Joseph Stiglitz Lambastes Obama Stimulus

[potpie921]

Excellent!!

[jhamien920]

Hmm. Very intelligent responses.

[Rastaleus2]

PS Errata:, he's no longer the "annointed" one, but rather the "toxic" one. We have a poisonous virus in our gut that virtually guarantees our destruction. Where will the "toxic" one be then? In his $10M Hawaiian mansion being interviewed by Oprah's successor while his wife jet-set's to French Riviera to hobnob with the Socialist Elite. Failing to heed the lessons of history has doomed us to repeat its deadliest mistakes. Let's pray that Samson doesnt bring down the pillars on all our heads

[GnomesAmok]

@Rastaleus2

Keynesian economics might as well be re-named utilitarian economics. Your idea of "economics" might as well be called fantasy-economics of destructive economics: promotes endless recession cycles, fails to recognize reality, ia unsupported by history, facts, analysis, etc...

[davidedwards2754]

@GnomesAmok The imillitary spending during the second world war stimulated the economy following the depression

[Rastaleus2]

Some of the comments posted further support the notion that arguing with idiots is a waste of good time. One reply claimed that the "majority" of the world considered "British" more sophisticated than "American", (relevant?). Makes one feel as if they are watching a FRASIER rerun. The day may come when "experts" promoting mind numbingly bizzare liberal agendas will be req'd to show proof of just how much of THEIR (can you spell M-O-N-E-Y) resources they have contrib. to the genl. solution.

[astronomypouya]

It is quite funny seeing how some loons think they can discredit Stiglitz who is a economy nobel prize laureate with a few lines of argument (usually repeating the main stream media)!

Just listen and learn, then go to other RELIABLE sources (not Hannity or anyone in the main stream media for example) that know something about economy and then make up your independent mind.

[Crusoeconomy21]

if this ridiculously simple chicken model worked, why not just spend ten trillion? Out of touch moron.

[jrt014]

Also, one cannot keep all things in order for the economy. If you have low inflation, then you tend to have high interest rates. What don't you understand about that? I'm a bit bewildered by your stupidity and the ease with which you type sean hannity talking points. How easy is it to get brainless zombies to post the exact same thing they've been saying? Get a clue, dude and stop blindly following every word of a bartender. Just because you didn't go to shool doesn't make me elitist cause I did

[jrt014]

@Rastaleus Your condescension by calling Obama the anointed one is probably the most glib remark that was started by a hack commentator who is routinely wrong and never went through any type of economics education. If you think that we're not going to spend more money to keep job unemployment lower than what it already is, then you don't know what you're talking about. If you do nothing to help the economy then there will be a return to depression economics, which is to say contractionary policy

[DaHonestAbe]

@jrt014 Calling Hannity a hack is an insult.......to hacks.

[Rastaleus2]

Wait until the massive inflation kicks in from the money-printing spree that the "Annointed One" has gone on. We are ALL screwed. If high taxes are good, wny not raise them to 90%? If massive spending is good, lets TRIPLE the stimiulus. If MASSIVE DEBT is OK, lets Quadruple it to 50 TRILLION (= to the total GDP of the Planet Earth!). Need a PhD or MBA to figure this out? Enroll in Columbia's Busness School. Listen to Achmadijad lecture & heckle the Iraqi war vet speaking out in favor of ROTC!

[freedomthrough]

@Rastaleus2 The debt as such isn't dangerous at all, as long as it is in USD, which it is, and the USD floats, which it does. Also, the theory you're quoting, QTM, is ridiculous. It assumes that a. Velocity of currency is always the same and b. quantity of production is always the same. Empirical research clearly shows this is not the case. Tax amount doesn't matter that much, what matters is that the flow of gov't debt equals the private net saving.

