stiglitz talks in terms of bubbles and of bailouts saving the economy -- when the second mortages were needed to give us a money supply since his tribesmen in fiance were not lending their interest takings to domestic production -- if there was no "bubble" there would be no money, no purchasing power, no hiring power. The bubble was our only purchasing power in the lower non-elite loop. Stiglitz knows the routines but covers for Rothschild -- a man can't be both a doctor and an assassin
@mpc91 Agreed. Glass-Steagall was was a merely a poor attempt at controlling the moral hazard created by the FDIC. The govt. insurance of bank deposits removed the market regulation and banks no longer competed for the security of their investments but instead only for the rate of return. Government is famous for breaking your leg, handing you a crutch, and then saying, "look without us you wouldn't be able to walk!"
You people have a serious problem in understanding things to the point it's dangerous to the society as a whole. When you are in a situation of crisis such as that which we underwent and to some extent still suffer from, regardless of the cause, the issue at hand is a fall in demand -- workers not working and money not being invested.
I don't care how you do it, but you need a highly coordinated effort to change the direction. What's the fastest way to do that?
The government is one instance you can use in specific ways and at specific times; the reason it's important is that it gives you an other word than your sole workforce to have a say on the market. Likewise, I wouldn't advise handing all powers from working unions or public associations that works on several things because it's again an intermediate ground which widens your influence.
That's a political reason to never give all power to one instance of decision.
Beyond that, fiscal policy and can and will work if done properly and at the right time; monetary policies may also have very beneficial effects on the economy -- look at the central bank, just North of the line: it succeeds to maintain manageable inflation.
Governmental regulations in fact do not limit your freedom, it is what can ensure your emancipation from your dependence on your employer... it can also be used to affect the economy.
@hampusheh Before making snarky comments, you might try having a leg to stand on. Even if the Nobel committee didn't have a habit of choosing darlings of the left not taken seriously in the economics profession (Gunnar Myrdal - so embarrassing that they felt compelled to choose Hayek as well, and Paul Krugman, for example), Stiglitz got a Nobel for being third wheel to two better economists studying the phenomenon of asymetrical information.
@hampusheh Yiu misunderstand. It's not just members of the Chicago School (of which I am not a member) that do not take him seriously, but members of the Neo-classical, Austrian, and even, to a large part, Keynesian schools as well. Parctically NO ONE in the profession takes him seriously. This is becasue he's a self proclaimes socialist (that stupidity precludes his being taken seriously by competent people, anyway), spouting obvious drivel (like in this video).
@hampusheh No one with any grounding in economics is taking George Soros seriously either. That people look for leaders that tell them what they want to hear doesn't make them knowledgeable, particularly when they are so disconnected from reality.
@FletchforFreedom Since when did economists become the only reality? All people look for leaders and subscribe to some form of authority, this is just human nature. You have Milton Friedman. I'm definitely not an expert on economics, nor did I ever claim to be one, but from judging from your profile I can tell that you're a libertarian. Which is the most naive philosophy in the history of philosophy. It's the marxism of the right, placing private property ABOVE more fundamental freedoms.
@hampusheh I didn't say that "economists [are] the only reality". I said "no one with any GROUNDING [understanding, grasp, clue] in economics" takes Soros seriously. Again, I disagree with Friedman on any number of subjects - just not those on the viability of the free market because history yields no other conclusion.
A socialist (advocating a system that has never worked in all of human history) calling someone else "naive" is hilarious. And, pray, which "freedoms" do you mean?
@FletchforFreedom You also implied that I was "removed" from reality because I don't subscribe to your particular brand of politics. This is a clear example of an authoritarian who view opposing views as inferior rather than different. Socialism has worked fine in Europe for many decades, a libertarian society, on the other hand, has never existed. I.E. the right not to be enslaved is hard to justify under libertarianism where ownership of ones body is simply a matter of funds and economics.
@hampusheh You're being dishonest; I'm not talking politics; I'm talking economics. The correlation between the adoption of the free market and prosperity and the adoption of socialism (including European socialism) and its relative absence is enormous, those believing the long discredited myth of the "Scandinavian miracle" notwithstanding. Since there is no "right to be enslaved" and it doesn't exist in the free market, there are other grounds for criticquing your connection to reality.
@FletchforFreedom Well you are talking politics since you're telling me how a society should be governed. Why am I being dishonest? I definitely believe that you are talking politics. You might say that I'm misguided, but then you'll have to account for why you think this. I don't believe in any "Scandinavian miracle" because I don't believe in miracles. But the notion that socialism has never worked is just plain wrong, since European infrastructure has existed for several decades.
@hampusheh I'm not talking politics and I have made no assertions about how anything should be governed. I have made basic factual statemenst about what has worked historically and economically. I am fully aware of the socialist infrastructure in Europe and its relative economic stagnation over the very same period. It is your assertion of its efficacy that is "just plain wromg". I have made no advocacy of libertarianism - I have maintained that the free market works - it always has.
@FletchforFreedom So you mean to say that your understanding of economics is completely abstracted from any ideological thinking? I don't believe that since I know from talking to you on other videos that you're a libertarian. What exists in the U.S. now is certainly not a "free" market, you have government intrusion everywhere. So when did a completely free market exist in history?
@hampusheh That's exactly what I mean to say (your belief being irrelevant). Actually, my channel is full of economic viewpoints and some, though very little, reference to libertarianism - I'm an economist first. I didn't claim that waht exists in the US is a free market (particularly under this administration). However, it is true that the relative success of the US in comparison to other countries in the past is directly attributable to greater adoption of the free market.
@FletchforFreedom Fine, I don't believe that's the case with anyone. Generally the people who maintain that they're completely unbiased and politically unmotivated are the biggest liars. If I were to quote Bertrand Russell "Not to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential things in rationality."
I freely admit that I'm biased by my activity in Swedish social institutions, I think you should admit that you're biased because you're an economist.
@hampusheh You've got to watch the straw men you keep creating. I never claimed to be without bias and I have very string opinions. There is a massive difference between approaching issues as an automaton and dealing - at least so far - only with factual data. I ahve deliverately avoided going into what my ideal society might be and have dealt only with economic conditions easily referenced.
@FletchforFreedom You're not only presenting factual data though, you present it then you tint it with your own particular ideology. Which is something you've done consistently through this discussion. You postulate that the U.S. is more successful because of it's strongly free market bent, but then you agree that the U.S. doesn't even have a free market. You say that the reason for U.S' success is its capitalism, then how would you explain communist China's growing economy?
@FletchforFreedom You're not only presenting factual data though, you present it then you tint it with your own particular ideology. Which is something you've done consistently through this discussion. You postulate that the U.S. is more successful because of it's strongly free market bent, but then you agree that the U.S. doesn't even have a free market. You say that the reason for U.S' success is its capitalism, then how would you explain communist China's growing economy?
@hampusheh That's eay. China's abandonment of capitalism resulted in them having one of the lowest living standards on the planet (not to mention starving a huge percentage of their population). Subsequent to the 1970s when the country began opening up and allowed more and more capitalist activities to take place, their growth has ballooned due to that adoption and the relatively low starting point they had. And i have always maintained US success was due to RELATIVELY greater capitalism.
@hampusheh That's eay. China's abandonment of capitalism resulted in them having one of the lowest living standards on the planet (not to mention starving a huge percentage of their population). Subsequent to the 1970s when the country began opening up and allowed more and more capitalist activities to take place, their growth has ballooned due to that adoption and the relatively low starting point they had. And i have always maintained US success was due to RELATIVELY greater capitalism.
@hampusheh That's eay. China's abandonment of capitalism resulted in them having one of the lowest living standards on the planet (not to mention starving a huge percentage of their population). Subsequent to the 1970s when the country began opening up and allowed more and more capitalist activities to take place, their growth has ballooned due to that adoption and the relatively low starting point they had. And i have always maintained US success was due to RELATIVELY greater capitalism.
@hampusheh Further, you wish to impose a completely bogus standard. All economies are hybrid economies containing elements of both capitalism (the free market) and socialism. That there is no example of a pure free market any more than there has been an example of pure socialism is irrelevant. Performance can be evaluated on the basis of whether an economy is more capitalist or socialist - and the greater adoption of capitalism is the overwhelming winner. It's not even close.
@FletchforFreedom Well then it isn't a bogus standard. If your contention is that what is required is a mixture of socialism and the free market then I fully agree. Performance is highly subjective as well, what do you mean by performance? If all you mean by performance is how wealthy the wealthiest people is, then sure, U.S. is doing pretty good.
@hampusheh Not at all. I have argued that, demonstrably, to the extent that a society is capitalistic, it has worked and to the extent that it is socialistic, it has not. Objective standards would be economic measures of well being but I would go a step further (and this is opinion) - I would argue that the best system is the one that does the best job of living the living standards for the greatest number of people, particularly the poor - again, capitalism wins hands down.
@FletchforFreedom The best SYSTEM is the one that is "living the living standards", what does that mean? All you've demonstrated is that historical evidence shows a mixture of socialism and capitalism. Where you go from there is completely ideological. Your postulation that capitalism is the sole producer of good living standards for all, just hasn't got any historical precedent.
@hampusheh Typo: "Giving the living standards". The greater the adoption of capitalism, the greater success and the greater adoption of socialism, the LESS success. The correlation is nearly perfect. As the division of labor, the application of prices and the less restricted flow of capital are responsible for technological advancement, complex machines and, demonstrably, since the begining of the Industrial Revolution, higher living standards, history's entirely on my side.
@FletchforFreedom No history isn't entirely on your side. Especially when it comes to such things as civil rights, slavery and etc. These are all things secured by the government, not private business, which would happily exploit people for a few more dollars. Your world view is so simplistic that it could make a better man than me cry.
@hampusheh I haven't spoken about civil rights or slavery (a state maintained institution). I've been talking economic history. Still, your position is completely wrong. State laws made people sit in the back of the bus - they would not have been necessary unless businesses were willing to see nothing but green. And, in fact, because that's the case, the disparity between black and white wages in the US declined steadily UNTIL the governmnet intervened. So the facts are STILL against you.
@FletchforFreedom Can you stop talking about economics as if it's a completely disparate entity of society? Like it's something abstract and not related to anything but raw numbers. My biggest problem with you are just like a communist, but on the right side, you look at history and extract simplistic answers to your particular philosophy. You scoff at socialism because the Cato institute tells you to, oblivious to any other thinking than your narrow, economical box.
@hampusheh Enugh with the bogus straw mwn. I never argued thart economics is separate from society (it's an integral part). That is entirely different from maintaining that much of it is objective (which is certainly true and I have been arguing entirely within those bounds). I scoff at socialism because the evidence of economic history is unimpeachable that socialism in literally every one of its forms has been an economic failure, Cato had nothing to do with it - simple research.
