Nice to see there's been some progress in the USA since someone read Adam Smith, who constructed a theory bourgeois classes have used to defend inequality and their privileges by virtue of inequitable wealth distribution through markets.
Adam Smith might be considered a Libertarian Uptopian, or at least many of his followers are as idealistic and utopian as the utopian socialist Stalin no doubt manipulated in creating his totalitarian state capitalist system.
It's okay to let it out. Feels better when you just let it all out, eh. You can read my first comment on this page (your first post was exactly two posts above mine) regarding Stiglitz's fallacy. End of page 2 or beginning of 3. Or you could read my last two comments on the other Stiglitz video you're still harassing me about.
But I'm not going to write anything here. Just because I'm a dick and I love knowing how much it pisses you off that I won't. Your typical Libertarian dick.
Never said I had "superior" knowledge. Keep beating down that strawman. But the only way to know for sure if my knowledge is superior would be for you to provide an argument yourself. I'm still waiting...
This is a classic strawman/logical fallacy that so many supposedly left wing intellectuals fall for its truly embarassing. No economist, even the most right-leaning, believes that free markets are without imperfections. Of course they are imperfect, because humans are imperfect. But governments are human institutions, and therefore also subject to imperfections. The real question is, which alternative minimizes the imperfections. By a country mile, free markets are much productive than gov't.
@dick391 Absolutely - of course market imperfections exist, but people all too often use this as an excuse to argue for government intervention, or some other centrally planned solution, in the economy. Existence of market imperfections such as asymmetric information does not imply that a small group of individuals (government) will be any better at allocating resources than the market, in fact the evidence is to the contrary.
@dick391 Actually he doesn't contradict what u said. If u watch the full video he says that there are a FEW things governments can do better, like basic research (cause there are too many externalities). As an excample he gives the development auf the internet. Also he doesn't call for a nationalization of banks, just for a recovery of free markets in banking, which means banks shall partizipate on profits and losses the same way(core principle of markets). This shall be archieved by regulation.
@dick391 We've seen what a free markets are able to produce - bubbles, crony capitalism, deep social stratification, disbalances, delayed adjustments on market shocks caused by sticky wages and prices. Just read, research and try to observe issue from the all aspects.. observe things systematically! Many of ''free market fundamentalists'' doesn't have a basic knowledge on economics, and i really avoid this kind of debates.Read an issues on Austrian school and you'll realize it's nebulosity
Currently, four institutions control 63% of the assets in the US. In 2008, before the crash, it was only 40% (still too high). I think we are going in the wrong direction. Especially, when it was those 4 institutions that were completely insolvent, and still are. The "Invisible Hand" MUST be allowed to work to liquidate those that make bad decisions. Otherwise, you have what we have today; a banking oligarchy.
The effects of moral hazard inherent in central banking can not be negated by regulation. In fact, regulation enhances moral hazard by placing unfair barriers on smaller, more efficient banks.
invisible hand was never used by adam smith in this context, watch the chomsky video "chomsky on adam smith". Its a shame knowing that I went through economics class and politics in the UK, of all places being fed this bullshit.
This man is spewing ignorance bordering comedy. First he cites Alan Greenspan, the former FED chairman, as apparently a spokesman for the free market? The FED is a CREATURE OF GOVT regulation!!!! The FED chairman is the poster child of gov't control over the economy! He then implied that we somehow live in a fee market --where banks operate freely? WTF? Banks, like every single industry in America, are HEAVILY regulated by gov't. It is the very 'visible' hand of gov't that kill markets.
This phrase has been abused by people like Friedman beyond all recognition.
If you read what Smith said, he said that merchants by "preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry" benefits society as if "led by an invisible hand".
Smith was criticizing outsourcing and said invisible hand was a home bias that helped steer clear of it.
And yet everyone uses it to mean he was praising it.
I'm a libertarian and I agree with Stiglitz. Markets with asymmetric information are filled with market failures. But here's an extension of this argument Stiglitz, as a statist Keynesian, doesn't get: Public choice theory, initiated by libertarian Nobel prize-winning economist James Buchanan, says that the political market is also a market with imperfect information and that market failures are the norm there. In other words, private markets fail sometimes, but government fails all the time.
@LogicalFlawDetector well roosevelt did not fail economically. government policy is not necessarily worse than the market outcome. they both fail and they should both be challanged by proper instituitions
That doesn't make sense... what's failing sometimes and failing all the time? As far as I can tell, all periods of growth ended up into recessions -- without a single exception. So, they all fail anyway at some point.
You may take it to smaller extents. Well, then I see people exchanging goods no matter what... and what data tells me is that better than that: even wasteful public spending can contribute to growth!
@LogicalFlawDetector the notion that government fails all the time is just simply factually inaccurate. Gross exaggerations do not add to the conversation one bit.
There is also this stupid idea of regarding governmental decisions as "imposed."
Libertarians think highly of their ideal, but in truth it would constitute an ironical sabotage of their own ideas and aspirations specifically because it is founded a tradition of individuals who didn't have the presence of mind to realize that it's a system which enables humans to be free.
Continue to live in your wonderland where people pursuing self-interest maximize utility.
In the real world, people pursuing self-interest, because of imperfection in the relations they hold toward one another, will come to harm one another: before long, their "freedom" constitutes a threat and even an infringement of other people's freedom... that's the absolute irony of the thing: it's the slavery of freedom.
The only thing which can stand between them and that fate are institutions and the only free institutions are democratic.
The purpose of a government is its ability to coordinate actions, direct and organize them, to the pursuit of an end a large number is willing to pursue.
If you replace it, you grant total power of decision to capital investors and that's called a plutocracy or dictatorship of money which, in absence of appropriate regulations, won't grant us with a Pareto efficient system.
The basic idea is you give up a little and you gain a lot -- everyone included.
I asked you for examples of governmental regulations which increased efficiency by correcting for market failures or imperfect information. Instead of answering, you went off with your mouth without thinking, babbling on about how the government is so important. You just like any other state worshiping nut. Get lost.
WWII, I answered... but if you want a simpler example, patents. Under-founding in research was solve by granting authors a short-time monopoly on their invention.
Patents? Patents correct for externalities? You are clueless. Patents just protect intellectual property. And fiscal and monetary policies don't lead to Pareto efficiency. Was the Federal reserve's Great Contraction during 1929-1933 Pareto improving? Does the federal government running large deficits while crowding out private investments lead to Pareto efficiency? Your regressive left-wing philosophy is retarded. Get a life.
Fiscal expansion deals with unemployment in way that copes with information asymmetry. Information asymmetry causes overpricing in the employment markets, which means unemployment (firms overprice their workers to compensate for shirking and the impossibility of monitoring effort and productivity without cost -- that's the asymmetry: the worker knows what he does and the employer doesn't to the same degree).
The firm does not access the social cost of overpricing when giving up more money... In a recession, this means unemployment should rise much faster than the wages will fall. And, better still, the wages risk not to adjust properly to ensure we get back to normal.
Fiscal and monetary policy are then basically Pareto improvements to a deficient market.
Besides, I am not a state worshiper... it's the nation I care about. It happens the State, if properly managed, is the only instance of coordination that may help people to pursue a commonly held end.
Scientifically, libertarianism is one of the most stupid thing that has ever been thought.
@LogicalFlawDetector When you win a Noble Prize and you invent your own branch of economics, then you can "agree" with Stiglitz. Until then you can shut your fucking mouth and listen.
@devourerofbabies When you can construct a coherent economic argument without totally embarrassing yourself, then maybe you won't be a complete joke. Until then, you can shut your mouth and leave the critical thinking to the rest of us.
By the way, Milton Friedman is a Noble Prize winner with far greater credentials than Stiglitz and completely disagrees with his line of reasoning. By your logic, both you and Stiglitz should shut the hell up.
@dick391 Excuse me, shithead, but I didn't provide any argument at all, much less an embarrassing one. I'm just sick of dicks like you who don't have any knowledge about economics whatsoever showing up all over the internet pushing your ideological agenda whenever economics is mentioned.
If you want to pretend you know something about economics, put your fuckin money where your mouth is or shut your god damn mouth.
@devourerofbabies Thanks for proving my point, dude. You still haven't constructed an argument and you're still embarassing yourself. I know it must be frustrating for you to argue with people well outside your league. I don't need to pretend to know anything about economics. You can search my comments to see for yourself.
But seriously dude, take some chill pills. Better yet, take your own advice. Put your money where mouth is. Put up or shut up. Provide some kind of argument.
@dick391 I'm not even trying to argue, shithead. You're just doing what EVERY SINGLE LIBERTARIAN always does. You pretend you're an expert without presenting any knowledge. Then you yell at other people for not having an argument.
You don't know fucking ANYTHING about economics. If you're willing to type for post after post anyway, why don't you show me something? It should be pretty easy to show your superior knowledge instead of just claiming you have it.
@dick391 See, the difference between what I'm doing and what you're doing is you're pretending to fucking know something. I'm simply calling you out on it. And all you can do is call me embarrassing and insist that you really know your shit, but you don't actually present any knowledge.
By accusing me of not presenting an argument, you're missing the point. I'm not trying to present an argument. I'm calling you out. You don't know shit. Prove me wrong, DICK.
@devourerofbabies The irony is rich, bro. You say I don't know anything (really, anything?) about economics, yet you refuse to read my comments and demonstrate zero evidence of your own supposed knowledge. Then you call me a dick (hardly insulting really, given my username) even though you're the one calling names, swearing and offering no argumentation of your own.
Seriously though, if you already know that I write "post after post", then wouldn't the next logical step be to read them?
@devourerofbabies In fact, you're the one whose first comment on this page was to say that the people commenting here were Libertarians that don't anything about economics (without assertion) Despite the fact that the top two commenters (one of which your replied to) clearly articulated their case in economic terms.
So go ahead. Tell us why we don't anything about economics. Prove your assertions. Where did their arguments (or mine below) go wrong? I'm waiting, man
@dick391I did do that, didn't I? Probably because I'm annoyed by the recent swarms of libertarians on everything to do with politics and economics saying:
Keynes = suck
Free markets = awesum
Everybody else is ignorant lol
So I call you out when you claim knowledge. Are you going to continue your butthurt crying, or are you ever going to back up that mouth you're running?
Yeah, I replied to one of the top comments, but you're not him, are you? Show that YOU know something, DICK.
@dick391 See, you're a typical libertarian and typical libertarians don't know anything about economics, they just pretend they do. And the typical libertarian, when asked to present any knowledge whatsoever does exactly what you're doing. They cry and whine and they say
NO, YOU SHOW U NO WUT U TALKING BOUT FIRST.
The proof of my assertion that you don't know anything is the fact that you refuse to show that you do despite my repeated invitations to do so.