[freedomthrough]

@Rastaleus2 Stimulus helps when there is unemployment, but if applied at an economy already at full capacity (less than 2% total labour-underutilisation), it will risk inflation, as quantity of production cannot rise any higher from increased demand. Massive debt doesn't matter, as long as the gov't is the monopoly issuer of the currency. As a matter of fact, without the US gov't debt for the past 10 years, millions of americans and chinese woulda been outta work :D.

[Rastaleus2]

@freedomthrough Nice copy & paste job. L-A-B-O-U-R......U-T-I-L-I-S-A­-T-I-O-N......really? Are you British? If so, are pundits like you the reason that the British economy has done so well in the world since WW2? I think it's time to stop spouting sophistries and admit, once and for all, that 2+2 always makes 4, even in the surreal netherworld of Keynesian Economics, or Kenyan'friendly colonial-hating Presidents. Those of us shouldering the burden have seen the light, and it is liberating

[freedomthrough]

@Rastaleus2 No copy-pasting in that statement. And no, i'm not British, i just happen to be one of the majority in the world who consider British slightly more sophisticated than American. As a matter of fact, economies around the world did great between 1945 and 1975, as a result of domestic growth policies and the teachings of Keynes. After that, as Keynesianism has been abandoned for Neo-classic economics, economies have suffered. If you've seen the light, why are you here?

[freedomthrough]

@Rastaleus2 It seems you think Keynesianism is about printing whatever one likes just because one can. No, Keynesianism is about maintaining a preferred level of unemployment. As long as there is excess capacity in the economy (unemployment), there is room for stimulus :).

[jimberkt]

So he thinks it is morally acceptable to devalue the dollar in working peoples pockets and lower their purchasing power just to smooth over the giant cracks in the economy?

[Bigbud61]

"Stimulus" spending is akin to drinking your way out of alcoholism.

[vmardian]

You said it yourself... housing scam. Efficient markets require regulation and real interest rates. Had the US government not allowed fake interest rates, regulatory capture, and rampant mortgage fraud, that boom would not have happened.

[vmardian]

Stiglitz lies a 2nd time when he states that a tax cut does not result in an asset. A tax cut leaves more money in the hands of real individuals. Some of this money will be spent on investment and result in an asset. This does not even address the fact that private spending is far more efficient than government spending, for if it weren't, there'd be no reason not to have the tax rate set to 100%.

[NathMendez]

@vmardian lol, received wisdom is the best wisdom, isn't it? Hmm, reductionism! Even if the idea that private spending is far more efficient than government spending is something that is a lie on a case by case basis. Just look at the historical development of the industrial revolution, UK vs. Germany. :)

[vmardian]

@NathMendez In the current reality, it's true.

[NathMendez]

@vmardian I doubt it actually, the idea that a tax cut will automatically get those people to invest ... not something I actually agree will happen. Nor have I seen the private sector invest that much more wisely or efficiently than government over the last few decades.

[vmardian]

@NathMendez If private investors can't find a place to invest their money such that its productive, it means that deflation is required in order to rebalance the system.

[bowchikabowbow]

@vmardian Yes private spending is always more efficient. Especially during the last boom when most private individuals spent themselves into oblivion in the housing scam. That was real efficient. I'm sure glad we didn't take some of that money and spend it on education or anything. That would have been real inefficient. 

[vmardian]

Liar. Infrastructure and other investment spending is not balance-sheet neutral. Government debts are designed to be merely serviced, not repaid. Therefore, any infrastructure or other investment spending will necessarily leave a debt that will forever be subject to interest. How this can be balance-sheet neutral is beyond any real scientist or sane individual.

[sysopkc]

Stiglitz basically just stated its his opinion we should solve a deficit problem by deficit problem... HA fuck Iraq, add in the unfunded liabilities for Medicare, Medicade, and SSI.

Iraq is NOTHING... Stiglitz is preying on the general ignorance of the people to promote his own political opinions.

[sysopkc]

Hahahhahaha not enough! They quintupled the deficit. HAHAAHAHHAA wow...... Has this man ever heard of inflation?