@FletchforFreedom You talk about it like it doesn't affect the rest of society though. Like this discussion only encompasses economics, which it doesn't, it's clearly ideologically tinged by both you and me. Yeah, I'm sure the Cato institute (a LIBERTARIAN think-tank) didn't have a conformation bias.
@hampusheh Look up the phrase "straw man arguments", look in a mirror, make the connection. I cited specifics, more than one study (not all of which appeared in the Cato article) and you have presented...
...nothing, while instead focusing undue (and ad hominem) attention to Cato as a reference for finding reference to SOME of the studies and referencing debunked notions (such as exploitation).
@FletchforFreedom I am curious about your argument about state imposing slavery or segregation. I would agree that laws are implemented by the State and hence the State is responsible for unequal citizen rights, however in a democracy the State does what the people want it to do. Our Bill of Rights "always" proclaimed equality but it was never interpreted in that manner until the Civil Rights Act of 1964. If you leave it to the people, the majority will continue to oppress the minority.
@Franky4fingers78 No law is necessary to prevent people from doing what they otherwise would not. Absent state enforcement, neither slavery nor segregation can survive because a minority, no matter how small can undermine the institution (as happened with free and slave states). The problem with democracy you describe is very real but does not change the dynamic. Neither slavery nor segregation can continue societally absent enforcement.
@FletchforFreedom "State laws made people sit in the back of the bus" - The idea of segregation was based on the concept of "Separate but equal". The argument for this position was based on acceptance that there was racism among the people and hence segregation was required to protect minorities from whites. It is quite naive of you if you think people follow equality laws because its the right thing to do. Society made them do it so now they accept it and follow it as norm.
@Franky4fingers78 Segregation LONG preceded the concept of "separate but equal" and, again, if no one would otherwise desegregate the busses, no law would be required or implemented. The concept was no "acceoptance" of the existence of racism because the ruling did not address that point. It rested solely on the Constitutional question of whether rights were violated. The naivete is your own. Racists harm themselves economically allowing non-racists to be more prosperous and out-compete.
@FletchforFreedom I'm also curious about disparity between black and white wages claim. Can you explain what you mean by that and post some figures supporting your claim?
@Franky4fingers78 A simple Google search should suffice. According to US Census Bureau figures, the long and steady decrease in the gap between the wages of balck and white workers is unequivocal in the data ... until the passage of Johnson's Not-so-"Great-Society". Thomas Sowell has pointed this out many times as have Williams, Wortham (sp?), and a number of other respected economists (unlike the one in the video) and historians.
@FletchforFreedom What are those grounds then? You're the one talking about a theoretical society where the free-market principles is supposed to be applied to all branches of society, and such a society has never existed.
Incidently, the idea that Bush "deregulated" anything is bullshit. He increased regulation, not decreased it. The Reason Foundation did the analysis I believe. This is just boring cliche spouting... He might as well say "Bush lied, people died."
2:00-2:11 OMFG!!!!. Government is actually what forced these banks to make bad loans via regulations to individuals whom otherwise had no savings or source of income to buy a house. Govt did not save this country from nothing. Worse still Govt should not bail no business, especially banks. What good is it when banks produce o real wealth in terms of real goods and services. These Keynesian economist are so full of hot air.
@GnomesAmok The Community Reinvestment Act under Carter and then Clinton did most of the damage. In short, the regulators wouldn't give banks permits if they were thought to be engaging in "discriminatory" practices which basically means they have to give loans to poor people who can't pay them back.
This is what Clinton meant when he said he was going to make "affordable housing."
@darwinkilledgod Not true at all. CRA loans performed very well. The CRA also did not affect the lending institutions that were not back by the FDIC. Do your research.
@beretboy22 If you think the government's active attempt to put people in homes they couldn't afford didn't cause the housing bubble...well, then I guess that's what you believe. But the one person who loudly saw this coming (Peter Schiff) says the opposite. He knew there was a bubble burst on its way. Stiglitz didn't.
And whether the loans were backed or not is not always written down, i.e. they were actually bailed out.
@darwinkilledgod To be fair, the CRA, while not without impact, was not the main driver - rather the Fed fueled the bubble by dumping liquidity on the market (distorting risk signals) and Fannie and Freddie created an artificial market which, coupled with chnages in tax policy, ensured that the bubble would manifest itself primarily in housing.
You are absolutely correct that "deregulation" had nothing whatsoever to do with the crisis. That nonsense has been long debunked.
Wow, a puffed up economist arguing that placing all money exchange and lending practices under control of selfless altruistic individuals, like himself I'm sure he would think but not say.
This isn't new, but it should be pointed out that this is an argument for allowing the referee to play the game and make the rules.
Choosing Elite individuals to call shots for everyone insted of allowing individuals to test ideas that work for them, is what leads to blunders like our economic situation now.
Obama, the Democrats, Fannie May and Freddie Mac, and massive government regulation got us INTO this depression. To try and prescribe the very cause of the disaster as the solution is just plain insane.
@tehant1liberal. First of all the problems started in 1999, way before Obama and democrats got power.(R's had both houses from 1995 until 2007.) "letting the free market regulate themselves" is what led to the huge housing bubble and the quadrillion $ in derivatives. Fannie and Freddie were less than 17% of the subprime market.. Almost all the issues were caused by Private mortgage companies and banks not regulated by the CRA. Facts are stubborn things, learn some and stop being ignorant
@mba2ceo another moron with no idea what is going and no argument. Im sure you know more then one of the greatest economist of our time. I find it funny people in america think and enjoy the idea that they are smarter then the so called "elites" You know why you called him an elite, because he is and you are not. Elite means better, above average, top of the class, why do you morons insist on using it as a pejorative?
Not to say he isnt wrong, but we should give him some respect.
@thesparitan in anything but sports americans was let to believe that 'elites' are bad. It's because educated people are harder to control, so those in power want to keep the masses uninformed.
George H.W. Bush derided Reagan's Deregulation and supply-side policies or Reaganomics/Trickle Down Economy as "voodoo economics". When Ronald Reagan was elected, the supply-siders got a chance to try out their ideas. Unfortunately, they failed. Although supply-side economics more successful than monetarism, but left the economy in ruins.
@VictorAvera "Although supply-side economics more successful than monetarism, but left the economy in ruins." lol wut? I'm going to take what you have to say very seriously, you seem like a smart fellow.
However, as govt continues to suck away scarce resources from the productive economy, there is inevitably less funding for research- but it aint the fault of the market. its obviously the parasitic govt which is wasting the precious resources & capital
Govt is not productive- it is DESTRUCTIVE! look at the basis for govt. It is based solely on the initiation of brute force. It is a monopoly on force & coercion. Yet u are saying that somehow force & coercion can produce real goods & services?
Only when the voluntary interactions of people is allowed to happen, can any real wealth be created. It is highly fallacious & misleading to make the statement that ONLY govt can fund research- or even 'practical' research. lolol
Stiglitz needs to get his history right. Historically & presently most research is done through the voluntary private sector. MOST USEFUL RESEARCH exists in the voluntary private sector.
Go look at ur new deal u bozo. The govt was the sole cause behind the 1929 depression and prolonging it for decades
Wrong! sure govt may have 'funded internet research' but so what? its like sayin, o the govt buys up a ton of fighter jets- but who the hell can use it? its not the common man who has access to it.
Government intervention in the 1930's was too little. All economists agree that it was the massive government intervention of WW II that ended the Great Depression.1919 market dip was way before the giant international market bubble existed of 1928-1929 created by the gold exchange standard - see "Monetary Sin of the West" by French economist Jacques Rueff.
The guy you mentioned sounds interesting, I will have to read more about him...I just read a brief summary on him.
Government intervention and the Fed's manipulation is what trigged and prolonged the Great Depression though. No two people have studied the Great Depression in all its entirety more than Milton Frideman and Murray Rothbard. Everyone should read Rothbards book on it if they think Hoover let the "free market" work.
Yep couldn't agree more. I will admit, even some of their work is over my pay grade by how specific they get into talking about things. But the main thing is to have a good premise of what they are saying so you can spread the word to others.
Intervention prologned the depression. There was a dip in the stock market in 1919 that was larger as a percentage than the dip in 1929, yet nobody ever hears about it because there was no gov't to "help" fix the problem.
@NotRyanFaulk I would say that Americans didn't suffer as much from the 1919 dip because America was in the best position of all countries in the world at that time. The US had most of the world's gold reserves and was still squeezing out dept from post-war Europe. Also, there was serious change in the automobile and communications industries that helped growth. The US simply absorbed the crash and business went on as usual. Intervention prolonged the depression but the fed did the same thing.
The banks have used fraud and corruption and driven down the markets and fiddled the markets. The wealth of the common man has been given to the banks and the people blamed whilst the banks and the global elite gain world assets by these frauds. Politicians have been bought off and work within the banking buddy system. The media is complicit and part of the corrupt process as is the legal system not honouring their covenants. jsf 18 3 2011
The government is the number #1 reason why we are in this shit you communist cunts. spending money we dont have, coming up with reasons to tax you, and take waway freedoms. if you look at a bokk and the American revolution you will see how familiar all this shit is. but people like to watch Bias Media for info and not do their own research
If the gov't was to be the sole issuer of money, like the constitution stipulate, the economy would be much more stable. Since that is not going to happen, Americans should turn to Credit Unions and remove all their money from International Banks.
Ideally, the US would nationalize the Federal Reserve, audit their books, recover any misappropriated funds, throw those who misappropriated the funds into jail for treason, & absolve people from paying any interest on constitutionally illegal loan.
@macduggles Check out the The Secret of Oz ( youtube.com/watch?v=7qIhDdST27g ) and also this vid on exponential growth: youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY
As for the Fed, it is not a gov't agency...it is a privately held corporation which loans money, at interest, to the gov't. Watch Ron Paul for a great take on the Fed: youtube.com/watch?v=ji_G0MqAqq8 or youtube.com/watch?v=xts5rEOi6p0 or any Ron Paul video.
A democratic gov't regulation is fine, so long as the people stay active in the democratic process throughout the term of election.
One of the root problems is with a non-gov't fractional reserve banking system which allows a small group of individuals to create money out of thin air and loan it, at interest, to the people. Over time, the interest on the debt turns exponential, forcing the economy to focus on "growth" just to keep up with interest payments.
To those commentators who are against government regulation of parts of the economy, would you say that the government should have no regulations regarding food or drug production? Just trust the companies to be good and have the general interest be number one? Many/most have only interest of bottom line. In regards to effectiveness, Glass/Steigle act was pretty effective, if it wasn't repealed we wouldn't be in this mess. I'd trust elected government over plutocratic shareholders any day.
