In 2006, Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz praised the economic policies of Hugo Chávez.
In his Nobel lecture, Stiglitz spoke of having "Undermined" the free-market theories of Adam Smith, asserting that Smith's "Invisible hand" either didn't exist or had grown "Palsied." He noted that major political debates over the past two decades have tended to focus on the "Efficiency of the market economy" and the "Appropriate relationship between the market and the government." His approach favored government.
As Stiglitz had sensibly written in his 1993 book, Economics, "If the government attempts to raise the minimum wage higher than the equilibrium wage, the demand for workers will be reduced and the supply increased." Yet it was hard to imagine Clinton, who proposed raising the federal minimum wage, taking the opposite tack on the grounds that those "Who might have been employed at the lower market equilibrium wage ... [would not] find employment," as Stiglitz had written.
Stiglitz had even opined that the minimum wage was "Not a good way to deal with the problems of poverty. Other government programs need to be designed to address these problems." But as Clinton's chief economic advisor, Stiglitz gave a thumbs-up to raising the federal wage floor.
Speaking of the regulators whom Stiglitz impugns, Friedman and Kraus observe: "Virtually all decision-making personnel at the Federal Reserve, the FDIC, and so on, are ... university-trained economists." However, "[t]hey simply interpreted the information they possessed differently from the way Stiglitz thinks, in hindsight, they should have interpreted it.
Stiglitz had publicly insulted IMF staff as "Third-rate economists from first-rate universities." Stiglitz had also made the unsubstantiated accusation that a potential job offer from Citibank had compromised IMF managing director Stanley Fischer's integrity.
Though he has amassed a track record scarred with dubious prognostication and mistaken analysis, Stiglitz remains highly regarded among mainstream media elites, including the New York Times's Paul Krugman, who calls him "An insanely great economist." And Stiglitz remains influential in policy circles.
https://www.city-journal.org/joseph-stiglitz-venezuela-16181.html
In his Nobel lecture, Stiglitz spoke of having "Undermined" the free-market theories of Adam Smith, asserting that Smith's "Invisible hand" either didn't exist or had grown "Palsied." He noted that major political debates over the past two decades have tended to focus on the "Efficiency of the market economy" and the "Appropriate relationship between the market and the government." His approach favored government.
As Stiglitz had sensibly written in his 1993 book, Economics, "If the government attempts to raise the minimum wage higher than the equilibrium wage, the demand for workers will be reduced and the supply increased." Yet it was hard to imagine Clinton, who proposed raising the federal minimum wage, taking the opposite tack on the grounds that those "Who might have been employed at the lower market equilibrium wage ... [would not] find employment," as Stiglitz had written.
Stiglitz had even opined that the minimum wage was "Not a good way to deal with the problems of poverty. Other government programs need to be designed to address these problems." But as Clinton's chief economic advisor, Stiglitz gave a thumbs-up to raising the federal wage floor.
Speaking of the regulators whom Stiglitz impugns, Friedman and Kraus observe: "Virtually all decision-making personnel at the Federal Reserve, the FDIC, and so on, are ... university-trained economists." However, "[t]hey simply interpreted the information they possessed differently from the way Stiglitz thinks, in hindsight, they should have interpreted it.
Stiglitz had publicly insulted IMF staff as "Third-rate economists from first-rate universities." Stiglitz had also made the unsubstantiated accusation that a potential job offer from Citibank had compromised IMF managing director Stanley Fischer's integrity.
Though he has amassed a track record scarred with dubious prognostication and mistaken analysis, Stiglitz remains highly regarded among mainstream media elites, including the New York Times's Paul Krugman, who calls him "An insanely great economist." And Stiglitz remains influential in policy circles.
https://www.city-journal.org/joseph-stiglitz-venezuela-16181.html
No comments:
Post a Comment