@devourerofbabies Clearly the only butthurt person is you. I mean just look at your own comments. Full of accusations, name calling and generalizations. Did a Libertarian touch you in an inappropriate place as child?
I'm so sorry to hear that the big, bad Libertarians are ruining tha internetz for you. I guess you better get used to it because they're not going away. If you want less of those pesky goofballs your best course of action is probably to convince them with logic or reason
@devourerofbabies Hey, look I can do what you do too. You're just a s***head that doesn't know anything about economics. The difference between me and you is that you're pretending to know something. I'm calling you out on it right now. I dare you. Show me you know something about economics. But I'm not willing to read any your comments, even if their on the exact same Youtube page that I'm commenting on. So type something right now. Prove me wrong, devourer of babies!
Oh look, a socialist faggot. Until you can grasp elementary economics and stop sucking Stiglitz's dick, shut the fuck up and listen to Milton Friedman and Hayek.
@LogicalFlawDetector Nice reply. I find that gay bashers are usually well informed on a wide range of topics.
Sucking Stiglitz's dick? I don't think so, I think I just challenged your right to summarily dismiss him on the grounds that you're an economic illiterate.
If you're not an economic illiterate, it should be really easy to prove you're not. But you won't because you can't. Instead you'll just cry like a bitch for 7 full posts like the last guy did.
@LogicalFlawDetector BTW, studies have shown that gay bashers are usually self hating closet cases. You know that, right? You might be a happier person if you just admitted that you like boys.
The only troll leaving dozens of comments like a whiny bitch is you. Only an inbred imbecile like you would expect other people to waste their precious time on youtube and engage in the act of convincing you of their economic knowledge--an act which ostensibly has humongous opportunity costs associated with it. Since time is a valuable resource, I prefer to invest it on accumulating human capital as opposed to wasting it schooling an impudent prick.
@LogicalFlawDetector But this is what all you libertarians do. It's the ONLY thing you ever do. I can easily predict any response you'll ever give.
1) Claim knowledge you don't have
2) Call Sitglitz, Keynes, Krugman et al a bunch of dummies
3) Write paragraph after paragraph after paragraph explaining that your precious "intellectual capital" is too valuable to spend writing a single sentence demonstrating any actual knowledge.
The pretense of knowledge can only be found on the left. Had you had the brains to research James Buchanan and public choice theory, which made him the sole winner of the Nobel prize in 1986, instead of bitching on youtube, you would know a lot more economics. Stiglitz did work in neoclassical theory, which models market interactions. Neoclassical economics doesn't study behavior and choice in political institutions. That's the realm of public choice economics.
@LogicalFlawDetector BTW, before you call me impudent, you might want to look up the definition in the dictionary and consider you think you're qualified to summarily dismiss the life's work of a Nobel laureate.
If you say you're not summarily dismissing it, then you can provide some demonstration of knowledge, can't you?
It is obvious that my comment is the top comment. I specifically cited James Buchanan, the libertarian Nobel prize-winning economist who founded public choice theory, and demolished Stiglitz's juvenile arguments. Try comprehending the flaws in your and Stiglitz's arguments. It will be a worthwhile investment.
@LogicalFlawDetector I detected a red herring fallacy presented by Logical Flaws Detector: "private markets fail sometimes, but government fails all the time" How the government failures make the case with the argument about the markets ability to self-regulate? red flag detector!
@DrNikol2007 No one is arguing that government failures (without consideration of market failures) make the case for free markets. No one. That would be Stiglitz's fallacy in reverse. How on Earth did you manage to come up with that strawman? I want some of whatever you've been smoking.
@LogicalFlawDetector The problem with your argument is that what exists in the world, or what positive economics tries to study as "what is", is that state/national governments do exist, do inflict regulatory measures, and do have a controlling influence into market economics. Stiglitz, as a scholar of economics, is to provide insight into what can be best in the world as it is, not as it should be. Anyone can describe their subjective utopia - the objective is to make ours more better.
@BogartWestern First off, no-one here is arguing about how the world ought to be. I have not read a single comment of that nature on this page. Certainly not in the top comments.
Of course everyone's critique of Stiglitz is that he failed to apply the same positive economics ("what is") to government by means of public-choice theory that he did to neoclassical theory. At minimum, a tremendous oversight for a Nobel Prize winner in economics. Hard to make the world "as is" better that way, no?
@LogicalFlawDetector What these economists don't get is that corporations and people don't act as rational agents, as they model them. Asymmetric information was introduced to show that the economic agents, being rational, can make bad choices.
For example, they explain financial bubbles as statistical rarities, instead of group irrationality. They either need new mathematics, instead of game theory, or need to stop using mathematics in everything.
@TradingTutor No economist believes in perfect rationality. No human is capable of such a thing. Really, the debate is over the extent to which people are rational and markets reflect this rationality. On a scale of 1-10, some markets may be an 8 or 9 and some may be a 2 or 3.
Ultimately the debate will be settled by what model best explains and predicts reality. I would imagine that a model incorporating group irrationality is more accurate, but the challenge is constructing it.
Actually, firms do act rationally. They hire all the MBA nerds and economists to calculate the profit-maximizing price and strategy. Individuals, however, aren't always rational. Anomalies in behavior cancel out when you look at the aggregate group behavior. It's the latter that's important.
@LogicalFlawDetector Sorry I didn't understand very well what you meant by your last sentence. Do you mean you can assume an aggregate group acts rationally because the anomalies in behavior cancel out? If so, then there should be studies that test this, since it's a very important statement.
This is true in firms, they can be modeled as rational agents. But is it true for consumers?
Throughout history, Adam Smith observed, we find the workings of "the vile maxim of the masters of mankind": "All for ourselves, and nothing for other People."
He had few illusions about the consequences.
The invisible hand, he wrote, will destroy the possibility of a decent human existence "unless government takes pains to prevent" this outcome, as must be assured in "every improved and civilized society."
its no need to argue with stiglitz about efficiency of markets. when he things that politicans make more effective decisions as markets (they dont for sure) its his fault. its more moral question, only way have to 'regulate' markets is to use force, but on the marklet people cooperate voluntary. for me this is the key difference.
Both Adam Smith and Milton Friedman impoverished our understanding of the role of state in markets. Markets were never meant to substitute morality and good logic. Its the free hand that has now paralyzed the world. Until Europe and US collapse and rest of us follow are we then to understand the folly of markets.
@redgenkosi When you talk about morality... who's morality? It seems to be that a market open to the shaping of every single participant in a society would be pretty reflective of morals in general. Of course, substituting that with the morals of a few people, maybe even just your own, is a very different thing indeed.
Stiglitz is a lunatic, utterly clueless about the principles of economics. You have to laugh at his Greenspan 'bubble' reference - the U.S. govt is blowing up the biggest ever.
@redgenkosi - Both understood the role of the state in markets very, very well. Both understood that the more that role was limited, the wealthier all involved would be.
Much harm has been done to actual people by well-meaning people trying to "moralize the market". The minimum wage has kept people poor, regulations have done the same in stifling entrepreneurship and gov't interference causes depression.
It is not the market that will cause collapse, but continued interference in the market.
"Monopolies cannot survive without government help. Markets kill them." That has to be the dumbest thing I've heard out of u. What's next? Market forces will cause Jesus to return to Earth? U.S. Steel has been a monopoly 4 over 100 years, where were "market forces?" Microsoft is still doing pretty good. Almost all monopolies were broken by government. Read history (which to u must hav a liberal bias) instead of looking from a one
@wangsta25 - I love that you cited Microsoft. Microsoft WON their lawsuit, and the market caught up. Microsoft is doing pretty good, but so is Apple.
US steel is a monopoly... really. The 10th largest steel producer has a monopoly?
What functional monopolies do we have now? Utilities and the education system. These are government supported monopolies, and we all suffer for it. It's government that limits competition. Government that licenses and regulates out new entrees to the market.
No matter how much deregulation there are, Libertarians will always complain that "true capitalism" never existed. Just like how communists complain how "true communism" never existed. You want TRUE capitalism? Try living in the Gilded Age (1870's-1896), I'm pretty sure u'll enjoy the "free market" by working 12 hours a day on minimum wage wit ur boss fucking u up the ass. 11 million out of 12 million families were living below the poverty line during the Gilded Age, now that's TRUE capitalism!
11 of 12 million? You're just making stuff up now.
You ignore completely the way everyone else in the world was living at the time, and how those same people were living in the previous period of history. You're ignoring the fact that they worked those hours for that wage because it was the best option available to them.
You view history without perspective, and makes history useless to you. You learn nothing.
@mpc91 google "gilded age poverty" and click on the pbs link. The following article contains that statistic.
What's viewing history with "perspective" to you? Wake up, your the kind of person who's like "ohh slavery wasn't so bad cauz other people at that time were also slaves. At least they had food and shelter." Although Americans still had it good COMPARED to everyone else, that's in no way a qualification of "good."
@wangsta25 - History doesn't have a liberal bias, but the program you are citing, definitely has a liberal bias.
I never said slavery was good, but slavery was sponsored by government and cannot exist without it.
What's viewing history with perspective, it's viewing multiple accounts, and viewing history through contemporary perspectives, not through the backwards conclusions that liberals view history through.
@mpc91 there u go again with assumptions, no facts at all. lol i guess ALL my facts r biased in favor of socialist regime. Hmm wat unbiased source can i use... I know! Fox News! They're fair and balanced! Ur really starting to get ahead of urself here in terms of "viewing history." First, get ur FACTS straight and understand wat happened, then choose a perspective to view it in. There may b different conclusions but FACTS are all the same.
@wangsta25 - I didn't actually make any assumptions. But nice try.
And the next FACT you come up with will be the first. Your "history" is far removed from FACT. And capitalizing FACT doesn't make it any more valid, it just makes you seem more childish.
You want me to watch PBS, I've seen it. Go spend some time with Milton Friedman or Thomas Sowell. Come back when you've gotten through "Free to Choose" or "Intellectuals and Society", or maybe "Basic Economics" would be most fitting.
@mpc91 If that's the only economists u read then its no surprise why ur love of capitalism is so apparent and extreme. Try reading some of the works of other economists like Paul Krugman and Joseph-Stiglitz. And u say I'm biased, u get all ur info from the same Chicago/Austrian economists. U take wat they say and think it applies to every area in society. I've read Friedrich Hayek (no doubt one of ur gods), u think all the Austrian school economists r dead right about everything
@wangsta25 It's easy to tell how narrow minded you are just by reading this drivel of a reply. Why don't you try reading the other side for a change? Because it would destroy your dogma with ease, that's why. You read what you want to believe. Before you criticise capitalism, you have to understand the philosophy on which it is founded, but I'd guess you're as ignorant about that as you are about the principles of economics.
