He does have a reputation to maintain after all

Stiglitz is now in the position of all those who told us Iraq would be a disaster – on the outside precisely because they were right and vocal about it. Why people like Rubin and Summers continue to be seen as the “grown-ups” who can fix the problem is as paradoxical to me as people like Biden, Clinton, Gates etc, all of whom were catastropically wrong about Iraq, are still seen as the kind of policy experts we need in foreign affairs.”

needs to be studied and understood..

I’d only add that Stiglitz, among very few, was, also, calling out ‘The WorldBank’..

past that, Namazu, above, is correct. The idea that Reagan’s admin. put Keynesianism OOB is a complete canard..

Rhetoric aside, his admin., more than anything else, reinvigorated the Keynesian State–people are acting like JMK’s poli-sci-fi Tomes were burned in piles, as if..

Stiglitz is now in the position of all those who told us Iraq would be a disaster – on the outside precisely because they were right and vocal about it. Why people like Rubin and Summers continue to be seen as the “grown-ups” who can fix the problem is as paradoxical to me as people like Biden, Clinton, Gates etc, all of whom were catastropically wrong about Iraq, are still seen as the kind of policy experts we need in foreign affairs.

A very convenient interpretation too from Marion Maneker. It gives license to the reader to discard anything Stiglitz wrote that said reader doesn’t like.

But I’ll refrain to push any spurious interpretation of what could have motivate Maneker to start this post the way he/she did.

Even after reading disparaging and completely unsubstantiated comments about Paul Krugman character from the same author in a previous entry on this very site. I even asked for some examples; unsurprisingly, my request was ignored.

As for the substance of Prof. Stiglitz, I am in complete agreement with the last part: Paulson is trying to save the banks, not the banking system; it is, alas possible, that Sec. Paulson is confusing both goals, thinking that saving the banks is saving the banking system. If it is the case, it won’t surprise anyone that the “too-big-to-fail” argument resonates deeply with Paulson and Bernanke.

Of course, a logical and tried solution like the Swedes did in 1992 appears unthinkable here, maybe because, it wasn’t created here, so it won’t be considered. I don’t know; I just know that the credit markets are still in deep freeze after committing mountains of T-bills and things could get much worse if ideological blinders are not removed ASAP from those who still hold too much power.

People just can’t have it both ways: It’s Keynes fault when the Dems try to push socio-econ agenda, and when the Reaganites and the Bushies implement their ideas on the economy it is ALSO Keynes fault…BUT ONLY WHEN THEY FAIL.

Sorry, but we are done and over with this double-talk.