[throwerofturds]

@sysopkc

some people dont think there is inflation . all they have to do is check out the price of commodities to see about inflation .

[bowchikabowbow]

@throwerofturds Some people dont think there is deflation. All they have to do is look at home prices.

If you want to play the pick and choose game then we can play it baby.

[throwerofturds]

@bowchikabowbow

pick and choose game , what is this ?

[bowchikabowbow]

@throwerofturds Well you picked commodities and then stated because commodities have increased in price recently that inflation is currently happening. That is what picking and choosing is. If you look at the CPI or housing then inflation is most definitely not a problem at all.

[throwerofturds]

@bowchikabowbow

i see what you mean re pick and choose .

i would argue that there is no inflation in the housing market at the moment because the inflation is over with . the housing bubble has just burst .

i dont know much about the cpi but i do believe that the numbers have has serious spin put on them to make it look like nothing has changed .

the two main things i think about are commodities rising which will very quickly cause inflation in our everyday goods food and cloathes ,etc

[bowchikabowbow]

@throwerofturds Regarding the policies of both parties, I think both parties are too ideological regarding taxes. The dems will never cut taxes for corporations or the rich and the GOP will never raise taxes period. That is way too rigid. Raising taxes is sometimes a good idea and cutting taxes is sometimes a good thing. Raising taxes in the early 90s didn't negatively effect the economy at all and eventually led to balanced budgets. Cutting taxes in the 80s led to a huge boom. Wut do u think?

[throwerofturds]

@bowchikabowbow

i agrre with the idea of doing the right thing and doing it when it is required . i just viewed video talking about the inequality of tax rates between china and the us . it mentioned that the last the last three presidents have been talking with china re this issue but it is still a problem trhat is unsolved . a problem probably mostly because us companies dont want tax equality and a problem because of the cheap labor . the US had the same pproblem in dealing with japan .

[throwerofturds]

@bowchikabowbow on the subject of home taxes i generally like the idea od less tax and less spending . politics seems to be very suceptable to overspending (pacifying the voter) and i think there should be a law saying there can be no deficit . im talking about everything across the board including armament spending and medicare and most especially bailouts . i think americans would be rich without these costs . im canadian and we have the same problem . we should be rich instead on the edge

[bowchikabowbow]

@throwerofturds Well if you want to exchange citizenship I'm down. You guys have less unemployment and less poverty than us and you got health insurance. I don't really think you have much to complain about other than the weather and the fact that you have to wait longer for certain operations at the hospital. So I would say that lower taxes don't necessarily lead to more prosperity. The US has lower tax rates than Australia, the UK and Canada and yet the US has more poverty and unemployment.

[freedomthrough]

@bowchikabowbow Taxes are just a matter of regulating demand, so as to give space for the public sector. Macroeconomically, taxes don't matter too much, as long as the gov't outlays are at least as large as the total tax income. "Surpluses" are never to be used, unless there is a risk of demand outstripping total capacity (buffer stock of labour risks reaching 0%).

[throwerofturds]

@bowchikabowbow

also with the qe one and qe two the money is getting watered down to nothing . some people say that there are great pools of money lieing around and if it starts to move there will be massive inflation .

it might start to move if the owners of the money percieve that it is becoming worth(less)

here is a funny "fact" two trillion dollars (bailout money) is the equivalent , at 1000$gold , of all the gold that has been mined in the last two thousand years . trillion is huge !

[bowchikabowbow]

@throwerofturds Well I guess I have to agree to disagree. But, I think we can all agree that your screen name kicks ass. Thrower of Turds, LOL. I love it. I didn't notice what your name was until just now.

[throwerofturds]

@bowchikabowbow many thanks ! im not generally an original type of person but i was this in picking this strange name .

mostly i try not come across like the name implies but i do like to argue a small amount

tell me ? do you generally believe that both parties policies are totally screwed or do you believe that one is right and one wrong ?