@wangsta25 - I have read Krugman and Stiglitz, and their teacher, Paul Samuelson.
Funny thing about the economics textbook by Samuelson. It kept predicting that the Soviet economy would overtake the US economy. In every version, it pushed the year in which this would happen back a bit. In 1961, it was going to happen by 1984. By 1980, it was going to happen in 2002.
Krugman argued in 2002 FOR a housing bubble. How'd that work out?
What would the Keynesians have to do to talk you out of it?
@mpc91 and why r u trolling on a Joseph-Stiglitz video? Aren't u suppose to b masturbating to a video of ur god Milton Friedman talking about how capitalism is 100% perfect and spotless and how the forces of the "free market" are so powerful it can cure cancer and make Steve Fords piss gold onto poor people (trickle down)?
@wangsta25 - Whose trolling? I saw a link and watched a video. I am aware that people of your ilk dislike debate, and love name calling. So I won't pretend to be surprised.
I can't stop you from being ignorant, or eating up what you've been force fed by shallow textbooks or PBS. You can ignore facts as much as you want, and go with your FACTS that someone with an agenda gave you.
But I'm done with you and your continual espousal of myths and continued failures, and your childishness. Good day.
@mpc91 "Socialist, communist, Nazi, Fascist, welfare bum, liberal elite, etc" who's doing the name calling?
I get my facts from textbooks, PBS, and people wit differing views. U get facts out of ur ass and John Stossel. I guess ur strongly against "book learning" since it has a "liberal" bias. U listed no facts, no stats, just assumptions that r backed urself. Wait, facts and stats r bad since they hav a liberal bias...
"Myths and failures" again this must be from my "liberal book learning"
Liberal statistics are just that, statistics. But malleable ones. Krugman cites an income gap based on household income, not per capita income. But there are twice as many people in the top 1/3 household incomes as there are in the bottom third. I should take that guy seriously? Or anyone who takes him as gospel?
Per capita income is going up, but household size is going down (3.1 in 1970 to 2.6 today). Krugman finds what he wants to find.
@wangsta25 - I'm hardly against book learning, but "book learning" for "book learning" sake is just foolish. If you pick the wrong books, you're setting yourself up for failure. If you can't interpret what you read, or analyze it for validity, then it is a useless action.
Anyone can write anything, and the cases of your heroes, they have. You want to believe in central planning, so you ignore it's continued failures. Blame those failures on the market it interfered with. You shut out all else.
@mpc91 this is wat i hate about the U.S; if u don't worship capitalism then ur automatically a "socialist." People generally paint liberals as the "extremists." In reality, the libertarians are the extremists, not the liberals. We want a mixed economy balancing equal portions of welfare, regulation, and taxation. You guys want extreme capitalism. Nothing in history has worked in extreme; everything needs to be balanced in order to function correctly for a long time.
@wangsta25 - "I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."
There is no need to balance out liberty with government intrusion. Your distrust of free people to make their own decision is your extremism and your arrogance. Central planning doesn't work. The smartest government can never know more than 300 million people.
May I remind u that so far in all ur responses u hav not included a single valid FACT; all ur arguments r simple assumptions on wat the extreme free market may do. I hav used numerous VALID facts that u cannot disprove. All u do is pull out a unqualified assumption out of ur ass and elaborate.
@mpc91 How people were living in the previous period? They were self sufficient; they provided most of the stuff they used on a daily basis. That's INDIVIDUALISM and liberty cauz ur not chained to a big collective company for basic living materials. True, capitalism at first did improve living conditions, but in the slowest and most unequal way. It wasn't until progressive reforms had happened that capitalism REALLY benefited everyone.
@wangsta25 - Wow, have you had the kool-aid! They were self sufficient - to a point, working far longer hours farming than they did in the factories, living shorter lives. They had lived that way for thousands of years, and life was brutish and short. They leaped (as in developing countries they still do) at the chance to better themselves in the factories.
The progressives didn't improve anything, they increased their power, and took credit for what the market was doing naturally.
@mpc91 Self sufficient families did not spend 12-14 hours a day doing back breaking labor. Oh the progressives didn't improve anything? Now your just being arrogant. What about food labeling, direct election of senators, trust busting, improving living conditions of immigrants, child labor laws, minimum wage, etc? lol what the market was doing "naturally," here's a perfect example of a person who thinks capitalism is 100% flawless. I'm taking the rational and logical middle ground here, not you.
@mpc91 Self sufficient families did not spend 12-14 hours a day doing back breaking labor. The progressives didn't improve anything? Now your just being arrogant. What about food labeling, direct election of senators, trust busting, improving living conditions of immigrants, child labor laws, minimum wage, etc? lol what the market was doing "naturally," here's a perfect example of a person who thinks capitalism is 100% flawless. I'm taking the rational and logical middle ground here, not you.
@wangsta25 - I'm not being arrogant in distrusting progressives. You are. All the things you listed were either natural occurrences, or negative things.
The minimum wage just keeps unskilled workers out of the labor market, and contributes to crime. Great tool to prevent competition.
Immigrants improved their own conditions, not gov't.
Monopolies cannot survive without government help. Markets kill them.
Also, good job on the drug war and prohibition. Those worked great!
@mpc91 U think that capitalism is the perfect system that covers everyone. Then u purposely distort historical info 2 prove ur point. These r the symptoms of the hardcore libertarian crowd that refuses 2 listen and always thinks they're right. Accept the facts: taxes r at their historical lowest, income for the top 1% has grown enormously while middle class income is lowly declining, corporations hav more influence than the government, the U.S. is an oligarchy controlled by the richest .01%.
@wangsta25 - I never said that capitalism was perfect, but it's the best system for creating the maximum amount of wealth for the greatest number of people. It does the best job of letting people lift themselves out of poverty, and protects freedom and liberty better than any other. Voluntary trade is the bogeyman to those of your ilk. Taxes are not at their lowest point, not even close. Government spending IS at its highest point. That's what ails the middle class.
@wangsta25 - And seriously, what deregulation, we are more regulated in this country than we have ever been. And we get 80,000 pages of new regulation a year.
@mpc91 My god read a history book. I'm not going to even list examples cauz obviously all my examples r "made up" and "bullshit." Go to wikipedia, type in "deregulation" and scroll down to "2.8.2. Deregulation 1970-2000" Oh wait its wikipedia it must hav a LIBERAL BIAS!!!
These are the banks that are most close to the FED's injections of money and benefit most from this special relationship.Get money for nothing and sell it for something.But the thing is,it really escapes me what the government granted monopoly of the FED has to do with the free market?It's fun to watch politicians when they're blaming market forces for they idiotic policies.They, just like Stiglitz,don't understand market forces at all.
@keithradamsstatus - The market didn't fail. It's like saying someone with their arms tied and feet encased in concrete failed to swim.
Government intervention in the economy once again failed. The Fed failed again. Whatever you do, don't read this. nytimes.com/2002/08/02/opinion/dubya-s-double-dip.html - Yep, in 2002 Liberal Messiah Paul Krugman called for the very bubble that caused the current crisis.
Your comment makes no sense. Krugman gave his opinion, but he didn't run the fed or make the bad loans that banks put out there. The government didn't make ppl buy more house than they could afford. Don't wont to call it market failure fine call it a complete failure on all levels, government regulation, business decision making and the consumer.
The banks were under pressure from government to make the bad loans you speak of. Housing policy and limits on building inflated housing prices. It's gov't on one side, and gov't on the other, and only audacity allows anyone to think gov't can fix it.
Krugman didn't have the force of law to enforce his idea, but it is the exact one that was followed, and yet somehow people still fail to see him for the fraud he is.
Completely clueless what he's talking about. He brings up Greenspan and the central bankers...WHO EXIST SOLELY BECAUSE OF GOVERNMENTAL TAMPERING THROUGH HAVING A MONOPOLY ON THE USE OF CURRENCY. Take the fed out of the situation, and free markets function much more perfect. For example, those bankers who were "not doing good for the economy" would be completely kaput at this point were it not for the fed and government.
@munkyusm How exactly does the FED intervene in markets to make them less competitive? Name one living, reputable macroeconomist who doesn't believe monetary policy can/should be used to stabilise economies.
@zoikles1 The fed intervened with the bailouts if we want to get simple. This crushed competition, because it kept all business who made retarded decisions in place. I could go on with this for days, but this is the most simple example. "Name one living reputable m.economist..." This is pointless...If you disagree with this interventionist policy, you're instantly not reputable. This is like saying "name one reputable priest who doesn't believe in god".
I am disturbed by how easily one can get to the top of one's field without understanding the basics of it. Stephen Jay Gould and Paul Krugman come to mind.
Well done Mr Stiglitz, have you ever even read Adam Smith? Does not seem like it, either that or you're just dishonest because you absolutely distorted what he said and believed. Most of what can be pieced together from your inarticulate ramblings is not empirical, but rather sanctimonious and emotional, 'by the bankers which is sometimes called greed'. You're a disgrace Stiglitz, an ideologue desperately clinging on to the self-righteous beliefs you're emotionally invested in.
The absolute truth is the interdependence of life, the entanglement of all and everything in the language of quantum physics. Capitalism is the historic process of PRIVATE PROPERTY RELATIONSHIP OF ALIENATION,EXPLOITATION AND SUFFERING OF HUMANITY in a modality of commodity production with the sole motive of profit . A WORLD MARKET MECHANISM of ARTIFICIAL SCARCITY,, DISTORTION AND DESTRUCTION. The emergent realisation of limits and obsolete nature of Capitalism is on.
@mpc91 First of all there has never been a socialist country , only STATE CAPITALIST , a few backward economically and in case of China it will soon overtake USA as the biggest MARKET in the world. Parroting your owners and deluding yourself is beyond contempt.
@arzoyan - China is benefiting does not have a growing economy because of expanding state control over it's economy. Just the opposite.
It's funny that you think I am deluding myself. That's exactly what you are doing when you gladly and with great glee call for greater government control. Your way leads to poverty.
Capitalism is the great wealth engine that has doubled the average lifespan and given the poorest among us luxuries that would have shocked a king of just 100 years ago.
@mpc91 Science and technology has created the potential and possibility of plenty, the Market system is about MINORITY CONTROL OF WEALTH AND POWER. You are just repeating the superficial and ignoring the fact that all is achieved through THE ENERGIES OF THE WORKING MEN AND WOMEN. The wage slavery and market system is the main barrier to further progression of our common humanity.
@arzoyan - Science and technology are fruits of the free market. You don't understand free markets, and the amazing co-operation they allow. It is voluntary.
The market system is not about minority control of wealth and power. It's about people meeting the needs of others.
