« Relative poverty for the hard of thinking | Main | Invariant inequality »

July 28, 2009



Obviously there is no "guarantee"; that does not mean that in some contexts there might be a "comparative advantage" for the government that makes it more able to act rationally than the market. The issue should be put in comparative rather than in absolute terms. This is Stiglitz's view, indeed http://www2.gsb.columbia.edu/faculty/jstiglitz/download/papers/1989_Onthe_Economic_Role_ofthe_State.pdf

In general, the state -just like most bureaucratic organizations- is procedure rather than outcome-oriented which makes it a more conservative institution.


he notion that the state is rational is as fanciful as the notion that it is benevolent

Not only no guarantee but almost a guarantee in the opposite direction.

Leigh Caldwell

Thanks for the writeup Chris - you make some good points.

I have responded in more detail to the point about 'how rational is the regulator?' in the following item: http://www.knowingandmaking.com/2009/07/buzz-about-behavioural-finance.html

patek philippe watches

This is just one idea, and perhaps displays no more than my limited imagination. If there are better ideas out there, that amount to more than "implement something called "market socialism" and then - alacazam! - full employment!" then I'd love to hear them. http://www.watchgy.com/ mostly bank deposits, fell by £143.2bn in Q1. And of course there’s no guarantee such buying will continue.

The comments to this entry are closed.

blogs I like

Why S&M?

Blog powered by Typepad