[steigerpower]

You appear to sound just as an Idiot Idot Ericclaptonismygod31

[ericclaptonismygod31]

This fool is advising the Greek government deal with their potential default.

He is not an economist!

[offdaheez]

Bigger stimulus? These "economists" are so blind to the fact that stimulus and gov. intervention in the market is what got us here in the first place. Stimulus IS the problem. Government needs to step out of the way and let the economy restructure. The restructuring and reallocation of resources will be painful. All the jobs and phony equity tied to the bubble need to disappear, and the longer the government postpones that, the worse the fallout will be.

[shahen13]

Love it. These uneducated buffoons who have watched some internet channel on economics think they now know more about economics than a nobel prize winner in econ. L O fucking L.

[mr82769]

Anti-intellectuals thrive in here. Worst part is: "they" cant identify when its a simple difference in point of view. So its either "He is wrong" or "he is right and everybody else is wrong".

[tinfoilcap]

Oh please. Just because you have a Nobel prize doesn't mean you know anything. As if Carter and Gore didn't prove that already, Obama does. Economics, peace prize, doesn't matter. Just shows they'll give to anyone who pushes their agenda. Try critical thinking instead of spoon fed platitudes.

[reefpirate]

I'd rather judge a person's opinions based on their content, rather than some shiny medal they have on the wall.

[shahen13]

@reef

But you are a nobody, a nothing, a fool. Unless of course, you have accomplished something with your life. Stiglitz has accomplished quite a bit with his. What have you done?

So why don't you shut up and quit being a pretentious dumbass who wants to "judge" an expert.

[reefpirate]

I had no idea you knew anything about me... But I'm afraid you're wrong about your first accusations.

There are plenty of 'experts' out there, and often they contradict each other. Rather than accepting what all experts say as truth, I try to evaluate what they say based on standards I have established in my philosophy. Your standards may differ.

I'd rather discuss economics with you than start some useless name-calling battle. Have you ever heard of the ad hominem fallacy?

[shahen13]

okay, here is a starting point - go look up the year of the biggest growth in US GDP and then figure out why it happened. When you have done that, we can have an intelligent discussion - primarily because you will actually be speaking with knowledge at that point.

[reefpirate]

Well, I can only find data as far back as 1947 right now, so why don't you tell me what it is.

Since 1947, it was 2008 that had the biggest spike. But remember that GDP is a nominal value, whereby if you have more dollars in an economy it will be larger, not necessarily more wealthy. Also, GDP unfortunately usually includes government spending which doesn't do much to represent prosperity, but rather represents a larger burden on society.

Just make your point already, enlightened one.

[shahen13]

It's 1942 - 19% growth because of government spending for WWII. Ever hear how wars are good for an economy? They are actually talking govt spending when they say that.

GDP, incidentally, is reported in nominal as well as real terms. And perhaps you are not fully aware of how govt spending works but consider that you are a contractor and the govt hires you to build roads, bridges, schools, hospitals, etc. If the govt. "spends" $1 million on that project - that is $1 million in income for you.

[shahen13]

That actually does indeed represent prosperity for you as a member of that economy - regardless of whatever your "economic guru" might be telling you. Now that also represents govt debt - no questions. However, during a recession if the governmnent does not step up and spend more creating income for individuals, who will? Businesses are too scared in a recession and so are consumers. The govt. IS THE ONLY CHOICE when times are tough. During good times, the govt. needs to get out of the way.

[shahen13]

You are confused in your analysis because you do not make the distinction between good times and bad. It makes all the difference.

Read a couple of serious books on macroeconomics and learn something before you form strong opinions.

[reefpirate]

Don't worry, my opinions are still forming.

The problem with the $1 million dollars I earn from a government contract is that money has to come from elsewhere in the economy. It's like taking a bucket of water from the deep end of a pool and pouring it in the shallow end.

WWII was followed by a sharp recession. War is bad for the economy, and good for certain profiteers. War could also be good for unemployment if there is a draft. But that is not real employment, not the kind we want.

