Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

Why so low?

T wrote: "Why so low?"

That's how I've rated this tier (Krugman, Sen, Dasgupta... and if I ever bother with older Piketty, Reich, etc.)

Politically: I'd be more lenient if this provided insights on political pressures (ex. inside view on World Bank, geopolitics, etc.) or interesting historical analysis (ex. Ha-Joon Chang). But it was fluff even when I read it 7 years ago.

Theoretically: opaque here since book for public, but see video "Yanis Varoufakis Critiques Thomas Piketty's Capital in the Twenty-First Century"

Kevin wrote: "T wrote: "Why so low?"

That's how I've rated this tier (Krugman, Sen, Dasgupta... and if I ever bother with older Piketty, Reich, etc.)

Politically: I'd be more lenient if this provided insights ..."
Stiglitz is a good entrance to anti-capitalist only if you want to show someone a man from the inside (World Bank, etc.) criticizing "his own" policies. Further than that, he's quite a joke, because, as you well point out, he never goes beyond mainstream and never furthers his critique to its ultimate, logical consequences.

Juan wrote: "Kevin wrote: "T wrote: "Why so low?"

That's how I've rated this tier (Krugman, Sen, Dasgupta... and if I ever bother with older Piketty, Reich, etc.)

Politically: I'd be more lenient if this prov..."

Exactly, Juan. As an insider, I want to hear his insider stories (i.e. World Bank), or reforms (Chang's "kicking away the ladder" on free trade, Kelton on state theory of money, Raworth on systems/ecology) that radicals can expand on.

...Not Stiglitz's narrow, tepid attempts to expand mainstream Neoclassical economics to co-opt a vulgarized version of Keynes. That's the difference between Stiglitz's Neo-Keynesian (Neoclassical-Keynes synthesis) framework as opposed to Post-Keynesian (from progressives like Steve Keen to those who emphasize imperialism like the Patnaik's).

Do you think these books by insiders just serve as moral laundering for either themselves or this class of people?

Kosta wrote: "Do you think these books by insiders just serve as moral laundering for either themselves or this class of people?"

Hmmm, I tend not to psychoanalyze too much as people are full of contradictions, but your comment does remind me of several reflections:

1) Politics: Varoufakis recounting advice given from Larry Summers where insiders do not speak poorly of other insiders if they want to remain as insiders.

2) Economics: Steve Keen saying it's not so much economists deliberately shilling for corporate interests, but corporate interests rewarding economists who believe in junk ideas that are useful for corporate interests, thus rewarding mediocrity like Krugman etc. who have zero social imagination.