"If you don't do the basic research, the private sector has nothing to bring to market"... examplified with the internet... that's just a lame comment. Xerox Parc invented Ethernet - which is absolutely essential for the "internet", and any modern computer networking. Also, Xerox Parc invented the graphical user interface, later copied by Apple. No, Stiglitz, you are wrong. Yes, the private sector will bring public research to the market, but public research is not essential to the private secto
There is no way even Joseph Stiglitz would be able to prove his thesis, that the state needs to disciplin the market. It's speculation at best. No one can predict, nor control the market. At most, influence it a little bit, but without guarantee that it's for the better.
The American economy experienced the Great Depression after the Federal Reserve was adopted. European-style, centralized, fractional-reserve banking should be abolished.
@order9066 There are alot of issues with the fed. If destroying the fed and replacing it with a more accountable democratic central banking system then that would be perfect. But if you think we dont need any regulated banking system then you are making a massive mistake. and further more you will never see that happen because to many forces are against such a stupid move. Liberals, capitalist, socialist like me and even many libertarians know we need a fed of some kind
@thesparitan : I don't think you understand the main issues behind the anti-Fed voices. The key idea is that no one or group of regulators have all the knowledge necessary to *plan* complex economy - they just pretend to know what they are doing. We often call this "pretense of knowledge". Whether it's democratic or even accountable doesn't really matter, it's simply a bad idea to rely on one or two individuals to make the "right" decisions all the time, especially when so much economic,
@thesparitan : political power is concentrated in one single institution.
Likewise, it is precisely this division of power between a few elites and everyone else that many libertarians are against. You lefties think "everyone else" is too stupid / greedy and they need to be *regulated*. Ironically, you also believe ur benevolent elites, somehow immune from such human fallacies, with PhDs from HYP can best plan economy.
And no you don't necessarily want a democratic central bank - u don't
@thesparitan : want your central banks to make monetary policies based on political needs of the day. In another word, this is catch-22. A lot of critics have thought through this. Friedman for instance didn't trust the Fed to be political independent nor incompetent enough to maintain a stable economy (he wasn't too crazy about gold either) - he instead proposed to replace the Fed with a computer than maintains a steady rate of MS growth (4-5% per year).
He could not be more incorrect. I wrote my dissertation in college on the depression. I cannot post the entire thing obviously, but this guy is a fool. I don't know who is? But he is dumbest guy I've ever heard. He is NOT an economist for sure. Milton Friedman has the proper assessment of the depression on here. He has a Nobel Prize in economics. So if you're interested, look it up. This guy is a buffoon
You're either a lying sack of shite, or you're a guy with a Ph D in economics who couldn't hack it in that field (probably got the degree from some worthless Bible college in the South) and now works as a "professional studio musician." Making popcorn money, undoubtedly. Another rightwing loser trying to pretend to be educated. The universities bring hard reality to bear on the rightwing morons--this is why so many of them couldn't even get a BA (Flush, Beck, Hannity)
@MrFarcry1966 No my degree was from Wash U. and you do not want to debate me. Beyond just qualifications. You are a drone. You repeat things you here. A parrot. I actually had to do hard research in economics. And in college many of the professors are professors because government and school is all they know. Not only do I have a degree I have owned 3 businesses, 2 currently in operation. You attacked Hannity Beck etc? That shows you are mentally unequipped to hold conversation. You are a drone
You're right about one thing--I have no interest in 'debating' you, just as I have no interest in 'debating' a monkey. Can't be done. "Professional studio musician," I repeat. You must be a bang up economist, bro.
And did you not learn the difference between "hear" and "here" in your suckass program? "Hard research in economics," my ass. You don't even know BASIC ENGLISH.
@MrFarcry1966 I chose it because I was good at it and I make about twice the money than I would if I were a teacher, worked for a corporation or government. You keep thinking the way you are. It has served us well hasn't it? The last 100 years has been the destruction of the country due to knowledgeable economist graduates pursuing other interests. Tons of them. Leaving in the hands of buffoons. I thought there were more Milton Friedmans out there. I was dead wrong. Only schmucks like this.
The only thing rightwing "economists" are good at is devising criminal and immoral ways to fill their pockets up with filthy lucre. I can just imagine the rubbish music you must be involved in producing. Your boy Friedman was a glorified con man and a suck up to mass murderers. Says much about you that this disgusting old misanthrope is your hero.
@MrFarcry1966 that has not the capacity to reason. Attacks on political pundits means you have no credibility. Olbermann and who is those others? Maddow, Mathews? You actually listen to them with no research? No clue beyond what any of them Beck, Hannity, Maddows, Mathews tell you on TV? Truly pathetic. This is why our country is in this condition. No one knows anything anymore. They debate pundits instead of learning history and facts. Please. Give me a break.
@SuperGuitarman69 LOL yeah he is a buffoon. Stiglitz is only the most respected economist alive and you are a mindless ideologue. And I dont care if you have a degree or not, arguments from authority dont impress me. I have seen you on here before and you are so entrenched in your beliefs that you can no longer even empathize with the other side. Its not as common as I have thought but you are a perfect case of someone without the ability for rational thought.
@thesparitan Empathize with the other side? That is the very nature of economics. Economics are based on facts. Not politics. When you have politics infused in macro formula it is NOT economics. And the most respected? Hardly. He and his views are bought and paid for. It is the only way he could get where he is. He was more than likely a D student in school. Which isn't always the measure of someones ability that is true. But stating things that simply are not true by measure is the smoking gun.
@SuperGuitarman69 "That is the very nature of economics. Economics are based on facts. Not politics."
You say u have an education yet you make a comment as ignorant as this. Politics directly effects economics, that is one of the reasons its called a soft science. Economics is more like psychology, not physics. At best economics can only tell you what might happen if you take an action. Politics are the most important part of economics. Have you even study this?
@thesparitan There are measurable effects in macro thought. We can examine the effects of systems an come to scientific conclusions. It is not psychology. We know for a fact that Keynesian economics do not work. We have had 100 years to study these effects. Those that still cling to it are being paid to cling by the political fabric that it is woven into. You are arguing with someone who had to do a dissertation on the effects of the depression. I doubt you are at that level. Not a slam a fact.
@Someideasandstuff It bankrupted Ireland. No it is NOT a good thing. In my state we had Tenncare. A healthcare program here. Which ran us in to historic state deficits. Before you go saying that something is great perhaps you should look at historical results before making the observation. Of course if you are not Independent/conservative/Libertarian and are a leftist don't bother. Facts and history matter not to the leftist.
Iceland didn't go bust because of their UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE SYSTEM, but because they degeulated the banks in 2001 which allowed the banks to upload huge debts that they couldn't refinance.
.
We know 2 things. THEIR SYSTEM OF UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE DIDN'T CAUSE THEIR CRISIS and that both governments were irresponsible in numerous ways.
.
So we can agree on this. Governements and their "FEDs" alike need to be held accountable/reposnsible for their policies.
Taxing the rich is also a necessity if we are going to fund universal healthcare in the future. I think some of those funds should also be used to provide more equal access to university education(more grants instead of loans).
@Someideasandstuff : The 50's, especially under Eisenhower's administration, is generally known to be the most economically prosperous decade in American economic history. The federal gov't under Eisenhower progressively cut federal spending and reduced deficit. Much of this changed after JFK and, especially LBJ - the 60's marked the beginning of the long decline. Much of the blame goes to LBJ's liberal welfare/warfare policies that led to high inflation and macroeconomic instability of the 70s.
No, in those days, most of the tax dollars went to maintaining the huge post-WW2 armed forces all over the world - not too surprising considering that there were still millions of US troops stationed in Europe and Asia. In fact, military spending accounted for some 70% of all federal budget; the interest payment on the WW2 bonds was the single largest non-defense item in federal expenditure (at 15%). The domestic welfare, ss, housing,
@tooltalk higher tax rates on the rich help stablize the economy by decreasing speculation, while at the same time decreasing the wealth gap. To see more info regarding some of the problems created by the wealth gap, google "equality trust" - there will be a link that says "evidence" - on the web page there are various categories on the right hand side of the page.
@Someideasandstuff : eh? It seems pretty clear that you talk a lot of bullshit (eg, the 50's) that you can't support or articulate yourself. The website you cited does nothing to improve your image. How about doing some actual research and back up your claims with historical, economical *facts*? And, no, citing dubious stats based on failed ideas from the 60's and 70's, as "the equality trust" does, doesn't. Otherwise, please don't bother responding.
@tooltalk what are u talking about? Epistomologists comparing data, US and European. You're a fool who doesn't understand the bigger picture and you post the same "free market will fix everything" horesshit.
.
To disprove your entire "welfare" thesis just look at the recent data. Ireland went bust, NOT BECAUSE OF THEIR UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE SYSTEM, but because their "fed" kept interest rates too low. Iceland didn't go but because of their AFFORDABLE UNIVERSITY AND UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE, they
@Someideasandstuff : throwing a big word, eh? epitomology my ass. the big picture? Dude, you don't even have the basic knowledge of history, economics or even politics to see what's right under your nose. You are, like most liberals, so conceited & delusional that you don't understand the extend of your ignorance.
And no, honey, nobody is claiming free-market is an over-night panacea. Free-market has already freed so many from hunger and economic misery created by the lefties misguided
@Someideasandstuff : accounted for less than 5%, despite some misleading claim that Eisenhower greatly expanded social welfare programs (he believed that eliminating FDR-era programs was politically suicidal). Eisenhower, a well-known fiscal conservative and deficit hawk, was often criticized by his political opponents, liberal democrats and economists, for cutting back on defense. Many warned that the economy would relapse into economic depression without the gov't spending. Even lesser
@Someideasandstuff : hawkish democrats often voted to spend more on military b/c of perceived economic benefits to their constituents. It is against this political backdrop that Eisenhower gave his famous farewell address, aka, military-industrial-[congress]-complex.
Now, I think it's pretty silly to claim that the war-time taxes and large gov't spending somehow attributed to the 50's economic prosperity. Unfortunately, LBJ used this flawed logic to push his war on communism and poverty -
@Someideasandstuff : - as today's modern liberals / socialists do today - and we all know what happened to the 60's and 70's as a result of liberal policies of welfare / warfare. Unfortunately, high taxes & large gov't spending did not benefit Americans or their economies contrary to liberals claim's.
In fact, much of the macroeconomic instability last centuries were not caused by speculators, but by gov't fiscal / monetary policies, be it Ben Strong's easy credit policy in late 1920's that
@Someideasandstuff : ultimately led to the Great Depression (compounded by the Fed's incompetence), or liberals' welfare (income-distribution policies) and warfare policies of the 70's. P. Volcker in early 80's ended that streak by artificially creating a recession (by raising short-term interest rates to some 20%).