[reefpirate]

Also, if government spending is so beneficial during a downturn, why did the Depression last for more than a decade despite all the government spending and contracts being handed out? I think, from what I can tell, that the Depression was prolonged by Roosevelt not prevented by him. He didn't prevent anything. In fact, the Depression didn't end until after he was dead. Now if this is the course you want to take now, 10 years of a terrible economy, fine go ahead and support the stimulus measures.

[shahen13]

I suggest you study the great depression in greater detail since you have the facts all wrong on it. I am afraid that I cannot spend much more time on chatting with you. Good luck and get a solid education - it will really help you with your future.

[reefpirate]

Ok, I hope that wasn't a simple way of dodging the question: Why did the Great Depression last for more than a decade (it wasn't really over until after the war) even with all the government spending? Is this the type of history we should repeat? Throw money at our problems, and hope they go away? And if the don't, do we just throw more at em until we hit World War III? Sounds like bad advice to me.

[shahen13]

Look up the fact that Hoover was President until 1933 and only after him did Roosevelt take over. Then look up the duration of the Great Depression. After you have done that, look up the vastly different economic policies implemented by the two Presidents and what impact they had. When you are done with that - look up "Hooverville." And when you are done with that, come back and I will gladly answer all your questions.

[reefpirate]

Some people seem to say that the Depression was over when the War started. Not the case. Unemployed people were sent overseas as soldiers... But that's not curing an unemployment problem.

Hoover is hardly a champion of laissez-faire ideology. He was in favour of several things to the contrary: large farm subsidies, more regulations, etc. I know people like to paint Hoover vs. Roosevelt like they're black and white, but it's not the case. FDR was black, and Hoover was a pretty dark grey.

[reefpirate]

Why dismiss me like I am the one who has to do all the homework?

I'd happily read 'Hooverville', but I would also recommend you read 'America's Great Depression' by Murray Rothbard. Then maybe you will realize it's not really about who the president is, but it's about central banking along with prevailing philosophical attitudes in social structures. FDR was surrounded by dimwits that thought it was a good idea to burn pigs to raise the price of pork. Such is the plight of gov't + economics.

[shahen13]

If you are talking about farm subsidies - guess where the biggest ones go? To the mid-west. Did you know that Republicans dominate in the mid-west? If you were not talking about farm subsidies - maybe you should figure out what burning pigs to raise the price of pork means. And as for Rothbard... that's like reading Marx and defending communism. Open your eyes and read some more. You are getting taken for a ride.

[reefpirate]

Henry Wallace, the Secretary of Agriculture under FDR in fact: Prices of hogs were "too high" and "farmers were starving", so they rounded up pregnant sows, slaughtered them and turned them into fertilizer. The price of pork went up 10 or 11 cents per pound. This was celebrated as an accomplishment.

Same with cotton, is some cases they would destroy 1/3 of a farmer's crop to bring prices up.

These are two examples of upside-down thinking about economics. I thought low prices were good??

[reefpirate]

And I've been taken for a ride before... I used to defend Marx and several other big-government or no-government types. I've read more Marx than I care to admit. So to say that I haven't read beyond Mises and Rothbard is misleading. I've just found them to be the most convincing so far.

[Entropy137]

Perhaps you'd like to explain to a kid in the war torn parts of Africa who got his arm chopped off by a machette how war is good for the economy? Has it ever ever occurred to Keynesians that the "bad times" are caused by government overspending? The economy got stimulated into an orgasm and now it's a bit sensitive so maybe we ought to leave it alone.

[pilkingtonphil]

@Entropy137 To be frank: yes, I think that Keynesians probably have considered that overspending may be detrimental - but it isn't always.

One underlying problem in this crisis was that people's wages had stagnated (since about 1980), yet living standards continued to rise - hence people needed debt. This doesn't fit your... ur.... "orgasm" model.

Incidentally, this has nothing to do with armless children. Absolutely nothing.

