In keeping with my ongoing theme of how important diversity
are in thinking about economic affairs, I want to point out that over at his blog, Paul Krugman makes the following point
regarding the intellectual monoculture that otherwises known as the Obama administration:
"A lot of people supported Obama over Clinton in the primaries because they thought Clinton would bring back the Rubin team; and what Obama has done is … bring back the Rubin team. Even the advisory council, which is supposed to bring in skeptical views, does so by bringing in, um, Marty Feldstein.
The point is that even if you think the leftish wing of economics doesn’t have all the answers, you’d expect some people from that wing to be at the table. Yet I don’t see Larry Mishel, or Jamie Galbraith … Jared Bernstein is it.
Joe Stiglitz stands out because in addition to being on the progressive wing, he’s also, as I said, a giant among academic economists. But I think the real story is more about excluded points of view than excluded people."
Recall that when French President Sarkozy decided to underwrite some economic big-think he approached Stiglitz and Sen [1
]. Not so with Obama, who generally leans from right-of-center further rightward. All those folks who placed their "hope" in Obama as an agent of actual "change" or, conversely, who shriek that he is a "socialist!"ought to take a look at where all the ideas really
are coming from. We are getting the same tired ideological analysis from economists who remain thick as thieves with ... well, with the thieves and the hucksters [e.g., 2
Labels: Obama, political economy, Stiglitz