How does he sit there and say "the government has been reckless in the economy" then say a few moments later the solution is for the government to not be reckless in the economy? And everyone just sits there silently nodding as if they are even listening to what he is actually saying and not just looking for someone to justify their personal beliefs with some kind of half thought out economic theory. ECONOMICS IS NOT A SCIENCE PEOPLE!!!
@jimberkt Because, if you look at our past, you'll see a period of RESPONSIBLE REGULATION. This hasn't been true for years but you don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
.
CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM is what needs to be addressed. Unless corporate influence is substantially dealt with, the problems won't be close to solved.
@Someideasandstuff when was this period of responsible regulation? 1776? Anywhere you have central banks you will have reckless monetary policy which is the enabler of reckless finance including war. How do you deal with corporate influence other than by reducing the size of government? Hope that incorruptible angels go up for election? Its not about who finances their campaign its about who they listen to. If an "expert" tells them to do something they'll do it, whatever their intentions.
@jimberkt From 1950 to 1970, the regulation was much more responsible than today. And you clearly don't understand politics. You said "it's not about who finances their campaigns, it's about who they listen to". These are generally ONE IN THE SAME.
@Someideasandstuff more responsible than today of course but when regulation requires banks to give sub prime mortgages that is a pretty empty statement.
My point was that in your utopian society where campaign finances were pure as snow it becomes about who they listen to. I constantly hear from conservatives and liberals alike (this is in europe mind you) that we cant do this or that because it might harm business. Sustaining the wealthy has priority over justice and liberty in all democracies
@jimberkt Capitalism, with or without government, will ALWAYS LEAD TO THE CONCENTRATION OF WEALTH. So the question will remain, how do we manage Capitalism in a way that is conducive to healthier societies. And the answer will always be a mixture of Captialism and Socialism.
I'm going to go get my doctorate in economics and then put out youtube videos of shit economic theory and see how many people buy it. I'm guessing at least 103 will. "Well he has a doctorate!!!"
The Government saved the Country from Depression by Bailing out the Banks(ters).
And they chuckle at the Tea Paritiers for being angry at both.
Missing the point entirely. Of course they are pissed off!
They ARE what Stiglitz is really refering to when he says the "Government" in as much as it was their TAX DOLLARS that were used to bailout the Banksters and "save" the Country!
THEY saved it. They EARNED their right to be pissed off!
The bail out was B.S. funded by newly printed money that was offset with more debt. Business knew exactly what was going on that it would do nothing except dilute the money.... so we just raised our prices to offset the new money. Govt made a nice hole in the water with their intervention.
Stiglitz (and Krugman) is my contrarian indicator. Take for instance, his bold prediction that US would be in another dip in the second half of 2010 (we are not) a while back. Well, at least these Keynesian crackpots are consistent (ie, consistently wrong).
@MrFarcry1966 : eh? he's been right on what? Was he also right about the war bringing down the economy (while pretty much ignoring the whole housing crisis Krugman / Stiglitz were promoting in early 2000's)?
It's rather sad that we are still stuck in a system where these Keynesian crackpots dominate the academia (and gov't) and produce apologists to intellectualize and cover-up gov't big f-ups.
There is a reason there are few supply siders in academia--academia, unlike the political world, functions according to accuracy and truth. The rightwingers are so laughably wrong, and the data so clearly demonstrate that fact, that they'll never be able to have much of a presence in the academy until Sarah Palin is elected and starts picking econ faculty at colleges herself.
Spoken like one more illiterate teabag dipshit who couldn't get through college. Just like your boys Glenn Beck, Hannity, and Flush Dimbulb. There's a reason the right doesn't like the university--it exposes their stupidity too clearly.
@MrFarcry1966 : well, it sounds like you are attending Lawrence O'Donnell school of kool-aid. Well, it's too bad that O'Donnell school of politics don't grant degrees. I'll debate you when you finish your GED.
The only argument you have to take to a tea party rally is this fallacy that corporations - if allowed to roam free of government regulation - wouldn't find new and exciting ways to prey upon wage earning families. This silly notion that large scale corporations have ANY interest in the consumer other than getting their money, and finding better ways to reduce their overhead (aka make more money but require less people/jobs to do it).
Pretending that banks produce wealth is the biggest scam in history.
Banks just count production. Wealth is created elsewhere.
The audacity to even pretend we should believe the scam and fraud that the FED and banks should and could "LOAN" out to people money and value they NEVER produced, AND on top charge interest for it AS WELL as demanding the money back...
Old school economists like Stiglitz have no solutions and delude themselves this generation still believe the old pr (propaganda)
Old school economists were taught that there were only two options: either keynesianism: inflate the money supply, or hike interest rates to get a "sound" economy. usually both.
both of these ideas are just ignoring the fact that undemocratic private banks
Govt. is the cause of the recession, thru its worthless securities issued by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac which are facing lawsuits against them alleging "intentional violation of accounting rules" and "making false and misleading statements".
Govt. has also exasperated the problem by bailing out those same institutions with deficit spending.
Govt has allowed gains to be privatized and losses to be socialized and this clown "Stiglitz" is practically thanking the government for doing so...
joe is saying right now on cnbc that the FED IS CONFLICTED,,,disfunctional....hey joe, where were you during the alan greenspan era of insane rate cuts????
who was the psycho that gave me thumbs down for this comment?? its plain to see that economists like stiglitz wish to abolish rational economy. he recently sent a letter to european countries telling them to ramp up government spending in the face of government bankruptcy. he's just another in a long line of post-scarcity utopian philosophers who happens to have studied math so he thinks that makes him an economist. economics is at best a 3rd rate application for mathematics.
The government has our back; they protect us and provide for us. They created us, so they take care of us. A long time ago, about 234 years ago, the government got together with itself and created we the people to serve them. They even wrote a Constitution guaranteeing their rights as creators. Ever since then we have done a pretty good job of serving them, but now we have some of the created rebelling against their creators, and it must stop. Get back in your place and do as you are told!
Wheneve somebody says "balance" I call bullshit.
Visfen 2 weeks ago
stiglitz talks in terms of bubbles and of bailouts saving the economy -- when the second mortages were needed to give us a money supply since his tribesmen in fiance were not lending their interest takings to domestic production -- if there was no "bubble" there would be no money, no purchasing power, no hiring power. The bubble was our only purchasing power in the lower non-elite loop. Stiglitz knows the routines but covers for Rothschild -- a man can't be both a doctor and an assassin
oldickeastman 1 month ago
What deregulation? Removing one part of Glass-Steagall did not cause the bubble, nor did it cause it to burst.
The Fed did, and according to Stiglitz's buddy Paul Krugman, it was a good idea. He suggested it.
It was government involvement in forcing the banks into bad loans, then telling them that they would bail them out that caused the crisis.
So to say that government is essential to the solution, when it caused the mess in the first place is asking for further trouble. It can never work
mpc91 3 months ago
@mpc91 Agreed. Glass-Steagall was was a merely a poor attempt at controlling the moral hazard created by the FDIC. The govt. insurance of bank deposits removed the market regulation and banks no longer competed for the security of their investments but instead only for the rate of return. Government is famous for breaking your leg, handing you a crutch, and then saying, "look without us you wouldn't be able to walk!"
weavermama 2 months ago
@weavermama
You people have a serious problem in understanding things to the point it's dangerous to the society as a whole. When you are in a situation of crisis such as that which we underwent and to some extent still suffer from, regardless of the cause, the issue at hand is a fall in demand -- workers not working and money not being invested.
I don't care how you do it, but you need a highly coordinated effort to change the direction. What's the fastest way to do that?
KrugmanTheKing 1 month ago
@weavermama
The government is one instance you can use in specific ways and at specific times; the reason it's important is that it gives you an other word than your sole workforce to have a say on the market. Likewise, I wouldn't advise handing all powers from working unions or public associations that works on several things because it's again an intermediate ground which widens your influence.
That's a political reason to never give all power to one instance of decision.
KrugmanTheKing 1 month ago
@weavermama
Beyond that, fiscal policy and can and will work if done properly and at the right time; monetary policies may also have very beneficial effects on the economy -- look at the central bank, just North of the line: it succeeds to maintain manageable inflation.
Governmental regulations in fact do not limit your freedom, it is what can ensure your emancipation from your dependence on your employer... it can also be used to affect the economy.
KrugmanTheKing 1 month ago
Like most everything else he's every said, Stiglitz is wrong.
pretorious700 3 months ago
@pretorious700 you're wrong
markuskentwood 2 months ago
The rest of the economics profession to Stiglitz - there's a reason we don't take you seriously.
FletchforFreedom 4 months ago
@FletchforFreedom Yeah, that's why he won the Nobel prize isn't it?
hampusheh 3 months ago
@hampusheh Before making snarky comments, you might try having a leg to stand on. Even if the Nobel committee didn't have a habit of choosing darlings of the left not taken seriously in the economics profession (Gunnar Myrdal - so embarrassing that they felt compelled to choose Hayek as well, and Paul Krugman, for example), Stiglitz got a Nobel for being third wheel to two better economists studying the phenomenon of asymetrical information.
He's not taken seriously ... and for good reason.
FletchforFreedom 3 months ago
@FletchforFreedom If he's not taken seriously it's only because he doesn't tow the Milton Friedman-loving party line that you seem to ascribe to.
hampusheh 3 months ago
@hampusheh Yiu misunderstand. It's not just members of the Chicago School (of which I am not a member) that do not take him seriously, but members of the Neo-classical, Austrian, and even, to a large part, Keynesian schools as well. Parctically NO ONE in the profession takes him seriously. This is becasue he's a self proclaimes socialist (that stupidity precludes his being taken seriously by competent people, anyway), spouting obvious drivel (like in this video).
FletchforFreedom 3 months ago
@FletchforFreedom George Soros is also a socialist, and people seem to take him seriously.
hampusheh 3 months ago
@hampusheh No one with any grounding in economics is taking George Soros seriously either. That people look for leaders that tell them what they want to hear doesn't make them knowledgeable, particularly when they are so disconnected from reality.
FletchforFreedom 3 months ago
@FletchforFreedom Since when did economists become the only reality? All people look for leaders and subscribe to some form of authority, this is just human nature. You have Milton Friedman. I'm definitely not an expert on economics, nor did I ever claim to be one, but from judging from your profile I can tell that you're a libertarian. Which is the most naive philosophy in the history of philosophy. It's the marxism of the right, placing private property ABOVE more fundamental freedoms.
hampusheh 3 months ago
@hampusheh I didn't say that "economists [are] the only reality". I said "no one with any GROUNDING [understanding, grasp, clue] in economics" takes Soros seriously. Again, I disagree with Friedman on any number of subjects - just not those on the viability of the free market because history yields no other conclusion.