[Entropy137]

My armless child reference was in response to the wartime prosperity myth/broken window theory. I never claimed that it had anything to do with the stimulus argument. Have you considered that wages can't go up when there's no savings rate? "yet living standards continued to rise - hence people needed debt". No, the aggressive expansion of credit by the federal reserve is what caused the living standards to rise in the absents of an income increase.

[pilkingtonphil]

@Entropy137 Stop saying "have you considered", its extremely condescending and irritating.

In my opinion your argument is reductoinist. The income stagnation comes first - it was implemented by conscious political decisions made in the late 70s. After this aggregate demand needed to increase to keep the economy growing. This is why the Fed and other institutions expanded credit.

The problems run FAR deeper than Fed policy - Deus Ex Machina the money supply is NOT.

[Entropy137]

Lol my apologies. When talking to strangers on youtube, it's impossible to know their level of understand or knowledge base. It's also impossible to know if I'll be the teacher or student or if the conversation just degrades into a shouting match. So tell me about the political decisions in the 70s. And sorry for sounding like a typical right-wing teabagger by mentioning the fed so early. Btw, do you think depegging the $ to gold in 1971 has anything to do with the fall in real wage?

[pilkingtonphil]

@Entropy137 Yeah, teabaggers and hardcore libertarians (what some call Randroids) often use the Fed as "master narrative" tying up the whole economic argument, I think its a little silly.

The main problem, in my opinion, is structural. The US is losing its ground as the major industrial power - it has been since the late-60s when Germany and Japan rose to prominence. I think depegging had to do with this - it opened the way for exchange rate manoevers to facilitate the structural transition....

[pilkingtonphil]

@Entropy137 ....taking place. After the exchange-rates were floated they could be manipulated by governments to iron out "bumps".

By the 70s the US's uncompetitiveness vis-a-vis the new rising powers was more than apparent. In order to counteract this US industry was all but scrapped, unions were busted and wages were capped.

The US then became an economic power based on finance and large-scale consumption - the world's speculating consumer, as it were.

To summarise, I think we could.....

[pilkingtonphil]

@Entropy137 .....metaphorically refer to whats happening as a case of economic entropy (hehehe). The economic "energy" once possesed by the US has begun its inevitable dissipation into the less "charged" developing economies.

I think that the crisis can be read in these terms. This isn't the first time in history a declining economic superpower has turned to finance - see: Britain in the early 20th century and the Netherlands in late-18th century.

[Entropy137]

So I take it then that your argument is that american's economic decline is a result of a cultural shift of people becoming lazy and less creative? Is that a better argument than the fact that the central government and bank manipulate industries and interest rates and pile on debt for the public? Forgive me if I'm mistaking your position, but it reminds me of people who say wall street got "greedy". You've named the symptoms, but what in your opinion is the CAUSE of the uncompetitiveness.

[pilkingtonphil]

@Entropy137 Eh, sorry, I thought the cause would have been pretty obvious. Cheaper labour. Simple as. The German and Japanese post-war "miracles" were created by channeling in US investment while keeping in place many of the fascist regimes' labour laws.

Once the East Asians and the Chinese came on the scene the US was toast. Does this make Americans lazy? Well, if you call expecting not to work for $2 an hour lazy, that's your definition. Efficiency. Race to the bottom. Call it whatever.

[pilkingtonphil]

@Entropy137 One or two more things. First off, US workers probably aren't, by any objective description "lazy". I'm aware that many work more than one low-paid job to make ends meet. This doesn't really happen in most of Europe (although we may see it emerge soon in some places). Americans seem to work harder than many of their counterparts. Your elites also seem to be significantly richer and your rich/poor gap wider. I don't think this has to do with laziness - at least not worker laziness!

[D0g63rt]

@pilkingtonphil

Mental laziness on the part of the people. We get the leaders we deserve.