Who's ignoring the energies of working men and women, I'm celebrating them. They have a right to benefit and keep the fruits of their labor. In the free market, they do, in socialism, it is taken by force.
@mpc91 The cerebral myopia is an endmic problem in perception of the socio-economic minority imposition. The education system and all the cultural/emotional manipulation and distortions are no accident. its designed to keep people like you in ffalse limits and boundaries of human misery and fear.
@arzoyan - You have to be really clever to use such big words to say something so unbelievably stupid.
Poverty is decreasing, wealth is increasing, and this is in direct proportion to the liberty of the markets in the areas in question. It's statists such as yourself who keep people in misery and fear.
It's people like you who have irrational fears of bogeymen. I seek limited government, bound to respect the rights of the people.
Your arrogance is a necessary element of your self-delusion.
@mpc91 From the European Mecantile Capitalism of genocidal killings of AMERICANS ,African ENSLAVEMENT and horrors of colonisation and domination to GLOBAL FINANCIAL MAFIA backed by latest KILLING MACHINES, WORLD CAPITALISM is the MARKET SYSTEM OF ARTIFICIAL SCARCITY, distortions and WAGE SLAVERY OF THE WORKING CLASS IN THE INTEREST OF THE CRIMINAL RULING CLASS. Your stupifying disney perception of reality is the real POVERTY OF YOUR EXISTENCE.
@arzoyan - Random CAPITALIZATION of WORDS for NO reason WHATSOEVER just makes you seem a little more CHILDISH than you already are. Thanks for PROVING YOUR ARROGANCE.
You ascribe to capitalism things that are functions of government.
Have you ever actually had a job where you had to support yourself? Or does Mom just slip your food under the basement door, where you scribble your conspiracy rantings on the walls?
@mpc91 Your monologue is over. You never engaged in the dialogue, just repeating what you have been fed on, lies,distortions and disney conceptualisation of the reality.
@mpc91 Capitalism is the wage slavery of the working class in a politically manipulated, tyrannical MARKET SYSTEM OF ARTIFICIAL SCARCITY and distortions, to perpetuate wage-slavery/exploitation in the interest of the OWNING/RULING CLASS. A socio-economic modality of production for profit as the sole consideration with devastating consequences of perpetual war,enviornmental destructions,animal cruelty and sufffering a MINORITY IMPOSITION of fear,insecurity,devaluation and dehumanisation.
@arzoyan How is it possible to have an "artificial scarcity" without the aid of gov't? In a free market if there is a scarcity it would be due to real demand by consumers --there would be nothing "artificial" about it, it would be real. Also, your history is a bit off. The greatest engine of human peace & prosperity has been via voluntary trade (free markets), on the contrary the greatest engine of death and destruction has come from the State.
@bnicewilly Science and technology the fruit of the painfull human evolutionary progression has made PLENTY IN HARMONY A REALITY, however the MARKET SYSTEM of artificial scarcity and manipulation is the MINORITY IMPOSITION OF CLSS RULE . check out WIILIAM ENGDHALL .
See Dick [you have to imagine the pictures, sorry]. See Dick run. See Dick run out and purchase or otherwise acquire control over a commodity. See Dick hold said commodity, slowing the release into the market below demand. See Dick create artificial scarcity.
@donfolstar In a free market obviously you wouldn't be able to purchase an entire commodity outright. As one attempts to corner the market the price is bid up as other buyers and sellers realize what you are doing
The most tried and effective way to run your scam of course is to acquire a government license to produce the commodity in question. Or to introduce tariffs on your competitors products from other countries. Artificial scarcity is more often than not the result of gov't.
@bnicewilly Yeah except that the industrialization of most developed countries today were the result of heavy government intervention in vital industries. Your ideal "free market" exists only in some third world countries.
@StrategicBacon Not even there, just see the effect of free market transition in Ex Yugoslav Republics. The result is production of few hyper rich and powerful people, destroyed economies and devastated standard.
Yeah, you're a genius, if only we had more guys and gals going around trying to regulate the activities of individuals this crisis would have been averted. We just need to put the right honest geniuses that can foresee and know what should be or shouldn't be done in a given market and force other people to behave. Too bad Bernanke wasn't in charge at the time because he is such a smart guy. OOH Wait he WAS and didn't see any problem with the housing market, huh. Don't give up the faith.
Just look at the interest rates which FED pushed just before dot com crash and before housing crash. Bubbles are always caused by monetary expansion and malinvestment caused by cheap money. How much of an idiot one must be to claim that bubbles are caused by an invisible hand (pursuit of "greed") when in the middle of this, supposedly, free market, you have political commissars like Bernanke, who control money supply and interest rate -> the most important price of it all? This guy is a joke.
@keithradamsstatus Of course not.But cheap money makes some business projects look attractive while in fact they aren't profitable at all and if it were not for the cheap money created out of the thin air these projects would have never been started at all.It's not that investors purposely throw money at bad assets,they are led to believe,by the FED,that there is an abundant pool of resources. But there is just huge sum of money,but not enough real resources.Money is not real wealth.
Hey, no name calling market fundamentalism failed. The market couldn't police itself. But, I suppose you guys want to blame the crisis on a law created in 1977 and not the repeal Glass–Steagall Act (Phil Gramm & JimLeach - R).
@mpc91 - did you even listen to the arguments? Why don't you try finding the flaw in the logic instead of repeating the conservative mantra?
So your argument is that the markets were inefficient due to the existing regulation and because of that the largest players took on more risk than they could handle, whereas with less regulation they would have said, "That's enough money, lets lower risk now."? You should try holding theories that match the historic data.
@sfjeff1089 -Do you believe the existence of Mortgage Backed Securities had something to do with the mess? Do you know who invented mortgage backed securities???? The government through the creation of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae during the great depression, yeah FDR, they got this secondary market going.
This has been flagged as spam show
Nice to see there's been some progress in the USA since someone read Adam Smith, who constructed a theory bourgeois classes have used to defend inequality and their privileges by virtue of inequitable wealth distribution through markets.
Tuathalful 8 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Adam Smith might be considered a Libertarian Uptopian, or at least many of his followers are as idealistic and utopian as the utopian socialist Stalin no doubt manipulated in creating his totalitarian state capitalist system.
Tuathalful 8 hours ago
Comment removed
Tuathalful 8 hours ago
Comment removed
Tuathalful 8 hours ago
lool people discrediting him, he is a great economist its just he is not publicized
slightsociopath 5 days ago
LOLOLOLOLOL this guy is very very funny. Nice try with those fallacies. priceless
MrFmmcosta 2 weeks ago
It's okay to let it out. Feels better when you just let it all out, eh. You can read my first comment on this page (your first post was exactly two posts above mine) regarding Stiglitz's fallacy. End of page 2 or beginning of 3. Or you could read my last two comments on the other Stiglitz video you're still harassing me about.
But I'm not going to write anything here. Just because I'm a dick and I love knowing how much it pisses you off that I won't. Your typical Libertarian dick.
dick391 1 month ago
Never said I had "superior" knowledge. Keep beating down that strawman. But the only way to know for sure if my knowledge is superior would be for you to provide an argument yourself. I'm still waiting...
dick391 1 month ago
Oh look, a video about economics. I wonder if it's going to be full of Libertarians who don't know fuck all about anything.
devourerofbabies 1 month ago
This is a classic strawman/logical fallacy that so many supposedly left wing intellectuals fall for its truly embarassing. No economist, even the most right-leaning, believes that free markets are without imperfections. Of course they are imperfect, because humans are imperfect. But governments are human institutions, and therefore also subject to imperfections. The real question is, which alternative minimizes the imperfections. By a country mile, free markets are much productive than gov't.
dick391 1 month ago 6
@dick391 Absolutely - of course market imperfections exist, but people all too often use this as an excuse to argue for government intervention, or some other centrally planned solution, in the economy. Existence of market imperfections such as asymmetric information does not imply that a small group of individuals (government) will be any better at allocating resources than the market, in fact the evidence is to the contrary.
chuckles8519 1 month ago 3
@dick391 Actually he doesn't contradict what u said. If u watch the full video he says that there are a FEW things governments can do better, like basic research (cause there are too many externalities). As an excample he gives the development auf the internet. Also he doesn't call for a nationalization of banks, just for a recovery of free markets in banking, which means banks shall partizipate on profits and losses the same way(core principle of markets). This shall be archieved by regulation.
gcgrabodan 1 week ago
@dick391 We've seen what a free markets are able to produce - bubbles, crony capitalism, deep social stratification, disbalances, delayed adjustments on market shocks caused by sticky wages and prices. Just read, research and try to observe issue from the all aspects.. observe things systematically! Many of ''free market fundamentalists'' doesn't have a basic knowledge on economics, and i really avoid this kind of debates.Read an issues on Austrian school and you'll realize it's nebulosity
electro089 2 days ago
Currently, four institutions control 63% of the assets in the US. In 2008, before the crash, it was only 40% (still too high). I think we are going in the wrong direction. Especially, when it was those 4 institutions that were completely insolvent, and still are. The "Invisible Hand" MUST be allowed to work to liquidate those that make bad decisions. Otherwise, you have what we have today; a banking oligarchy.
mikemat3307 1 month ago
The effects of moral hazard inherent in central banking can not be negated by regulation. In fact, regulation enhances moral hazard by placing unfair barriers on smaller, more efficient banks.
mikemat3307 1 month ago
Since when is central banking a part of free markets?
EPIC FAIL
mikemat3307 1 month ago
what offends me most here is that he knows that he tells lies and that he is confident that I, regular Joe, don't see through his lies.
stangphil 2 months ago
He' SO got it wrong !! OMG can't believe he got nobel prize
frix123 2 months ago
invisible hand was never used by adam smith in this context, watch the chomsky video "chomsky on adam smith". Its a shame knowing that I went through economics class and politics in the UK, of all places being fed this bullshit.
JagjeetMann 2 months ago
This man is spewing ignorance bordering comedy. First he cites Alan Greenspan, the former FED chairman, as apparently a spokesman for the free market? The FED is a CREATURE OF GOVT regulation!!!! The FED chairman is the poster child of gov't control over the economy! He then implied that we somehow live in a fee market --where banks operate freely? WTF? Banks, like every single industry in America, are HEAVILY regulated by gov't. It is the very 'visible' hand of gov't that kill markets.
bnicewilly 3 months ago
This phrase has been abused by people like Friedman beyond all recognition.
If you read what Smith said, he said that merchants by "preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry" benefits society as if "led by an invisible hand".
Smith was criticizing outsourcing and said invisible hand was a home bias that helped steer clear of it.
And yet everyone uses it to mean he was praising it.