A socialist (advocating a system that has never worked in all of human history) calling someone else "naive" is hilarious. And, pray, which "freedoms" do you mean?
FletchforFreedom 3 months ago
@FletchforFreedom You also implied that I was "removed" from reality because I don't subscribe to your particular brand of politics. This is a clear example of an authoritarian who view opposing views as inferior rather than different. Socialism has worked fine in Europe for many decades, a libertarian society, on the other hand, has never existed. I.E. the right not to be enslaved is hard to justify under libertarianism where ownership of ones body is simply a matter of funds and economics.
hampusheh 3 months ago
@hampusheh You're being dishonest; I'm not talking politics; I'm talking economics. The correlation between the adoption of the free market and prosperity and the adoption of socialism (including European socialism) and its relative absence is enormous, those believing the long discredited myth of the "Scandinavian miracle" notwithstanding. Since there is no "right to be enslaved" and it doesn't exist in the free market, there are other grounds for criticquing your connection to reality.
FletchforFreedom 3 months ago
@FletchforFreedom Well you are talking politics since you're telling me how a society should be governed. Why am I being dishonest? I definitely believe that you are talking politics. You might say that I'm misguided, but then you'll have to account for why you think this. I don't believe in any "Scandinavian miracle" because I don't believe in miracles. But the notion that socialism has never worked is just plain wrong, since European infrastructure has existed for several decades.
hampusheh 3 months ago
@hampusheh I'm not talking politics and I have made no assertions about how anything should be governed. I have made basic factual statemenst about what has worked historically and economically. I am fully aware of the socialist infrastructure in Europe and its relative economic stagnation over the very same period. It is your assertion of its efficacy that is "just plain wromg". I have made no advocacy of libertarianism - I have maintained that the free market works - it always has.
FletchforFreedom 3 months ago
@FletchforFreedom So you mean to say that your understanding of economics is completely abstracted from any ideological thinking? I don't believe that since I know from talking to you on other videos that you're a libertarian. What exists in the U.S. now is certainly not a "free" market, you have government intrusion everywhere. So when did a completely free market exist in history?
hampusheh 3 months ago
@hampusheh That's exactly what I mean to say (your belief being irrelevant). Actually, my channel is full of economic viewpoints and some, though very little, reference to libertarianism - I'm an economist first. I didn't claim that waht exists in the US is a free market (particularly under this administration). However, it is true that the relative success of the US in comparison to other countries in the past is directly attributable to greater adoption of the free market.
FletchforFreedom 3 months ago
@FletchforFreedom Fine, I don't believe that's the case with anyone. Generally the people who maintain that they're completely unbiased and politically unmotivated are the biggest liars. If I were to quote Bertrand Russell "Not to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential things in rationality."
I freely admit that I'm biased by my activity in Swedish social institutions, I think you should admit that you're biased because you're an economist.
hampusheh 3 months ago
@hampusheh You've got to watch the straw men you keep creating. I never claimed to be without bias and I have very string opinions. There is a massive difference between approaching issues as an automaton and dealing - at least so far - only with factual data. I ahve deliverately avoided going into what my ideal society might be and have dealt only with economic conditions easily referenced.
FletchforFreedom 3 months ago
@FletchforFreedom You're not only presenting factual data though, you present it then you tint it with your own particular ideology. Which is something you've done consistently through this discussion. You postulate that the U.S. is more successful because of it's strongly free market bent, but then you agree that the U.S. doesn't even have a free market. You say that the reason for U.S' success is its capitalism, then how would you explain communist China's growing economy?
hampusheh 3 months ago
@FletchforFreedom You're not only presenting factual data though, you present it then you tint it with your own particular ideology. Which is something you've done consistently through this discussion. You postulate that the U.S. is more successful because of it's strongly free market bent, but then you agree that the U.S. doesn't even have a free market. You say that the reason for U.S' success is its capitalism, then how would you explain communist China's growing economy?
hampusheh 3 months ago
@hampusheh That's eay. China's abandonment of capitalism resulted in them having one of the lowest living standards on the planet (not to mention starving a huge percentage of their population). Subsequent to the 1970s when the country began opening up and allowed more and more capitalist activities to take place, their growth has ballooned due to that adoption and the relatively low starting point they had. And i have always maintained US success was due to RELATIVELY greater capitalism.
FletchforFreedom 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hampusheh That's eay. China's abandonment of capitalism resulted in them having one of the lowest living standards on the planet (not to mention starving a huge percentage of their population). Subsequent to the 1970s when the country began opening up and allowed more and more capitalist activities to take place, their growth has ballooned due to that adoption and the relatively low starting point they had. And i have always maintained US success was due to RELATIVELY greater capitalism.
FletchforFreedom 3 months ago
@hampusheh That's eay. China's abandonment of capitalism resulted in them having one of the lowest living standards on the planet (not to mention starving a huge percentage of their population). Subsequent to the 1970s when the country began opening up and allowed more and more capitalist activities to take place, their growth has ballooned due to that adoption and the relatively low starting point they had. And i have always maintained US success was due to RELATIVELY greater capitalism.
FletchforFreedom 3 months ago
@hampusheh Further, you wish to impose a completely bogus standard. All economies are hybrid economies containing elements of both capitalism (the free market) and socialism. That there is no example of a pure free market any more than there has been an example of pure socialism is irrelevant. Performance can be evaluated on the basis of whether an economy is more capitalist or socialist - and the greater adoption of capitalism is the overwhelming winner. It's not even close.
FletchforFreedom 3 months ago
@FletchforFreedom Well then it isn't a bogus standard. If your contention is that what is required is a mixture of socialism and the free market then I fully agree. Performance is highly subjective as well, what do you mean by performance? If all you mean by performance is how wealthy the wealthiest people is, then sure, U.S. is doing pretty good.
hampusheh 3 months ago
@hampusheh Not at all. I have argued that, demonstrably, to the extent that a society is capitalistic, it has worked and to the extent that it is socialistic, it has not. Objective standards would be economic measures of well being but I would go a step further (and this is opinion) - I would argue that the best system is the one that does the best job of living the living standards for the greatest number of people, particularly the poor - again, capitalism wins hands down.
FletchforFreedom 3 months ago
@FletchforFreedom The best SYSTEM is the one that is "living the living standards", what does that mean? All you've demonstrated is that historical evidence shows a mixture of socialism and capitalism. Where you go from there is completely ideological. Your postulation that capitalism is the sole producer of good living standards for all, just hasn't got any historical precedent.
hampusheh 3 months ago
@hampusheh Typo: "Giving the living standards". The greater the adoption of capitalism, the greater success and the greater adoption of socialism, the LESS success. The correlation is nearly perfect. As the division of labor, the application of prices and the less restricted flow of capital are responsible for technological advancement, complex machines and, demonstrably, since the begining of the Industrial Revolution, higher living standards, history's entirely on my side.
FletchforFreedom 3 months ago
@FletchforFreedom No history isn't entirely on your side. Especially when it comes to such things as civil rights, slavery and etc. These are all things secured by the government, not private business, which would happily exploit people for a few more dollars. Your world view is so simplistic that it could make a better man than me cry.
hampusheh 3 months ago
@hampusheh I haven't spoken about civil rights or slavery (a state maintained institution). I've been talking economic history. Still, your position is completely wrong. State laws made people sit in the back of the bus - they would not have been necessary unless businesses were willing to see nothing but green. And, in fact, because that's the case, the disparity between black and white wages in the US declined steadily UNTIL the governmnet intervened. So the facts are STILL against you.
FletchforFreedom 3 months ago
@FletchforFreedom Can you stop talking about economics as if it's a completely disparate entity of society? Like it's something abstract and not related to anything but raw numbers. My biggest problem with you are just like a communist, but on the right side, you look at history and extract simplistic answers to your particular philosophy. You scoff at socialism because the Cato institute tells you to, oblivious to any other thinking than your narrow, economical box.
hampusheh 3 months ago
@hampusheh Enugh with the bogus straw mwn. I never argued thart economics is separate from society (it's an integral part). That is entirely different from maintaining that much of it is objective (which is certainly true and I have been arguing entirely within those bounds). I scoff at socialism because the evidence of economic history is unimpeachable that socialism in literally every one of its forms has been an economic failure, Cato had nothing to do with it - simple research.
FletchforFreedom 3 months ago
@FletchforFreedom You talk about it like it doesn't affect the rest of society though. Like this discussion only encompasses economics, which it doesn't, it's clearly ideologically tinged by both you and me. Yeah, I'm sure the Cato institute (a LIBERTARIAN think-tank) didn't have a conformation bias.
hampusheh 3 months ago
@hampusheh Look up the phrase "straw man arguments", look in a mirror, make the connection. I cited specifics, more than one study (not all of which appeared in the Cato article) and you have presented...
...nothing, while instead focusing undue (and ad hominem) attention to Cato as a reference for finding reference to SOME of the studies and referencing debunked notions (such as exploitation).
Do you have any valid points to make?
Seriously.
FletchforFreedom 3 months ago
@FletchforFreedom I am curious about your argument about state imposing slavery or segregation. I would agree that laws are implemented by the State and hence the State is responsible for unequal citizen rights, however in a democracy the State does what the people want it to do. Our Bill of Rights "always" proclaimed equality but it was never interpreted in that manner until the Civil Rights Act of 1964. If you leave it to the people, the majority will continue to oppress the minority.
Franky4fingers78 2 weeks ago
@Franky4fingers78 No law is necessary to prevent people from doing what they otherwise would not. Absent state enforcement, neither slavery nor segregation can survive because a minority, no matter how small can undermine the institution (as happened with free and slave states). The problem with democracy you describe is very real but does not change the dynamic. Neither slavery nor segregation can continue societally absent enforcement.
FletchforFreedom 2 weeks ago
@FletchforFreedom "State laws made people sit in the back of the bus" - The idea of segregation was based on the concept of "Separate but equal". The argument for this position was based on acceptance that there was racism among the people and hence segregation was required to protect minorities from whites. It is quite naive of you if you think people follow equality laws because its the right thing to do. Society made them do it so now they accept it and follow it as norm.
Franky4fingers78 2 weeks ago
@Franky4fingers78 Segregation LONG preceded the concept of "separate but equal" and, again, if no one would otherwise desegregate the busses, no law would be required or implemented. The concept was no "acceoptance" of the existence of racism because the ruling did not address that point. It rested solely on the Constitutional question of whether rights were violated. The naivete is your own. Racists harm themselves economically allowing non-racists to be more prosperous and out-compete.
FletchforFreedom 2 weeks ago
@FletchforFreedom I'm also curious about disparity between black and white wages claim. Can you explain what you mean by that and post some figures supporting your claim?