[pilkingtonphil]

@D0g63rt I don't believe that one iota. People have access to rubbish media - which presents things purely in terms of elite interests. Then when they elect a dude that says he's bringing 'change' he turns around and fucks people in the ass while keeping up his bullshit.

Most people see through this - hence the fall in approval ratings - but they can't do anything about it. Two-party system. Greedy elite. Cowardice among left-wingers... that's your problem.

[Entropy137]

The respected that normally should be given to academics doesn't apply to economics. Why is it that Hawkings isn't contested by the average Joe? Because physics professors don't tell you that if you jump off a cliff you'll sprout wings.

[robgobw]

Look, its simple macroeconmics, you either up Govt spending or private spending(by tax cuts), Govt spending gives direct effects through a process called creditmultiplication and is safe to work out OK, private spending will not give direct effects that produce nice statistics that are easy to use for papers so he doesnt like it...also, if Govt spends the money, who decides who gets it...

[CrowdPleeza]

How do you determine how big a gov't stimulus should be before implementing it?

[reefpirate]

According to this guy (Stiglitz) it's "the bigger the better!"

[xandras1111]

Stimulus package wasn't enough?? this guy doesnt care about debt levels or inflation...what kind of an economist is this?

[busapp]

He prefers governement investment to that made by individuals. He has an idealized view of government "investment". what planet does he come from? Mostly government is full of pork and waste.

[FreedomFightersUnion]

yeah i have to agree with you sysopkc, as loud as your mouth is =]

[sysopkc]

And its not an argument, im not arguing, im damn well stating it plain and simple.

[martman123456]

I agree. Arguments are typically accompanied by some offer of of facts and logic. In other words, a proper argument will determine whether people take you seriously or write you off as a loudmouth buffoon.

[sysopkc]

Boy oh boy there's NOTHING like armchair economists who know NOTHING about market economics. This man has NO CLUE as to what he is talking about. THE VERY NUMBERS HE QUOTES are absolutely skewed. Obama doesnt know what he is doing, hes a fucking lawyer. Stimulus is poison, it always has been in free market economies. Oh yeah and the reason they are firing teachers is because they have TOO MANY OF THEM IN A BLOATED SYSTEM you stupid asshole. Jesus, its sad. Im glad im a trader.

[Shadyhunter04]

"When the economy recovers, you privatize again"

Buahaha! What a wonderful way to screw this country over and insure hyperinflation. It's bad enough having the fed being influenced by the presidency and congress. It would be even worse with congress controlling the money printing press directly.

"Nothing is so permanent than a temporary government program."

[sysopkc]

Thank you! your 100% right. Govts have pulled this mess throughout history. And these damn dumbass kids sucking up to these mouthpieces dont know any better, and you cant tell the little fools!

[FreedomFightersUnion]

nationalizing the money system would mean abolishing the federal reserve, or taking control of it; either way, not having to pay bonds in return for notes. This bold move will prevent us from having to print huge amounts of money every so often and takes care of the risks of derivatives; not having to rely on hedge funds to minimize risk

[reefpirate]

So if we don't print it, where does it come from (under this nationalized model)?

[FreedomFightersUnion]

@reefpirate well there are several models that i could think up after nationalization... but with nationalization, our currency can actually go up in value in the world market, and we can actually control inflation. i can name soooo many privileges and benefits that we would have if we were not selling our souls to the federal reserve. we've gotten rid of central banks 2 or 3 times already in american history! president jackson won the election because he vowed to take them out (assassinated)

[AlanCom1]

More bullshit again coming from his mouth.

He said the debt was 5.7 Trillion when Bush came in - true. But when he left the debt was 10.6 trillion (Jan 20, 2009). FYI, total debt now is 11.6 trillion (Thanks Obama in only 6 months).

The moron Stiglitz added the additional liabilities coming from Medicare Part D, a disaster in itself, but not part of the current debt.

The stimulus is like paying a 12% credit card with a new 28% card - stupid to say the least.

[AlanCom1]

Bullshit!!!!