AndroidPolitician 3 months ago
I'm a libertarian and I agree with Stiglitz. Markets with asymmetric information are filled with market failures. But here's an extension of this argument Stiglitz, as a statist Keynesian, doesn't get: Public choice theory, initiated by libertarian Nobel prize-winning economist James Buchanan, says that the political market is also a market with imperfect information and that market failures are the norm there. In other words, private markets fail sometimes, but government fails all the time.
LogicalFlawDetector 3 months ago 17
@LogicalFlawDetector well roosevelt did not fail economically. government policy is not necessarily worse than the market outcome. they both fail and they should both be challanged by proper instituitions
vesemre 2 months ago
@LogicalFlawDetector
That doesn't make sense... what's failing sometimes and failing all the time? As far as I can tell, all periods of growth ended up into recessions -- without a single exception. So, they all fail anyway at some point.
You may take it to smaller extents. Well, then I see people exchanging goods no matter what... and what data tells me is that better than that: even wasteful public spending can contribute to growth!
KrugmanTheKing 2 months ago
@LogicalFlawDetector
You comment should be about who will be failing first or about an analysis of the cost-to-benefits. But that's a question to ask...<
Aim a gun at your feet if you want, but don't do the same for other people around you.
KrugmanTheKing 2 months ago
@KrugmanTheKing
Oh no, my gun is pointed toward your feet.
LogicalFlawDetector 2 months ago
@LogicalFlawDetector the notion that government fails all the time is just simply factually inaccurate. Gross exaggerations do not add to the conversation one bit.
oilybutthole 2 months ago
@oilybutthole
Care to give an example of the state fixing things without imposing its own costs and/or exacerbating the problem?
LogicalFlawDetector 2 months ago
@LogicalFlawDetector
WWII...
KrugmanTheKing 2 months ago
@LogicalFlawDetector
There is also this stupid idea of regarding governmental decisions as "imposed."
Libertarians think highly of their ideal, but in truth it would constitute an ironical sabotage of their own ideas and aspirations specifically because it is founded a tradition of individuals who didn't have the presence of mind to realize that it's a system which enables humans to be free.
Continue to live in your wonderland where people pursuing self-interest maximize utility.
KrugmanTheKing 2 months ago
@LogicalFlawDetector
In the real world, people pursuing self-interest, because of imperfection in the relations they hold toward one another, will come to harm one another: before long, their "freedom" constitutes a threat and even an infringement of other people's freedom... that's the absolute irony of the thing: it's the slavery of freedom.
The only thing which can stand between them and that fate are institutions and the only free institutions are democratic.
KrugmanTheKing 2 months ago
@LogicalFlawDetector
The purpose of a government is its ability to coordinate actions, direct and organize them, to the pursuit of an end a large number is willing to pursue.
If you replace it, you grant total power of decision to capital investors and that's called a plutocracy or dictatorship of money which, in absence of appropriate regulations, won't grant us with a Pareto efficient system.
The basic idea is you give up a little and you gain a lot -- everyone included.
KrugmanTheKing 2 months ago
@KrugmanTheKing
I asked you for examples of governmental regulations which increased efficiency by correcting for market failures or imperfect information. Instead of answering, you went off with your mouth without thinking, babbling on about how the government is so important. You just like any other state worshiping nut. Get lost.
LogicalFlawDetector 2 months ago
@LogicalFlawDetector
WWII, I answered... but if you want a simpler example, patents. Under-founding in research was solve by granting authors a short-time monopoly on their invention.
KrugmanTheKing 2 months ago
Patents? Patents correct for externalities? You are clueless. Patents just protect intellectual property. And fiscal and monetary policies don't lead to Pareto efficiency. Was the Federal reserve's Great Contraction during 1929-1933 Pareto improving? Does the federal government running large deficits while crowding out private investments lead to Pareto efficiency? Your regressive left-wing philosophy is retarded. Get a life.
LogicalFlawDetector 2 months ago
@LogicalFlawDetector
Fiscal expansion deals with unemployment in way that copes with information asymmetry. Information asymmetry causes overpricing in the employment markets, which means unemployment (firms overprice their workers to compensate for shirking and the impossibility of monitoring effort and productivity without cost -- that's the asymmetry: the worker knows what he does and the employer doesn't to the same degree).
KrugmanTheKing 2 months ago
@LogicalFlawDetector
The firm does not access the social cost of overpricing when giving up more money... In a recession, this means unemployment should rise much faster than the wages will fall. And, better still, the wages risk not to adjust properly to ensure we get back to normal.
Fiscal and monetary policy are then basically Pareto improvements to a deficient market.
KrugmanTheKing 2 months ago
@LogicalFlawDetector
Besides, I am not a state worshiper... it's the nation I care about. It happens the State, if properly managed, is the only instance of coordination that may help people to pursue a commonly held end.
Scientifically, libertarianism is one of the most stupid thing that has ever been thought.
KrugmanTheKing 2 months ago
@LogicalFlawDetector
You are more free with rules than without, provided they are made properly and follow the guide line of providing people with the right incentives.
KrugmanTheKing 2 months ago
@LogicalFlawDetector When you win a Noble Prize and you invent your own branch of economics, then you can "agree" with Stiglitz. Until then you can shut your fucking mouth and listen.
devourerofbabies 1 month ago
@devourerofbabies When you can construct a coherent economic argument without totally embarrassing yourself, then maybe you won't be a complete joke. Until then, you can shut your mouth and leave the critical thinking to the rest of us.
By the way, Milton Friedman is a Noble Prize winner with far greater credentials than Stiglitz and completely disagrees with his line of reasoning. By your logic, both you and Stiglitz should shut the hell up.
dick391 1 month ago
@dick391 Excuse me, shithead, but I didn't provide any argument at all, much less an embarrassing one. I'm just sick of dicks like you who don't have any knowledge about economics whatsoever showing up all over the internet pushing your ideological agenda whenever economics is mentioned.
If you want to pretend you know something about economics, put your fuckin money where your mouth is or shut your god damn mouth.
devourerofbabies 1 month ago
@devourerofbabies Thanks for proving my point, dude. You still haven't constructed an argument and you're still embarassing yourself. I know it must be frustrating for you to argue with people well outside your league. I don't need to pretend to know anything about economics. You can search my comments to see for yourself.
But seriously dude, take some chill pills. Better yet, take your own advice. Put your money where mouth is. Put up or shut up. Provide some kind of argument.
dick391 1 month ago
@dick391 I'm not even trying to argue, shithead. You're just doing what EVERY SINGLE LIBERTARIAN always does. You pretend you're an expert without presenting any knowledge. Then you yell at other people for not having an argument.
You don't know fucking ANYTHING about economics. If you're willing to type for post after post anyway, why don't you show me something? It should be pretty easy to show your superior knowledge instead of just claiming you have it.
Dare you. Chicken.
devourerofbabies 1 month ago
@dick391 See, the difference between what I'm doing and what you're doing is you're pretending to fucking know something. I'm simply calling you out on it. And all you can do is call me embarrassing and insist that you really know your shit, but you don't actually present any knowledge.
By accusing me of not presenting an argument, you're missing the point. I'm not trying to present an argument. I'm calling you out. You don't know shit. Prove me wrong, DICK.
devourerofbabies 1 month ago
@devourerofbabies The irony is rich, bro. You say I don't know anything (really, anything?) about economics, yet you refuse to read my comments and demonstrate zero evidence of your own supposed knowledge. Then you call me a dick (hardly insulting really, given my username) even though you're the one calling names, swearing and offering no argumentation of your own.
Seriously though, if you already know that I write "post after post", then wouldn't the next logical step be to read them?
dick391 1 month ago
@dick391 And still not a word of knowledge so far. That's what, five posts to me alone already?
Pathetic.
devourerofbabies 1 month ago
@devourerofbabies In fact, you're the one whose first comment on this page was to say that the people commenting here were Libertarians that don't anything about economics (without assertion) Despite the fact that the top two commenters (one of which your replied to) clearly articulated their case in economic terms.
So go ahead. Tell us why we don't anything about economics. Prove your assertions. Where did their arguments (or mine below) go wrong? I'm waiting, man
dick391 1 month ago
@dick391I did do that, didn't I? Probably because I'm annoyed by the recent swarms of libertarians on everything to do with politics and economics saying:
Keynes = suck
Free markets = awesum
Everybody else is ignorant lol
So I call you out when you claim knowledge. Are you going to continue your butthurt crying, or are you ever going to back up that mouth you're running?
Yeah, I replied to one of the top comments, but you're not him, are you? Show that YOU know something, DICK.
devourerofbabies 1 month ago
@dick391 See, you're a typical libertarian and typical libertarians don't know anything about economics, they just pretend they do. And the typical libertarian, when asked to present any knowledge whatsoever does exactly what you're doing. They cry and whine and they say
NO, YOU SHOW U NO WUT U TALKING BOUT FIRST.
The proof of my assertion that you don't know anything is the fact that you refuse to show that you do despite my repeated invitations to do so.
devourerofbabies 1 month ago
@devourerofbabies Clearly the only butthurt person is you. I mean just look at your own comments. Full of accusations, name calling and generalizations. Did a Libertarian touch you in an inappropriate place as child?
I'm so sorry to hear that the big, bad Libertarians are ruining tha internetz for you. I guess you better get used to it because they're not going away. If you want less of those pesky goofballs your best course of action is probably to convince them with logic or reason
dick391 1 month ago
@dick391 You're right. I am butthurt. I'm butthurt because all I'm asking for is you to educate me.
I'm giving you an open opportunity to school me here. You're not taking it?
It's because you don't know anything, isn't it?
in b4 you fill out your EIGHTH post full of hot air.
devourerofbabies 1 month ago
@dick391 What's that now, six full posts from you without a single sentence about economics?
lol
devourerofbabies 1 month ago
@devourerofbabies Hey, look I can do what you do too. You're just a s***head that doesn't know anything about economics. The difference between me and you is that you're pretending to know something. I'm calling you out on it right now. I dare you. Show me you know something about economics. But I'm not willing to read any your comments, even if their on the exact same Youtube page that I'm commenting on. So type something right now. Prove me wrong, devourer of babies!
dick391 1 month ago
@dick391 Yet another libertarian with a reading comprehension problem. Let me state this in terms so simple even you can't miss them.
1) I'm not claiming knowledge.
2) You are.
So YOU get to prove you know something, or you can shut your goddamn fucking mouth.
devourerofbabies 1 month ago
@devourerofbabies
Oh look, a socialist faggot. Until you can grasp elementary economics and stop sucking Stiglitz's dick, shut the fuck up and listen to Milton Friedman and Hayek.
LogicalFlawDetector 1 month ago
@LogicalFlawDetector Nice reply. I find that gay bashers are usually well informed on a wide range of topics.