Franky4fingers78 2 weeks ago
@Franky4fingers78 A simple Google search should suffice. According to US Census Bureau figures, the long and steady decrease in the gap between the wages of balck and white workers is unequivocal in the data ... until the passage of Johnson's Not-so-"Great-Society". Thomas Sowell has pointed this out many times as have Williams, Wortham (sp?), and a number of other respected economists (unlike the one in the video) and historians.
FletchforFreedom 2 weeks ago
@FletchforFreedom What are those grounds then? You're the one talking about a theoretical society where the free-market principles is supposed to be applied to all branches of society, and such a society has never existed.
hampusheh 3 months ago
Incidently, the idea that Bush "deregulated" anything is bullshit. He increased regulation, not decreased it. The Reason Foundation did the analysis I believe. This is just boring cliche spouting... He might as well say "Bush lied, people died."
darwinkilledgod 5 months ago
2:00-2:11 OMFG!!!!. Government is actually what forced these banks to make bad loans via regulations to individuals whom otherwise had no savings or source of income to buy a house. Govt did not save this country from nothing. Worse still Govt should not bail no business, especially banks. What good is it when banks produce o real wealth in terms of real goods and services. These Keynesian economist are so full of hot air.
Aeros802 6 months ago
@Aeros802
How did the government force banks to make bad loans? There are no regulations that say that.
GnomesAmok 5 months ago
@GnomesAmok The Community Reinvestment Act under Carter and then Clinton did most of the damage. In short, the regulators wouldn't give banks permits if they were thought to be engaging in "discriminatory" practices which basically means they have to give loans to poor people who can't pay them back.
This is what Clinton meant when he said he was going to make "affordable housing."
darwinkilledgod 5 months ago
@darwinkilledgod
Actually, none of what you said forces banks to do anything.
GnomesAmok 5 months ago
@darwinkilledgod Not true at all. CRA loans performed very well. The CRA also did not affect the lending institutions that were not back by the FDIC. Do your research.
beretboy22 5 months ago
@beretboy22 If you think the government's active attempt to put people in homes they couldn't afford didn't cause the housing bubble...well, then I guess that's what you believe. But the one person who loudly saw this coming (Peter Schiff) says the opposite. He knew there was a bubble burst on its way. Stiglitz didn't.
And whether the loans were backed or not is not always written down, i.e. they were actually bailed out.
darwinkilledgod 5 months ago
@darwinkilledgod To be fair, the CRA, while not without impact, was not the main driver - rather the Fed fueled the bubble by dumping liquidity on the market (distorting risk signals) and Fannie and Freddie created an artificial market which, coupled with chnages in tax policy, ensured that the bubble would manifest itself primarily in housing.
You are absolutely correct that "deregulation" had nothing whatsoever to do with the crisis. That nonsense has been long debunked.
FletchforFreedom 4 months ago
Wow, a puffed up economist arguing that placing all money exchange and lending practices under control of selfless altruistic individuals, like himself I'm sure he would think but not say.
This isn't new, but it should be pointed out that this is an argument for allowing the referee to play the game and make the rules.
Choosing Elite individuals to call shots for everyone insted of allowing individuals to test ideas that work for them, is what leads to blunders like our economic situation now.
NAdducci09 6 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Lol how retarded is this guy
?
BrettDunbar 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BrettDunbar What was your Nobel prize in economics for?
bindlessMoredom 7 months ago
Obama, the Democrats, Fannie May and Freddie Mac, and massive government regulation got us INTO this depression. To try and prescribe the very cause of the disaster as the solution is just plain insane.
tehant1liberal 7 months ago
@tehant1liberal
you have to throw in Bush's name too because it all started on his watch. he was the first to give out $700bil
TheCashForGoldStore 7 months ago
@tehant1liberal. First of all the problems started in 1999, way before Obama and democrats got power.(R's had both houses from 1995 until 2007.) "letting the free market regulate themselves" is what led to the huge housing bubble and the quadrillion $ in derivatives. Fannie and Freddie were less than 17% of the subprime market.. Almost all the issues were caused by Private mortgage companies and banks not regulated by the CRA. Facts are stubborn things, learn some and stop being ignorant
lisabob22 7 months ago 2
With all these "great economist" I wonder how bad it would have been without them. Economist = useless parasite windbag.
mba2ceo 8 months ago
At least I'll concede someone is mismanaging the economy.
Is this guy some sort of parody?
TheAlaric89 8 months ago
Another stooge of the Elites ? Bailout = Legalized stealing !!!!
mba2ceo 8 months ago
@mba2ceo another moron with no idea what is going and no argument. Im sure you know more then one of the greatest economist of our time. I find it funny people in america think and enjoy the idea that they are smarter then the so called "elites" You know why you called him an elite, because he is and you are not. Elite means better, above average, top of the class, why do you morons insist on using it as a pejorative?
Not to say he isnt wrong, but we should give him some respect.
thesparitan 8 months ago
@thesparitan elites are connected that is all. Fools are delusional that society is merit based.
mba2ceo 8 months ago
@thesparitan in anything but sports americans was let to believe that 'elites' are bad. It's because educated people are harder to control, so those in power want to keep the masses uninformed.
tristbjorn 8 months ago
George H.W. Bush derided Reagan's Deregulation and supply-side policies or Reaganomics/Trickle Down Economy as "voodoo economics". When Ronald Reagan was elected, the supply-siders got a chance to try out their ideas. Unfortunately, they failed. Although supply-side economics more successful than monetarism, but left the economy in ruins.
VictorAvera 9 months ago 2
@VictorAvera "Although supply-side economics more successful than monetarism, but left the economy in ruins." lol wut? I'm going to take what you have to say very seriously, you seem like a smart fellow.
DynamicUnreality 8 months ago
However, as govt continues to suck away scarce resources from the productive economy, there is inevitably less funding for research- but it aint the fault of the market. its obviously the parasitic govt which is wasting the precious resources & capital
Govt is not productive- it is DESTRUCTIVE! look at the basis for govt. It is based solely on the initiation of brute force. It is a monopoly on force & coercion. Yet u are saying that somehow force & coercion can produce real goods & services?
swu880 9 months ago
@swu880
/watch?v=TnsLFVGOU4Y
swu880 9 months ago
Only when the voluntary interactions of people is allowed to happen, can any real wealth be created. It is highly fallacious & misleading to make the statement that ONLY govt can fund research- or even 'practical' research. lolol
Stiglitz needs to get his history right. Historically & presently most research is done through the voluntary private sector. MOST USEFUL RESEARCH exists in the voluntary private sector.
swu880 9 months ago
lol- stiglitz has no sense of history
Go look at ur new deal u bozo. The govt was the sole cause behind the 1929 depression and prolonging it for decades
Wrong! sure govt may have 'funded internet research' but so what? its like sayin, o the govt buys up a ton of fighter jets- but who the hell can use it? its not the common man who has access to it.
swu880 9 months ago
No doubt the bailouts avoided a much deeper recession but one should ask how we got there.
redarrowhead2 9 months ago
Government intervention in the 1930's was too little. All economists agree that it was the massive government intervention of WW II that ended the Great Depression.1919 market dip was way before the giant international market bubble existed of 1928-1929 created by the gold exchange standard - see "Monetary Sin of the West" by French economist Jacques Rueff.
machinehead61 10 months ago
@machinehead61
The guy you mentioned sounds interesting, I will have to read more about him...I just read a brief summary on him.
Government intervention and the Fed's manipulation is what trigged and prolonged the Great Depression though. No two people have studied the Great Depression in all its entirety more than Milton Frideman and Murray Rothbard. Everyone should read Rothbards book on it if they think Hoover let the "free market" work.
rmccay88 9 months ago
@rmccay88
Also they should read Milton Friedmans books
unfad1ng 9 months ago
@unfad1ng
Yep couldn't agree more. I will admit, even some of their work is over my pay grade by how specific they get into talking about things. But the main thing is to have a good premise of what they are saying so you can spread the word to others.
rmccay88 9 months ago
@rmccay88
Im reading them now ;)
unfad1ng 9 months ago
Intervention prologned the depression. There was a dip in the stock market in 1919 that was larger as a percentage than the dip in 1929, yet nobody ever hears about it because there was no gov't to "help" fix the problem.
NotRyanFaulk 10 months ago
@NotRyanFaulk I would say that Americans didn't suffer as much from the 1919 dip because America was in the best position of all countries in the world at that time. The US had most of the world's gold reserves and was still squeezing out dept from post-war Europe. Also, there was serious change in the automobile and communications industries that helped growth. The US simply absorbed the crash and business went on as usual. Intervention prolonged the depression but the fed did the same thing.
redarrowhead2 9 months ago
THE ON GOING BANKING FRAUDS
The banks have used fraud and corruption and driven down the markets and fiddled the markets. The wealth of the common man has been given to the banks and the people blamed whilst the banks and the global elite gain world assets by these frauds. Politicians have been bought off and work within the banking buddy system. The media is complicit and part of the corrupt process as is the legal system not honouring their covenants. jsf 18 3 2011
hotsatsuma2 10 months ago
The government is the number #1 reason why we are in this shit you communist cunts. spending money we dont have, coming up with reasons to tax you, and take waway freedoms. if you look at a bokk and the American revolution you will see how familiar all this shit is. but people like to watch Bias Media for info and not do their own research
4everUSNavy 10 months ago
If the gov't was to be the sole issuer of money, like the constitution stipulate, the economy would be much more stable. Since that is not going to happen, Americans should turn to Credit Unions and remove all their money from International Banks.
Ideally, the US would nationalize the Federal Reserve, audit their books, recover any misappropriated funds, throw those who misappropriated the funds into jail for treason, & absolve people from paying any interest on constitutionally illegal loan.
leddsaliva 11 months ago
@leddsaliva Explain please.
macduggles 10 months ago
@macduggles Check out the The Secret of Oz ( youtube.com/watch?v=7qIhDdST27g ) and also this vid on exponential growth: youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY
As for the Fed, it is not a gov't agency...it is a privately held corporation which loans money, at interest, to the gov't. Watch Ron Paul for a great take on the Fed: youtube.com/watch?v=ji_G0MqAqq8 or youtube.com/watch?v=xts5rEOi6p0 or any Ron Paul video.
leddsaliva 10 months ago
A democratic gov't regulation is fine, so long as the people stay active in the democratic process throughout the term of election.
