Re: (fwd from Stijn Oosterlynck) Biel and Stiglitz

[Sabri Oncu <soncu@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Stijn Oosterlynck:

> Stiglitz can thus be seen as an organic intellectual
> who is able to see the limits of US unilateralism and
> the way it makes international institutions as the IMF,
> WB and the WTO work to the narrow interests of transnational
> financial capital and tries to move US hegemony back to a
> more ideal way in which capitalism might function by arguing
> for an international relations superstructure which is more
> institutionally separated from financial and transnational
> capital.  His proposals go against some short term interests
> of the US and transnational financial capital, but only to
> secure its long term interests.

In these days I am reading Stiglitz's technical papers from the
1980s. I am planning to read his more recent papers too but it
will take a while to get there.

It is possible that Stiglitz turned against US unilateralism
because of what he experienced out there in the real world.
However, his main objection is quite academic and not to
capitalism but a particular model of it, called the neoclassical
economics. The neoclassical model, which I always view as a
combination of real analysis and fluid dynamics, is basicly a
form of religion based on severely unrealistic assumptions. These
so-called IMF imposed structural adjustments in the so-called
emerging economies, for example, are to "adjust" their economies,
that is, social relations, in such a way that these assumptions
hold. This is why these structural adjustments are so
homogenizing: to fit the world to the theory, rather than the
other way around.

One of the reasons among others why these neoclassical economists
are total dunderheads is that according to their model everybody
knows everything. This is basicly what Stiglitz objects. And
together with this objection comes his other objections.

A statement like this is giving him more credit than he deserves:

" Stiglitz can thus be seen as an organic intellectual who is
able to see the limits of US unilateralism"

although it is possible that he really sees the limits of US
unilateralism. After all, he is a smart person. And I am sure he
is a well-intentioned individual who suffers a major pain from
observing first-hand the global misery caused by those
institutions constructed based on the neoclassical model.

Let me speculate one more thing: he also suffers from a serious
pain from dealing with the real world complete morons who have
the power to rule the world.

Otherwise, he is quite at home with capitalism, or so he thinks I
would say.

Best,

Sabri


~~~~~~~
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.