Sucking Stiglitz's dick? I don't think so, I think I just challenged your right to summarily dismiss him on the grounds that you're an economic illiterate.
If you're not an economic illiterate, it should be really easy to prove you're not. But you won't because you can't. Instead you'll just cry like a bitch for 7 full posts like the last guy did.
devourerofbabies 1 month ago
@LogicalFlawDetector BTW, studies have shown that gay bashers are usually self hating closet cases. You know that, right? You might be a happier person if you just admitted that you like boys.
devourerofbabies 1 month ago
@devourerofbabies
The only troll leaving dozens of comments like a whiny bitch is you. Only an inbred imbecile like you would expect other people to waste their precious time on youtube and engage in the act of convincing you of their economic knowledge--an act which ostensibly has humongous opportunity costs associated with it. Since time is a valuable resource, I prefer to invest it on accumulating human capital as opposed to wasting it schooling an impudent prick.
LogicalFlawDetector 1 month ago
@LogicalFlawDetector But this is what all you libertarians do. It's the ONLY thing you ever do. I can easily predict any response you'll ever give.
1) Claim knowledge you don't have
2) Call Sitglitz, Keynes, Krugman et al a bunch of dummies
3) Write paragraph after paragraph after paragraph explaining that your precious "intellectual capital" is too valuable to spend writing a single sentence demonstrating any actual knowledge.
I await bitch post #4
devourerofbabies 1 month ago
The pretense of knowledge can only be found on the left. Had you had the brains to research James Buchanan and public choice theory, which made him the sole winner of the Nobel prize in 1986, instead of bitching on youtube, you would know a lot more economics. Stiglitz did work in neoclassical theory, which models market interactions. Neoclassical economics doesn't study behavior and choice in political institutions. That's the realm of public choice economics.
LogicalFlawDetector 1 month ago
@LogicalFlawDetector And yet another empty post.
lol too easy
devourerofbabies 1 month ago
@LogicalFlawDetector BTW, before you call me impudent, you might want to look up the definition in the dictionary and consider you think you're qualified to summarily dismiss the life's work of a Nobel laureate.
If you say you're not summarily dismissing it, then you can provide some demonstration of knowledge, can't you?
devourerofbabies 1 month ago
@devourerofbabies
It is obvious that my comment is the top comment. I specifically cited James Buchanan, the libertarian Nobel prize-winning economist who founded public choice theory, and demolished Stiglitz's juvenile arguments. Try comprehending the flaws in your and Stiglitz's arguments. It will be a worthwhile investment.
LogicalFlawDetector 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LogicalFlawDetector . "Try comprehending the flaws in your and Stiglitz's arguments"
Yet another libertarian with a reading comprehension problem You cannot identify a flaw in my argument because I didn't present one.
BTW, mentioning one of their theories does not constitute an argument or any demonstration of knowledge, it's just name dropping. Not impressed
Nor am I impressed by some libertarian drones voting it up to "top" status.
You're an econ hotshot? Prove it.
devourerofbabies 1 month ago
@LogicalFlawDetector I detected a red herring fallacy presented by Logical Flaws Detector: "private markets fail sometimes, but government fails all the time" How the government failures make the case with the argument about the markets ability to self-regulate? red flag detector!
DrNikol2007 1 month ago
@DrNikol2007 No one is arguing that government failures (without consideration of market failures) make the case for free markets. No one. That would be Stiglitz's fallacy in reverse. How on Earth did you manage to come up with that strawman? I want some of whatever you've been smoking.
dick391 1 month ago
@dick391 You are really a dick. No one is talking to you. You are smoked salmon.
DrNikol2007 1 month ago
@DrNikol2007 You mad bro? You tried to make a smart-ass argument in bad faith and then got caught with your pants down. Too funny.
dick391 1 month ago
@LogicalFlawDetector The problem with your argument is that what exists in the world, or what positive economics tries to study as "what is", is that state/national governments do exist, do inflict regulatory measures, and do have a controlling influence into market economics. Stiglitz, as a scholar of economics, is to provide insight into what can be best in the world as it is, not as it should be. Anyone can describe their subjective utopia - the objective is to make ours more better.
BogartWestern 1 month ago
@BogartWestern First off, no-one here is arguing about how the world ought to be. I have not read a single comment of that nature on this page. Certainly not in the top comments.
Of course everyone's critique of Stiglitz is that he failed to apply the same positive economics ("what is") to government by means of public-choice theory that he did to neoclassical theory. At minimum, a tremendous oversight for a Nobel Prize winner in economics. Hard to make the world "as is" better that way, no?
dick391 1 month ago
@LogicalFlawDetector What these economists don't get is that corporations and people don't act as rational agents, as they model them. Asymmetric information was introduced to show that the economic agents, being rational, can make bad choices.
For example, they explain financial bubbles as statistical rarities, instead of group irrationality. They either need new mathematics, instead of game theory, or need to stop using mathematics in everything.
TradingTutor 1 month ago
@TradingTutor No economist believes in perfect rationality. No human is capable of such a thing. Really, the debate is over the extent to which people are rational and markets reflect this rationality. On a scale of 1-10, some markets may be an 8 or 9 and some may be a 2 or 3.
Ultimately the debate will be settled by what model best explains and predicts reality. I would imagine that a model incorporating group irrationality is more accurate, but the challenge is constructing it.
dick391 1 month ago
@TradingTutor
Actually, firms do act rationally. They hire all the MBA nerds and economists to calculate the profit-maximizing price and strategy. Individuals, however, aren't always rational. Anomalies in behavior cancel out when you look at the aggregate group behavior. It's the latter that's important.
LogicalFlawDetector 4 weeks ago
Comment removed
TradingTutor 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LogicalFlawDetector Sorry I didn't understand very well what you meant by your last sentence. Do you mean you can assume an aggregate group acts rationally because the anomalies in behavior cancel out? If so, then there should be studies that test this, since it's a very important statement.
This is true in firms, they can be modeled as rational agents. But is it true for consumers?
TradingTutor 4 weeks ago
Throughout history, Adam Smith observed, we find the workings of "the vile maxim of the masters of mankind": "All for ourselves, and nothing for other People."
He had few illusions about the consequences.
The invisible hand, he wrote, will destroy the possibility of a decent human existence "unless government takes pains to prevent" this outcome, as must be assured in "every improved and civilized society."
SensiStarToaster 4 months ago
Another idiotic socialist Keynesian.
juicyappleish 4 months ago
its no need to argue with stiglitz about efficiency of markets. when he things that politicans make more effective decisions as markets (they dont for sure) its his fault. its more moral question, only way have to 'regulate' markets is to use force, but on the marklet people cooperate voluntary. for me this is the key difference.
dafyduck79 4 months ago
Both Adam Smith and Milton Friedman impoverished our understanding of the role of state in markets. Markets were never meant to substitute morality and good logic. Its the free hand that has now paralyzed the world. Until Europe and US collapse and rest of us follow are we then to understand the folly of markets.
redgenkosi 4 months ago
@redgenkosi When you talk about morality... who's morality? It seems to be that a market open to the shaping of every single participant in a society would be pretty reflective of morals in general. Of course, substituting that with the morals of a few people, maybe even just your own, is a very different thing indeed.
Stiglitz is a lunatic, utterly clueless about the principles of economics. You have to laugh at his Greenspan 'bubble' reference - the U.S. govt is blowing up the biggest ever.
ralliart2000 4 months ago
@redgenkosi - Both understood the role of the state in markets very, very well. Both understood that the more that role was limited, the wealthier all involved would be.
Much harm has been done to actual people by well-meaning people trying to "moralize the market". The minimum wage has kept people poor, regulations have done the same in stifling entrepreneurship and gov't interference causes depression.
It is not the market that will cause collapse, but continued interference in the market.
mpc91 4 months ago
The more I see of Stiglitz, the less I think of the Nobel prize.
pretorious700 4 months ago
@pretorious700 The Noble Prize that Milton Friedman got?
inquisitive871 4 months ago
"Monopolies cannot survive without government help. Markets kill them." That has to be the dumbest thing I've heard out of u. What's next? Market forces will cause Jesus to return to Earth? U.S. Steel has been a monopoly 4 over 100 years, where were "market forces?" Microsoft is still doing pretty good. Almost all monopolies were broken by government. Read history (which to u must hav a liberal bias) instead of looking from a one
wangsta25 4 months ago
@wangsta25 - I love that you cited Microsoft. Microsoft WON their lawsuit, and the market caught up. Microsoft is doing pretty good, but so is Apple.
US steel is a monopoly... really. The 10th largest steel producer has a monopoly?
What functional monopolies do we have now? Utilities and the education system. These are government supported monopolies, and we all suffer for it. It's government that limits competition. Government that licenses and regulates out new entrees to the market.
mpc91 4 months ago
No matter how much deregulation there are, Libertarians will always complain that "true capitalism" never existed. Just like how communists complain how "true communism" never existed. You want TRUE capitalism? Try living in the Gilded Age (1870's-1896), I'm pretty sure u'll enjoy the "free market" by working 12 hours a day on minimum wage wit ur boss fucking u up the ass. 11 million out of 12 million families were living below the poverty line during the Gilded Age, now that's TRUE capitalism!
wangsta25 5 months ago
11 of 12 million? You're just making stuff up now.
You ignore completely the way everyone else in the world was living at the time, and how those same people were living in the previous period of history. You're ignoring the fact that they worked those hours for that wage because it was the best option available to them.
You view history without perspective, and makes history useless to you. You learn nothing.
mpc91 5 months ago
@mpc91 google "gilded age poverty" and click on the pbs link. The following article contains that statistic.
What's viewing history with "perspective" to you? Wake up, your the kind of person who's like "ohh slavery wasn't so bad cauz other people at that time were also slaves. At least they had food and shelter." Although Americans still had it good COMPARED to everyone else, that's in no way a qualification of "good."
wangsta25 5 months ago
@wangsta25 - So somebody else made it up. Good for you.
mpc91 4 months ago
@mpc91 Oh PBS must have a "liberal bias." Or is it that history has a "liberal bias?" idk....
wangsta25 4 months ago
@wangsta25 - History doesn't have a liberal bias, but the program you are citing, definitely has a liberal bias.
I never said slavery was good, but slavery was sponsored by government and cannot exist without it.
What's viewing history with perspective, it's viewing multiple accounts, and viewing history through contemporary perspectives, not through the backwards conclusions that liberals view history through.
History for liberals is a means to an end.
mpc91 4 months ago
@mpc91 there u go again with assumptions, no facts at all. lol i guess ALL my facts r biased in favor of socialist regime. Hmm wat unbiased source can i use... I know! Fox News! They're fair and balanced! Ur really starting to get ahead of urself here in terms of "viewing history." First, get ur FACTS straight and understand wat happened, then choose a perspective to view it in. There may b different conclusions but FACTS are all the same.
wangsta25 4 months ago
@wangsta25 - I didn't actually make any assumptions. But nice try.