One of the root problems is with a non-gov't fractional reserve banking system which allows a small group of individuals to create money out of thin air and loan it, at interest, to the people. Over time, the interest on the debt turns exponential, forcing the economy to focus on "growth" just to keep up with interest payments.
leddsaliva 11 months ago
To those commentators who are against government regulation of parts of the economy, would you say that the government should have no regulations regarding food or drug production? Just trust the companies to be good and have the general interest be number one? Many/most have only interest of bottom line. In regards to effectiveness, Glass/Steigle act was pretty effective, if it wasn't repealed we wouldn't be in this mess. I'd trust elected government over plutocratic shareholders any day.
drtompat 11 months ago
"If you don't do the basic research, the private sector has nothing to bring to market"... examplified with the internet... that's just a lame comment. Xerox Parc invented Ethernet - which is absolutely essential for the "internet", and any modern computer networking. Also, Xerox Parc invented the graphical user interface, later copied by Apple. No, Stiglitz, you are wrong. Yes, the private sector will bring public research to the market, but public research is not essential to the private secto
jjenkov 11 months ago
There is no way even Joseph Stiglitz would be able to prove his thesis, that the state needs to disciplin the market. It's speculation at best. No one can predict, nor control the market. At most, influence it a little bit, but without guarantee that it's for the better.
jjenkov 11 months ago
A country run on a set of rules written by a bunch of guys wearing wigs and puffy shirts hundreds of years ago. Tea Party away evil empire.
derberg19486 11 months ago
The American economy experienced the Great Depression after the Federal Reserve was adopted. European-style, centralized, fractional-reserve banking should be abolished.
order9066 1 year ago
@order9066 There are alot of issues with the fed. If destroying the fed and replacing it with a more accountable democratic central banking system then that would be perfect. But if you think we dont need any regulated banking system then you are making a massive mistake. and further more you will never see that happen because to many forces are against such a stupid move. Liberals, capitalist, socialist like me and even many libertarians know we need a fed of some kind
thesparitan 1 year ago
@thesparitan : I don't think you understand the main issues behind the anti-Fed voices. The key idea is that no one or group of regulators have all the knowledge necessary to *plan* complex economy - they just pretend to know what they are doing. We often call this "pretense of knowledge". Whether it's democratic or even accountable doesn't really matter, it's simply a bad idea to rely on one or two individuals to make the "right" decisions all the time, especially when so much economic,
tooltalk 1 year ago
Comment removed
tooltalk 1 year ago
@thesparitan : political power is concentrated in one single institution.
Likewise, it is precisely this division of power between a few elites and everyone else that many libertarians are against. You lefties think "everyone else" is too stupid / greedy and they need to be *regulated*. Ironically, you also believe ur benevolent elites, somehow immune from such human fallacies, with PhDs from HYP can best plan economy.
And no you don't necessarily want a democratic central bank - u don't
tooltalk 1 year ago
@thesparitan : want your central banks to make monetary policies based on political needs of the day. In another word, this is catch-22. A lot of critics have thought through this. Friedman for instance didn't trust the Fed to be political independent nor incompetent enough to maintain a stable economy (he wasn't too crazy about gold either) - he instead proposed to replace the Fed with a computer than maintains a steady rate of MS growth (4-5% per year).
tooltalk 1 year ago
He could not be more incorrect. I wrote my dissertation in college on the depression. I cannot post the entire thing obviously, but this guy is a fool. I don't know who is? But he is dumbest guy I've ever heard. He is NOT an economist for sure. Milton Friedman has the proper assessment of the depression on here. He has a Nobel Prize in economics. So if you're interested, look it up. This guy is a buffoon
SuperGuitarman69 1 year ago
@SuperGuitarman69
You're either a lying sack of shite, or you're a guy with a Ph D in economics who couldn't hack it in that field (probably got the degree from some worthless Bible college in the South) and now works as a "professional studio musician." Making popcorn money, undoubtedly. Another rightwing loser trying to pretend to be educated. The universities bring hard reality to bear on the rightwing morons--this is why so many of them couldn't even get a BA (Flush, Beck, Hannity)
MrFarcry1966 1 year ago
@MrFarcry1966 No my degree was from Wash U. and you do not want to debate me. Beyond just qualifications. You are a drone. You repeat things you here. A parrot. I actually had to do hard research in economics. And in college many of the professors are professors because government and school is all they know. Not only do I have a degree I have owned 3 businesses, 2 currently in operation. You attacked Hannity Beck etc? That shows you are mentally unequipped to hold conversation. You are a drone
SuperGuitarman69 1 year ago
@SuperGuitarman69
You're right about one thing--I have no interest in 'debating' you, just as I have no interest in 'debating' a monkey. Can't be done. "Professional studio musician," I repeat. You must be a bang up economist, bro.
And did you not learn the difference between "hear" and "here" in your suckass program? "Hard research in economics," my ass. You don't even know BASIC ENGLISH.
MrFarcry1966 1 year ago
@MrFarcry1966 I chose it because I was good at it and I make about twice the money than I would if I were a teacher, worked for a corporation or government. You keep thinking the way you are. It has served us well hasn't it? The last 100 years has been the destruction of the country due to knowledgeable economist graduates pursuing other interests. Tons of them. Leaving in the hands of buffoons. I thought there were more Milton Friedmans out there. I was dead wrong. Only schmucks like this.
SuperGuitarman69 1 year ago
@SuperGuitarman69
The only thing rightwing "economists" are good at is devising criminal and immoral ways to fill their pockets up with filthy lucre. I can just imagine the rubbish music you must be involved in producing. Your boy Friedman was a glorified con man and a suck up to mass murderers. Says much about you that this disgusting old misanthrope is your hero.
MrFarcry1966 1 year ago
@MrFarcry1966 Rightwing economists? How uninformed are you. There is no such thing.
SuperGuitarman69 1 year ago
@MrFarcry1966 that has not the capacity to reason. Attacks on political pundits means you have no credibility. Olbermann and who is those others? Maddow, Mathews? You actually listen to them with no research? No clue beyond what any of them Beck, Hannity, Maddows, Mathews tell you on TV? Truly pathetic. This is why our country is in this condition. No one knows anything anymore. They debate pundits instead of learning history and facts. Please. Give me a break.
SuperGuitarman69 1 year ago
@SuperGuitarman69 LOL yeah he is a buffoon. Stiglitz is only the most respected economist alive and you are a mindless ideologue. And I dont care if you have a degree or not, arguments from authority dont impress me. I have seen you on here before and you are so entrenched in your beliefs that you can no longer even empathize with the other side. Its not as common as I have thought but you are a perfect case of someone without the ability for rational thought.
thesparitan 1 year ago
@thesparitan Empathize with the other side? That is the very nature of economics. Economics are based on facts. Not politics. When you have politics infused in macro formula it is NOT economics. And the most respected? Hardly. He and his views are bought and paid for. It is the only way he could get where he is. He was more than likely a D student in school. Which isn't always the measure of someones ability that is true. But stating things that simply are not true by measure is the smoking gun.
SuperGuitarman69 1 year ago
@SuperGuitarman69 "That is the very nature of economics. Economics are based on facts. Not politics."
You say u have an education yet you make a comment as ignorant as this. Politics directly effects economics, that is one of the reasons its called a soft science. Economics is more like psychology, not physics. At best economics can only tell you what might happen if you take an action. Politics are the most important part of economics. Have you even study this?
thesparitan 1 year ago
@thesparitan There are measurable effects in macro thought. We can examine the effects of systems an come to scientific conclusions. It is not psychology. We know for a fact that Keynesian economics do not work. We have had 100 years to study these effects. Those that still cling to it are being paid to cling by the political fabric that it is woven into. You are arguing with someone who had to do a dissertation on the effects of the depression. I doubt you are at that level. Not a slam a fact.
SuperGuitarman69 1 year ago
Markets don't and can't do basic research? Light bulb? Engines? Airplanes?... etc etc What a joke
ctwiley 1 year ago
Iceland and Ireland have a form of Universal Healthcare. This is a good thing.
.
Someideasandstuff 1 year ago
@Someideasandstuff It bankrupted Ireland. No it is NOT a good thing. In my state we had Tenncare. A healthcare program here. Which ran us in to historic state deficits. Before you go saying that something is great perhaps you should look at historical results before making the observation. Of course if you are not Independent/conservative/Libertarian and are a leftist don't bother. Facts and history matter not to the leftist.
SuperGuitarman69 1 year ago
Iceland didn't go bust because of their UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE SYSTEM, but because they degeulated the banks in 2001 which allowed the banks to upload huge debts that they couldn't refinance.
.
We know 2 things. THEIR SYSTEM OF UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE DIDN'T CAUSE THEIR CRISIS and that both governments were irresponsible in numerous ways.
.
So we can agree on this. Governements and their "FEDs" alike need to be held accountable/reposnsible for their policies.
.
Someideasandstuff 1 year ago
Taxing the rich is also a necessity if we are going to fund universal healthcare in the future. I think some of those funds should also be used to provide more equal access to university education(more grants instead of loans).
.
Someideasandstuff 1 year ago
1950-1970 has been referred to as the "golden years" in the US. The middle class was thriving.
.
Someideasandstuff 1 year ago
@Someideasandstuff : The 50's, especially under Eisenhower's administration, is generally known to be the most economically prosperous decade in American economic history. The federal gov't under Eisenhower progressively cut federal spending and reduced deficit. Much of this changed after JFK and, especially LBJ - the 60's marked the beginning of the long decline. Much of the blame goes to LBJ's liberal welfare/warfare policies that led to high inflation and macroeconomic instability of the 70s.
tooltalk 1 year ago
@tooltalk what's really interesting about the properous 50's is that the top tax bracket was never below 80%.
.
Someideasandstuff 1 year ago
@Someideasandstuff : Why do you think it's interesting?
No, in those days, most of the tax dollars went to maintaining the huge post-WW2 armed forces all over the world - not too surprising considering that there were still millions of US troops stationed in Europe and Asia. In fact, military spending accounted for some 70% of all federal budget; the interest payment on the WW2 bonds was the single largest non-defense item in federal expenditure (at 15%). The domestic welfare, ss, housing,
tooltalk 1 year ago
@tooltalk higher tax rates on the rich help stablize the economy by decreasing speculation, while at the same time decreasing the wealth gap. To see more info regarding some of the problems created by the wealth gap, google "equality trust" - there will be a link that says "evidence" - on the web page there are various categories on the right hand side of the page.
.
Someideasandstuff 1 year ago
Comment removed
tooltalk 1 year ago
Comment removed
tooltalk 1 year ago
@Someideasandstuff : eh? It seems pretty clear that you talk a lot of bullshit (eg, the 50's) that you can't support or articulate yourself. The website you cited does nothing to improve your image. How about doing some actual research and back up your claims with historical, economical *facts*? And, no, citing dubious stats based on failed ideas from the 60's and 70's, as "the equality trust" does, doesn't. Otherwise, please don't bother responding.
tooltalk 1 year ago
@tooltalk what are u talking about? Epistomologists comparing data, US and European. You're a fool who doesn't understand the bigger picture and you post the same "free market will fix everything" horesshit.
