Stigliz’ enthusiasm for “correcting” markets never seemed to extend to reducing his hypothetical information asymmetries, but rather tipped toward intervention. This disposition plays well with bureaucracy with whom he enjoys the most fervent support. Meanwhile, the market sustains an unbounded global search to identify and remediate material information deficiencies. The examples he identifies form a limited caveat to the whole. Those who bring him to the front of the line consistently miss the economic forest for an ephemeral tree, and often do so to curry political favor.
Stiglitz specifically wrote about minimal interventions of e.g. just supporting/hosting (reliable) information exchanges.
His proof showed that there were some markets where there was no value for any individual player to "pay" for the information needed to improve a market, so it stayed bad. Stiglitz' career definitely moved in a direction of more interventionist policies (of which I'm probably more sympathetic than you to some/many of them).
Are you suggesting that I'm trying to curry political favor with...Stiglitz (or someone else)?