And the next FACT you come up with will be the first. Your "history" is far removed from FACT. And capitalizing FACT doesn't make it any more valid, it just makes you seem more childish.
You want me to watch PBS, I've seen it. Go spend some time with Milton Friedman or Thomas Sowell. Come back when you've gotten through "Free to Choose" or "Intellectuals and Society", or maybe "Basic Economics" would be most fitting.
mpc91 4 months ago
@mpc91 If that's the only economists u read then its no surprise why ur love of capitalism is so apparent and extreme. Try reading some of the works of other economists like Paul Krugman and Joseph-Stiglitz. And u say I'm biased, u get all ur info from the same Chicago/Austrian economists. U take wat they say and think it applies to every area in society. I've read Friedrich Hayek (no doubt one of ur gods), u think all the Austrian school economists r dead right about everything
wangsta25 4 months ago
@wangsta25 It's easy to tell how narrow minded you are just by reading this drivel of a reply. Why don't you try reading the other side for a change? Because it would destroy your dogma with ease, that's why. You read what you want to believe. Before you criticise capitalism, you have to understand the philosophy on which it is founded, but I'd guess you're as ignorant about that as you are about the principles of economics.
ralliart2000 4 months ago
@wangsta25 - I have read Krugman and Stiglitz, and their teacher, Paul Samuelson.
Funny thing about the economics textbook by Samuelson. It kept predicting that the Soviet economy would overtake the US economy. In every version, it pushed the year in which this would happen back a bit. In 1961, it was going to happen by 1984. By 1980, it was going to happen in 2002.
Krugman argued in 2002 FOR a housing bubble. How'd that work out?
What would the Keynesians have to do to talk you out of it?
mpc91 4 months ago
@mpc91 and why r u trolling on a Joseph-Stiglitz video? Aren't u suppose to b masturbating to a video of ur god Milton Friedman talking about how capitalism is 100% perfect and spotless and how the forces of the "free market" are so powerful it can cure cancer and make Steve Fords piss gold onto poor people (trickle down)?
wangsta25 4 months ago
@wangsta25 - Whose trolling? I saw a link and watched a video. I am aware that people of your ilk dislike debate, and love name calling. So I won't pretend to be surprised.
I can't stop you from being ignorant, or eating up what you've been force fed by shallow textbooks or PBS. You can ignore facts as much as you want, and go with your FACTS that someone with an agenda gave you.
But I'm done with you and your continual espousal of myths and continued failures, and your childishness. Good day.
mpc91 4 months ago
@mpc91 "Socialist, communist, Nazi, Fascist, welfare bum, liberal elite, etc" who's doing the name calling?
I get my facts from textbooks, PBS, and people wit differing views. U get facts out of ur ass and John Stossel. I guess ur strongly against "book learning" since it has a "liberal" bias. U listed no facts, no stats, just assumptions that r backed urself. Wait, facts and stats r bad since they hav a liberal bias...
"Myths and failures" again this must be from my "liberal book learning"
wangsta25 4 months ago
@wangsta25 - Where did I say any of those things?
Liberal statistics are just that, statistics. But malleable ones. Krugman cites an income gap based on household income, not per capita income. But there are twice as many people in the top 1/3 household incomes as there are in the bottom third. I should take that guy seriously? Or anyone who takes him as gospel?
Per capita income is going up, but household size is going down (3.1 in 1970 to 2.6 today). Krugman finds what he wants to find.
mpc91 4 months ago
@wangsta25 - I'm hardly against book learning, but "book learning" for "book learning" sake is just foolish. If you pick the wrong books, you're setting yourself up for failure. If you can't interpret what you read, or analyze it for validity, then it is a useless action.
Anyone can write anything, and the cases of your heroes, they have. You want to believe in central planning, so you ignore it's continued failures. Blame those failures on the market it interfered with. You shut out all else.
mpc91 4 months ago
@mpc91 this is wat i hate about the U.S; if u don't worship capitalism then ur automatically a "socialist." People generally paint liberals as the "extremists." In reality, the libertarians are the extremists, not the liberals. We want a mixed economy balancing equal portions of welfare, regulation, and taxation. You guys want extreme capitalism. Nothing in history has worked in extreme; everything needs to be balanced in order to function correctly for a long time.
wangsta25 5 months ago
@wangsta25 - "I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."
There is no need to balance out liberty with government intrusion. Your distrust of free people to make their own decision is your extremism and your arrogance. Central planning doesn't work. The smartest government can never know more than 300 million people.
Welfare makes people dependent on government.
mpc91 4 months ago
May I remind u that so far in all ur responses u hav not included a single valid FACT; all ur arguments r simple assumptions on wat the extreme free market may do. I hav used numerous VALID facts that u cannot disprove. All u do is pull out a unqualified assumption out of ur ass and elaborate.
wangsta25 4 months ago
@mpc91 How people were living in the previous period? They were self sufficient; they provided most of the stuff they used on a daily basis. That's INDIVIDUALISM and liberty cauz ur not chained to a big collective company for basic living materials. True, capitalism at first did improve living conditions, but in the slowest and most unequal way. It wasn't until progressive reforms had happened that capitalism REALLY benefited everyone.
wangsta25 5 months ago
@wangsta25 - Wow, have you had the kool-aid! They were self sufficient - to a point, working far longer hours farming than they did in the factories, living shorter lives. They had lived that way for thousands of years, and life was brutish and short. They leaped (as in developing countries they still do) at the chance to better themselves in the factories.
The progressives didn't improve anything, they increased their power, and took credit for what the market was doing naturally.
mpc91 5 months ago
@mpc91 Self sufficient families did not spend 12-14 hours a day doing back breaking labor. Oh the progressives didn't improve anything? Now your just being arrogant. What about food labeling, direct election of senators, trust busting, improving living conditions of immigrants, child labor laws, minimum wage, etc? lol what the market was doing "naturally," here's a perfect example of a person who thinks capitalism is 100% flawless. I'm taking the rational and logical middle ground here, not you.
wangsta25 4 months ago
@mpc91 Self sufficient families did not spend 12-14 hours a day doing back breaking labor. The progressives didn't improve anything? Now your just being arrogant. What about food labeling, direct election of senators, trust busting, improving living conditions of immigrants, child labor laws, minimum wage, etc? lol what the market was doing "naturally," here's a perfect example of a person who thinks capitalism is 100% flawless. I'm taking the rational and logical middle ground here, not you.
wangsta25 4 months ago
@wangsta25 - I'm not being arrogant in distrusting progressives. You are. All the things you listed were either natural occurrences, or negative things.
The minimum wage just keeps unskilled workers out of the labor market, and contributes to crime. Great tool to prevent competition.
Immigrants improved their own conditions, not gov't.
Monopolies cannot survive without government help. Markets kill them.
Also, good job on the drug war and prohibition. Those worked great!
mpc91 4 months ago
@mpc91 U think that capitalism is the perfect system that covers everyone. Then u purposely distort historical info 2 prove ur point. These r the symptoms of the hardcore libertarian crowd that refuses 2 listen and always thinks they're right. Accept the facts: taxes r at their historical lowest, income for the top 1% has grown enormously while middle class income is lowly declining, corporations hav more influence than the government, the U.S. is an oligarchy controlled by the richest .01%.
wangsta25 4 months ago
@wangsta25 - I never said that capitalism was perfect, but it's the best system for creating the maximum amount of wealth for the greatest number of people. It does the best job of letting people lift themselves out of poverty, and protects freedom and liberty better than any other. Voluntary trade is the bogeyman to those of your ilk. Taxes are not at their lowest point, not even close. Government spending IS at its highest point. That's what ails the middle class.
mpc91 4 months ago
Comment removed
wangsta25 5 months ago
@wangsta25 - And seriously, what deregulation, we are more regulated in this country than we have ever been. And we get 80,000 pages of new regulation a year.
mpc91 4 months ago
@mpc91 My god read a history book. I'm not going to even list examples cauz obviously all my examples r "made up" and "bullshit." Go to wikipedia, type in "deregulation" and scroll down to "2.8.2. Deregulation 1970-2000" Oh wait its wikipedia it must hav a LIBERAL BIAS!!!
wangsta25 4 months ago
@wangsta25 - All of that deregulation is a good thing. But is this 2000 or 2011? Maybe my calendar's off?
We need more deregulation, but we've been getting far, far more.
mpc91 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@wangsta25 - All of that deregulation is a good thing. But is this 2000 or 2011? Maybe my calendar's off?
We need more deregulation, but we've been getting far, far more.
mpc91 4 months ago
Look out for primary dealers list of the NY FED.
These are the banks that are most close to the FED's injections of money and benefit most from this special relationship.Get money for nothing and sell it for something.But the thing is,it really escapes me what the government granted monopoly of the FED has to do with the free market?It's fun to watch politicians when they're blaming market forces for they idiotic policies.They, just like Stiglitz,don't understand market forces at all.
NubSaibot 5 months ago
Great points he's giving, the market did fail. I see there are still a lot of libertarian supporters in denial on youtube. LOL
keithradamsstatus 5 months ago
@keithradamsstatus - The market didn't fail. It's like saying someone with their arms tied and feet encased in concrete failed to swim.
Government intervention in the economy once again failed. The Fed failed again. Whatever you do, don't read this. nytimes.com/2002/08/02/opinion/dubya-s-double-dip.html - Yep, in 2002 Liberal Messiah Paul Krugman called for the very bubble that caused the current crisis.
mpc91 4 months ago
@mpc91
Your comment makes no sense. Krugman gave his opinion, but he didn't run the fed or make the bad loans that banks put out there. The government didn't make ppl buy more house than they could afford. Don't wont to call it market failure fine call it a complete failure on all levels, government regulation, business decision making and the consumer.
keithradamsstatus 4 months ago
@keithradamsstatus - It makes perfect sense, you just don't want it to.
The banks were under pressure from government to make the bad loans you speak of. Housing policy and limits on building inflated housing prices. It's gov't on one side, and gov't on the other, and only audacity allows anyone to think gov't can fix it.