.
To disprove your entire "welfare" thesis just look at the recent data. Ireland went bust, NOT BECAUSE OF THEIR UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE SYSTEM, but because their "fed" kept interest rates too low. Iceland didn't go but because of their AFFORDABLE UNIVERSITY AND UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE, they
Someideasandstuff 1 year ago
@Someideasandstuff : throwing a big word, eh? epitomology my ass. the big picture? Dude, you don't even have the basic knowledge of history, economics or even politics to see what's right under your nose. You are, like most liberals, so conceited & delusional that you don't understand the extend of your ignorance.
And no, honey, nobody is claiming free-market is an over-night panacea. Free-market has already freed so many from hunger and economic misery created by the lefties misguided
tooltalk 1 year ago
@Someideasandstuff : accounted for less than 5%, despite some misleading claim that Eisenhower greatly expanded social welfare programs (he believed that eliminating FDR-era programs was politically suicidal). Eisenhower, a well-known fiscal conservative and deficit hawk, was often criticized by his political opponents, liberal democrats and economists, for cutting back on defense. Many warned that the economy would relapse into economic depression without the gov't spending. Even lesser
tooltalk 1 year ago
@Someideasandstuff : hawkish democrats often voted to spend more on military b/c of perceived economic benefits to their constituents. It is against this political backdrop that Eisenhower gave his famous farewell address, aka, military-industrial-[congress]-complex.
Now, I think it's pretty silly to claim that the war-time taxes and large gov't spending somehow attributed to the 50's economic prosperity. Unfortunately, LBJ used this flawed logic to push his war on communism and poverty -
tooltalk 1 year ago
@Someideasandstuff : - as today's modern liberals / socialists do today - and we all know what happened to the 60's and 70's as a result of liberal policies of welfare / warfare. Unfortunately, high taxes & large gov't spending did not benefit Americans or their economies contrary to liberals claim's.
In fact, much of the macroeconomic instability last centuries were not caused by speculators, but by gov't fiscal / monetary policies, be it Ben Strong's easy credit policy in late 1920's that
tooltalk 1 year ago
@Someideasandstuff : ultimately led to the Great Depression (compounded by the Fed's incompetence), or liberals' welfare (income-distribution policies) and warfare policies of the 70's. P. Volcker in early 80's ended that streak by artificially creating a recession (by raising short-term interest rates to some 20%).
tooltalk 1 year ago
How does he sit there and say "the government has been reckless in the economy" then say a few moments later the solution is for the government to not be reckless in the economy? And everyone just sits there silently nodding as if they are even listening to what he is actually saying and not just looking for someone to justify their personal beliefs with some kind of half thought out economic theory. ECONOMICS IS NOT A SCIENCE PEOPLE!!!
jimberkt 1 year ago
@jimberkt Because, if you look at our past, you'll see a period of RESPONSIBLE REGULATION. This hasn't been true for years but you don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
.
CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM is what needs to be addressed. Unless corporate influence is substantially dealt with, the problems won't be close to solved.
.
Someideasandstuff 1 year ago
@Someideasandstuff when was this period of responsible regulation? 1776? Anywhere you have central banks you will have reckless monetary policy which is the enabler of reckless finance including war. How do you deal with corporate influence other than by reducing the size of government? Hope that incorruptible angels go up for election? Its not about who finances their campaign its about who they listen to. If an "expert" tells them to do something they'll do it, whatever their intentions.
jimberkt 1 year ago
@jimberkt From 1950 to 1970, the regulation was much more responsible than today. And you clearly don't understand politics. You said "it's not about who finances their campaigns, it's about who they listen to". These are generally ONE IN THE SAME.
.
Someideasandstuff 1 year ago
@Someideasandstuff more responsible than today of course but when regulation requires banks to give sub prime mortgages that is a pretty empty statement.
My point was that in your utopian society where campaign finances were pure as snow it becomes about who they listen to. I constantly hear from conservatives and liberals alike (this is in europe mind you) that we cant do this or that because it might harm business. Sustaining the wealthy has priority over justice and liberty in all democracies
jimberkt 1 year ago
@jimberkt Capitalism, with or without government, will ALWAYS LEAD TO THE CONCENTRATION OF WEALTH. So the question will remain, how do we manage Capitalism in a way that is conducive to healthier societies. And the answer will always be a mixture of Captialism and Socialism.
.
Someideasandstuff 1 year ago
Let him debate an austrian economist.
kjakobsen 1 year ago
I'm going to go get my doctorate in economics and then put out youtube videos of shit economic theory and see how many people buy it. I'm guessing at least 103 will. "Well he has a doctorate!!!"
tivla 1 year ago
Hell with this. Time for some Spankwire.
pitbullexpress 1 year ago
The Government saved the Country from Depression by Bailing out the Banks(ters).
And they chuckle at the Tea Paritiers for being angry at both.
Missing the point entirely. Of course they are pissed off!
They ARE what Stiglitz is really refering to when he says the "Government" in as much as it was their TAX DOLLARS that were used to bailout the Banksters and "save" the Country!
THEY saved it. They EARNED their right to be pissed off!
And yet, here they are chuckling.
pitbullexpress 1 year ago
The bail out was B.S. funded by newly printed money that was offset with more debt. Business knew exactly what was going on that it would do nothing except dilute the money.... so we just raised our prices to offset the new money. Govt made a nice hole in the water with their intervention.
tsafa1 1 year ago
Your book is an attempt to promote a warped school of thought while enriching yourself with another rambling, nonsensicle, blurb of shit.
sysopkc 1 year ago
Stiglitz (and Krugman) is my contrarian indicator. Take for instance, his bold prediction that US would be in another dip in the second half of 2010 (we are not) a while back. Well, at least these Keynesian crackpots are consistent (ie, consistently wrong).
tooltalk 1 year ago
@tooltalk
They've been right on far more than any of the rightwing supply siders.
MrFarcry1966 1 year ago
@MrFarcry1966 : eh? he's been right on what? Was he also right about the war bringing down the economy (while pretty much ignoring the whole housing crisis Krugman / Stiglitz were promoting in early 2000's)?
It's rather sad that we are still stuck in a system where these Keynesian crackpots dominate the academia (and gov't) and produce apologists to intellectualize and cover-up gov't big f-ups.
tooltalk 1 year ago
@MrFarcry1966
There is a reason there are few supply siders in academia--academia, unlike the political world, functions according to accuracy and truth. The rightwingers are so laughably wrong, and the data so clearly demonstrate that fact, that they'll never be able to have much of a presence in the academy until Sarah Palin is elected and starts picking econ faculty at colleges herself.
MrFarcry1966 1 year ago
@MrFarcry1966 : you sir are a moron for using economics in academia and "accuracy" in the same sentence.
tooltalk 1 year ago
@tooltalk
Spoken like one more illiterate teabag dipshit who couldn't get through college. Just like your boys Glenn Beck, Hannity, and Flush Dimbulb. There's a reason the right doesn't like the university--it exposes their stupidity too clearly.
MrFarcry1966 1 year ago
@MrFarcry1966 : well, it sounds like you are attending Lawrence O'Donnell school of kool-aid. Well, it's too bad that O'Donnell school of politics don't grant degrees. I'll debate you when you finish your GED.
tooltalk 1 year ago
The US economy will collapse. The only question is when.
underthebox 1 year ago
complete waste of 4 minutes from a flawed, naive ideologue.
AIPAC should have invited him to the private party to fill him in.
jag10 1 year ago
The only argument you have to take to a tea party rally is this fallacy that corporations - if allowed to roam free of government regulation - wouldn't find new and exciting ways to prey upon wage earning families. This silly notion that large scale corporations have ANY interest in the consumer other than getting their money, and finding better ways to reduce their overhead (aka make more money but require less people/jobs to do it).
scbluesman13 1 year ago
I hate to tell this fool, but we are in a deep, deep recession. AKA a depression.
tomperanteau 1 year ago
Pretending that banks produce wealth is the biggest scam in history.
Banks just count production. Wealth is created elsewhere.
The audacity to even pretend we should believe the scam and fraud that the FED and banks should and could "LOAN" out to people money and value they NEVER produced, AND on top charge interest for it AS WELL as demanding the money back...
Old school economists like Stiglitz have no solutions and delude themselves this generation still believe the old pr (propaganda)
gunthaarz 1 year ago 2
Old school economists were taught that there were only two options: either keynesianism: inflate the money supply, or hike interest rates to get a "sound" economy. usually both.
both of these ideas are just ignoring the fact that undemocratic private banks
gunthaarz 1 year ago
Govt. is the cause of the recession, thru its worthless securities issued by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac which are facing lawsuits against them alleging "intentional violation of accounting rules" and "making false and misleading statements".
Govt. has also exasperated the problem by bailing out those same institutions with deficit spending.
Govt has allowed gains to be privatized and losses to be socialized and this clown "Stiglitz" is practically thanking the government for doing so...
rllang01 1 year ago 3
joe is saying right now on cnbc that the FED IS CONFLICTED,,,disfunctional....hey joe, where were you during the alan greenspan era of insane rate cuts????
ERROLCUSTERFLYNN4EVR 1 year ago
I am not dissmissing anything this man is saying, but I fear greatly that the day of reconing was merely postponed
davfritz 1 year ago 6
This comment has received too many negative votes show
stieglitz is a very intelligent man - the complete anti-palin, very nice.
Ronsn0815 1 year ago
haha, he's actually anti-economics. palin does not represent economics, she is a GOP candidate.
oiuoiu988 1 year ago
who was the psycho that gave me thumbs down for this comment?? its plain to see that economists like stiglitz wish to abolish rational economy. he recently sent a letter to european countries telling them to ramp up government spending in the face of government bankruptcy. he's just another in a long line of post-scarcity utopian philosophers who happens to have studied math so he thinks that makes him an economist. economics is at best a 3rd rate application for mathematics.
oiuoiu988 1 year ago
government postponed the depression. it will be much worse when they finish with their thefts and tricks. we are so fucked!
MrRontree 1 year ago 6
Banks would never be able to do what they did if it wasn't for the helping hand of big government.
mindwarrior7 1 year ago 21
Comment removed
daanlans 1 year ago
Comment removed
daanlans 1 year ago
The government has our back; they protect us and provide for us. They created us, so they take care of us. A long time ago, about 234 years ago, the government got together with itself and created we the people to serve them. They even wrote a Constitution guaranteeing their rights as creators. Ever since then we have done a pretty good job of serving them, but now we have some of the created rebelling against their creators, and it must stop. Get back in your place and do as you are told!
jbranstetter04 1 year ago 6