David, Joe's antagonism to Friedman goes back to 1970. My first wife's parent were very close to his parents, Nat and Charlotte, in Gary In. They were FDR Dems and advocated for big gov. This was not lost on Joe. When I mentioned I was enrolling at U of C, he dismissed me as something of an idiot for attending there. I suspect his distrust of markets to self correct and big gov advocacy comes from believing only smart people like him in government are better at fixing market failures then the markets themselves. Joe is an example of Hayek's "Fatal Conceit" and pretense of knowledge. Apologies for the rant.
Thank you for documenting the ways the author seems to be trying to deceive people about free markets and their advocates vs. the coercive government programs/ideas that he believes in.
Stiglitz- we must oppress freedoms to save freedoms.
Sounds like the progressive ideas that one can only truly be free when one is free of responsibility, accountability, and need to get out of bed, in the morning.
Ah, the short sightedness of ‘suppressing speech I deem as unworthy or dangerous’ and how such an action could never fall into the hands of people ‘we’ don’t like, whom could most certainly have a far different perspective on what is, and isn’t, misinformation.
Such views are believed to only be in the hands of those with whom there is an alliance, or shared interests, and will be in compete agreement.
Moreover, it is very likely that the deviant amongst us believe if granted such power, there is no concern of such power ‘falling into the wrong hands’ as the long lasting balance of power into the hands of ‘the good’ will, at the very least, have a lasting era well beyond personal concern, which is until death.
I remember in 2001 when Stiglitz claimed that creating the TSA would be "signaling" (his term) high-quality airport security. Now, it had nothing to do with his so-called signaling theories that got him the Nobel. Instead, he was twisting language to advocate for yet another failed government program.
Brilliant review of Stiglitz's sorry tome. I'm constantly shocked that such economic idiots can still call themselves economists. It's also so distressing that so many basics have to be proven over and over again to their fellow idiots. They wear their biases like armor; truth cannot penetrate.
meant to write than. not then.
David, Joe's antagonism to Friedman goes back to 1970. My first wife's parent were very close to his parents, Nat and Charlotte, in Gary In. They were FDR Dems and advocated for big gov. This was not lost on Joe. When I mentioned I was enrolling at U of C, he dismissed me as something of an idiot for attending there. I suspect his distrust of markets to self correct and big gov advocacy comes from believing only smart people like him in government are better at fixing market failures then the markets themselves. Joe is an example of Hayek's "Fatal Conceit" and pretense of knowledge. Apologies for the rant.
Thank you for documenting the ways the author seems to be trying to deceive people about free markets and their advocates vs. the coercive government programs/ideas that he believes in.
You're welcome.
Excellent factual review of this piece of apparently statist propaganda of a book.
Thanks, Patrick.
Thanks for the excellent review. A sorry state of affairs.
You're welcome, Herb.
The title of the book is disingenuous. Thank you, David.
You're welcome, Wayne.
Stiglitz- if none questioned govt authority, then utopian bliss shall be bestowed upon all.
Stiglitz- we must oppress freedoms to save freedoms.
Sounds like the progressive ideas that one can only truly be free when one is free of responsibility, accountability, and need to get out of bed, in the morning.
Ah, the short sightedness of ‘suppressing speech I deem as unworthy or dangerous’ and how such an action could never fall into the hands of people ‘we’ don’t like, whom could most certainly have a far different perspective on what is, and isn’t, misinformation.
Such views are believed to only be in the hands of those with whom there is an alliance, or shared interests, and will be in compete agreement.
Moreover, it is very likely that the deviant amongst us believe if granted such power, there is no concern of such power ‘falling into the wrong hands’ as the long lasting balance of power into the hands of ‘the good’ will, at the very least, have a lasting era well beyond personal concern, which is until death.
Good review, David.
Deranged is as deranged does, as Mrs. Gump might say.
Stiglitz is deranged, unaware of his false consciousness.
I pity the fool.
I remember in 2001 when Stiglitz claimed that creating the TSA would be "signaling" (his term) high-quality airport security. Now, it had nothing to do with his so-called signaling theories that got him the Nobel. Instead, he was twisting language to advocate for yet another failed government program.
I didn't know that story about him and TSA. Thanks.
We thank you for your service in reading this book and reviewing it!
You're welcome, Andy G. Someone has to do it.
Brilliant review of Stiglitz's sorry tome. I'm constantly shocked that such economic idiots can still call themselves economists. It's also so distressing that so many basics have to be proven over and over again to their fellow idiots. They wear their biases like armor; truth cannot penetrate.
Thanks, Joy. I actually don't think he's an idiot. It's more that he has an agenda.
It must be a kind of religious feeling, for him to be able to put aside evidence. I agree, you're right, that smart people do that too.