Krugman didn't have the force of law to enforce his idea, but it is the exact one that was followed, and yet somehow people still fail to see him for the fraud he is.
mpc91 4 months ago
How can someone so smart say something so stupid. He has some good points but he's putting things in an over-simplified and propagandistic way.
seppsters 5 months ago
Completely clueless what he's talking about. He brings up Greenspan and the central bankers...WHO EXIST SOLELY BECAUSE OF GOVERNMENTAL TAMPERING THROUGH HAVING A MONOPOLY ON THE USE OF CURRENCY. Take the fed out of the situation, and free markets function much more perfect. For example, those bankers who were "not doing good for the economy" would be completely kaput at this point were it not for the fed and government.
munkyusm 5 months ago
@munkyusm How exactly does the FED intervene in markets to make them less competitive? Name one living, reputable macroeconomist who doesn't believe monetary policy can/should be used to stabilise economies.
zoikles1 5 months ago
@zoikles1 The fed intervened with the bailouts if we want to get simple. This crushed competition, because it kept all business who made retarded decisions in place. I could go on with this for days, but this is the most simple example. "Name one living reputable m.economist..." This is pointless...If you disagree with this interventionist policy, you're instantly not reputable. This is like saying "name one reputable priest who doesn't believe in god".
munkyusm 5 months ago
"The invisible hand isn't there" lol
maokly1 6 months ago
I am disturbed by how easily one can get to the top of one's field without understanding the basics of it. Stephen Jay Gould and Paul Krugman come to mind.
darwinkilledgod 6 months ago
Well done Mr Stiglitz, have you ever even read Adam Smith? Does not seem like it, either that or you're just dishonest because you absolutely distorted what he said and believed. Most of what can be pieced together from your inarticulate ramblings is not empirical, but rather sanctimonious and emotional, 'by the bankers which is sometimes called greed'. You're a disgrace Stiglitz, an ideologue desperately clinging on to the self-righteous beliefs you're emotionally invested in.
spader49 6 months ago
@theawesomemanman You're point is vacuous; a logical fallacy, known as Argument from Authority.
spader49 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The absolute truth is the interdependence of life, the entanglement of all and everything in the language of quantum physics. Capitalism is the historic process of PRIVATE PROPERTY RELATIONSHIP OF ALIENATION,EXPLOITATION AND SUFFERING OF HUMANITY in a modality of commodity production with the sole motive of profit . A WORLD MARKET MECHANISM of ARTIFICIAL SCARCITY,, DISTORTION AND DESTRUCTION. The emergent realisation of limits and obsolete nature of Capitalism is on.
arzoyan 6 months ago
@arzoyan - Then why do capitalist countries thrive? Why do socialist countries struggle?
Why were the citizens of East Germany willing to risk their lives to get out? Why is North Korea poor and South Korea rich?
Why were there shortages in Soviet Russia, and not in capitalist countries?
Why do you think that central planners can ever know as much as millions of people what they will want at any given instance?
mpc91 4 months ago
@mpc91 First of all there has never been a socialist country , only STATE CAPITALIST , a few backward economically and in case of China it will soon overtake USA as the biggest MARKET in the world. Parroting your owners and deluding yourself is beyond contempt.
arzoyan 4 months ago
@arzoyan - China is benefiting does not have a growing economy because of expanding state control over it's economy. Just the opposite.
It's funny that you think I am deluding myself. That's exactly what you are doing when you gladly and with great glee call for greater government control. Your way leads to poverty.
Capitalism is the great wealth engine that has doubled the average lifespan and given the poorest among us luxuries that would have shocked a king of just 100 years ago.
mpc91 4 months ago
@mpc91 Science and technology has created the potential and possibility of plenty, the Market system is about MINORITY CONTROL OF WEALTH AND POWER. You are just repeating the superficial and ignoring the fact that all is achieved through THE ENERGIES OF THE WORKING MEN AND WOMEN. The wage slavery and market system is the main barrier to further progression of our common humanity.
arzoyan 4 months ago
@arzoyan - Science and technology are fruits of the free market. You don't understand free markets, and the amazing co-operation they allow. It is voluntary.
The market system is not about minority control of wealth and power. It's about people meeting the needs of others.
Who's ignoring the energies of working men and women, I'm celebrating them. They have a right to benefit and keep the fruits of their labor. In the free market, they do, in socialism, it is taken by force.
mpc91 4 months ago
@mpc91 The cerebral myopia is an endmic problem in perception of the socio-economic minority imposition. The education system and all the cultural/emotional manipulation and distortions are no accident. its designed to keep people like you in ffalse limits and boundaries of human misery and fear.
arzoyan 4 months ago
@arzoyan - You have to be really clever to use such big words to say something so unbelievably stupid.
Poverty is decreasing, wealth is increasing, and this is in direct proportion to the liberty of the markets in the areas in question. It's statists such as yourself who keep people in misery and fear.
It's people like you who have irrational fears of bogeymen. I seek limited government, bound to respect the rights of the people.
Your arrogance is a necessary element of your self-delusion.
mpc91 4 months ago
@mpc91 From the European Mecantile Capitalism of genocidal killings of AMERICANS ,African ENSLAVEMENT and horrors of colonisation and domination to GLOBAL FINANCIAL MAFIA backed by latest KILLING MACHINES, WORLD CAPITALISM is the MARKET SYSTEM OF ARTIFICIAL SCARCITY, distortions and WAGE SLAVERY OF THE WORKING CLASS IN THE INTEREST OF THE CRIMINAL RULING CLASS. Your stupifying disney perception of reality is the real POVERTY OF YOUR EXISTENCE.
arzoyan 4 months ago
@arzoyan - Random CAPITALIZATION of WORDS for NO reason WHATSOEVER just makes you seem a little more CHILDISH than you already are. Thanks for PROVING YOUR ARROGANCE.
You ascribe to capitalism things that are functions of government.
Have you ever actually had a job where you had to support yourself? Or does Mom just slip your food under the basement door, where you scribble your conspiracy rantings on the walls?
mpc91 4 months ago
@mpc91 Your personal ranting is the proof of the bankruptcy of your arguments.
arzoyan 4 months ago
@arzoyan - I'm sorry, but the irony of your previous statement seems for me to end my communication with you, you ranting, raving lunatic.
mpc91 4 months ago
@mpc91 Your monologue is over. You never engaged in the dialogue, just repeating what you have been fed on, lies,distortions and disney conceptualisation of the reality.
arzoyan 4 months ago
@arzoyan - My monologue? My ranting? Are you familiar with projectionism? It fits you.
You are the one avoiding dialogue, and instead shouting slogans and insults.
You are the one avoiding reality with both hands.
mpc91 4 months ago
@mpc91 Capitalism is the wage slavery of the working class in a politically manipulated, tyrannical MARKET SYSTEM OF ARTIFICIAL SCARCITY and distortions, to perpetuate wage-slavery/exploitation in the interest of the OWNING/RULING CLASS. A socio-economic modality of production for profit as the sole consideration with devastating consequences of perpetual war,enviornmental destructions,animal cruelty and sufffering a MINORITY IMPOSITION of fear,insecurity,devaluation and dehumanisation.
arzoyan 4 months ago
@arzoyan How is it possible to have an "artificial scarcity" without the aid of gov't? In a free market if there is a scarcity it would be due to real demand by consumers --there would be nothing "artificial" about it, it would be real. Also, your history is a bit off. The greatest engine of human peace & prosperity has been via voluntary trade (free markets), on the contrary the greatest engine of death and destruction has come from the State.
bnicewilly 3 months ago 11
@bnicewilly Science and technology the fruit of the painfull human evolutionary progression has made PLENTY IN HARMONY A REALITY, however the MARKET SYSTEM of artificial scarcity and manipulation is the MINORITY IMPOSITION OF CLSS RULE . check out WIILIAM ENGDHALL .
arzoyan 3 months ago
@bnicewilly
See Dick Run Artificial Scarcity Scam, by Me
See Dick [you have to imagine the pictures, sorry]. See Dick run. See Dick run out and purchase or otherwise acquire control over a commodity. See Dick hold said commodity, slowing the release into the market below demand. See Dick create artificial scarcity.
donfolstar 1 month ago
@donfolstar In a free market obviously you wouldn't be able to purchase an entire commodity outright. As one attempts to corner the market the price is bid up as other buyers and sellers realize what you are doing
The most tried and effective way to run your scam of course is to acquire a government license to produce the commodity in question. Or to introduce tariffs on your competitors products from other countries. Artificial scarcity is more often than not the result of gov't.
dick391 1 month ago
@bnicewilly Yeah except that the industrialization of most developed countries today were the result of heavy government intervention in vital industries. Your ideal "free market" exists only in some third world countries.
StrategicBacon 1 week ago
@StrategicBacon Not even there, just see the effect of free market transition in Ex Yugoslav Republics. The result is production of few hyper rich and powerful people, destroyed economies and devastated standard.
electro089 2 days ago
Yeah, you're a genius, if only we had more guys and gals going around trying to regulate the activities of individuals this crisis would have been averted. We just need to put the right honest geniuses that can foresee and know what should be or shouldn't be done in a given market and force other people to behave. Too bad Bernanke wasn't in charge at the time because he is such a smart guy. OOH Wait he WAS and didn't see any problem with the housing market, huh. Don't give up the faith.
MaribelTipton 7 months ago
Just look at the interest rates which FED pushed just before dot com crash and before housing crash. Bubbles are always caused by monetary expansion and malinvestment caused by cheap money. How much of an idiot one must be to claim that bubbles are caused by an invisible hand (pursuit of "greed") when in the middle of this, supposedly, free market, you have political commissars like Bernanke, who control money supply and interest rate -> the most important price of it all? This guy is a joke.
NubSaibot 7 months ago
@NubSaibot Another straw man, so low interest money makes investors invest in junk?? I don't buy it.
keithradamsstatus 5 months ago
@keithradamsstatus Of course not.But cheap money makes some business projects look attractive while in fact they aren't profitable at all and if it were not for the cheap money created out of the thin air these projects would have never been started at all.It's not that investors purposely throw money at bad assets,they are led to believe,by the FED,that there is an abundant pool of resources. But there is just huge sum of money,but not enough real resources.Money is not real wealth.
NubSaibot 5 months ago
How DARE this idiot call himself an economist?
SteinbergRothschild 7 months ago
@SteinbergRothschild
Hey, no name calling market fundamentalism failed. The market couldn't police itself. But, I suppose you guys want to blame the crisis on a law created in 1977 and not the repeal Glass–Steagall Act (Phil Gramm & JimLeach - R).
keithradamsstatus 5 months ago
@mpc91 - did you even listen to the arguments? Why don't you try finding the flaw in the logic instead of repeating the conservative mantra?
So your argument is that the markets were inefficient due to the existing regulation and because of that the largest players took on more risk than they could handle, whereas with less regulation they would have said, "That's enough money, lets lower risk now."? You should try holding theories that match the historic data.
sfjeff1089 7 months ago
@sfjeff1089 -Do you believe the existence of Mortgage Backed Securities had something to do with the mess? Do you know who invented mortgage backed securities???? The government through the creation of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae during the great depression, yeah FDR, they got this secondary market going.
MaribelTipton 7 months ago