fen Causeway