The stimulus is not necessary. We are just saddling the kids with more trillions they have to pay for.

What is sad is that we are doing exacly what was done during the great depression: higher taxes, more regulation, restrictions to trade and government expansion. We will pay dearly for this stupidity.

Stiglitz is just full of shit, as I doubt he actually believes what he is saying here.

[mistortugas]

godscuttingyoudown,

Go back in the basement. The black helicopters are almost here.

[godscuttingyoudown]

college professors are cowards and fools with no real world experience but are just talking heads for the NEW WORLD ORDER

they live a comfortable life style of spending a daily life of stuffing themselves as pigs and having a congregations of young kids to intimidate them with their ideas while holding their future in their hands.

[nakmanpocket]

Let's change the way economic growth is calculated and we'll see a new world. The current GDP doensn' tell us many important things, which have to be discovered by researches and monitoring activities which are often very costy. Little by little people, public bodies and enterprises will realize that negative externalities can be eliminated, looking at changes not as a threat but as an opportunity...

[SNIPEQUEST]

when making decisions that involve knowledge as well as the intererlation and complexity of human interaction, wisdom is most nessessary. President Obama is not a wise man.

[humanist7117]

Lambstes, no: criticizes constructively, yes!

[geetryflb]

Obama doesn't have a clue.  He needs a Presidential Czar.

[davejoe75]

How is giving the most inefficient and un-innovative part of our economy more money going to get us out of this? That's great he got a Nobel Prize, but that doesn't mean he knows how to run a country or a business.

The Fed caused this mess with their expansive monetary policy, and we all got drunk along the way. Problem is no one is letting us sober up with a recession.

[martman123456]

I'm surprised you want to challenge Stiglitz's knowledge of economics or of how to run a business.  He's widely published and has taught some of the best and brightest economists in the world today. It's fine to disagree with him, but blaming the entire recession on monetary policy is far to simplistic, and any undergrad econ major can demonstrate the logical lacunae in allowing this recession to deepen without stimulus. Give the independent economists more credit than i-bankers.

[sysopkc]

Yes and thats his problem, he is a fucking academic, the talk of stimulus is absurd on its face. And by the way monentary policy is the no 1 CAUSE of this problem due to bailouts by Alan Greenspan with Longterm capital management, and the artificial suppression of interest and 3 fold federal lending standards. PERIOD, its not even arguable. Academics dont know as much as you think sir. Its NOT real world. You DONT KNOW what your talking about. I was just a stupid when I went through college.

[martman123456]

Bravo, a brilliant argument. You begin by lambasting academics, and then try to convince me you're making an intelligent argument. Fail. If you were stupid in college perhaps you should have upgraded to a better school, but clearly you have not come a long way since then. Save your four-month late mindless rants for your next townhall meeting. There, you can at least try repeating something you heard a smart person say and people will clap for you.

[sysopkc]

Listen you little asshole, your still wrong. You dont know what your talking about. Take your ass out into the private sector and run a business and trade for a few years and clean out all that keynsian mumbo jumbo they put in your head at those liberalized warehouses for overgrown children called US colleges and then we will talk about it. And by the way most of those academics failed in the private sector thats why they are doing what they are doing ESPECIALLY in economics

[martman123456]

LOL. It's funny that you're so angry over old news. In any case, I'll correct you on your principal error: running a business doesn't make you intelligent or give you any insight on macroeconomic policy. E.g., plumbers can run a successful business; it doesn't mean they know how to do their own taxes let alone understand legal or socioeconomic issues. As for your remaining comments, I'll say that colleges are not equal, and I think you may have overpaid, especially if you took economics.

[goldgrif]

agreed the idea that was pushed on us was let business run free the market will take care of it, now that the market collapses show that idea was a looser

[bdc03]

we haven't had free markets for about 100 years.

[kaisercesar]

we've never had truly free markets in the way they are idealistically envisioned. power and control will always be consolidated along economic, social, racial, gendered and corporate lines.

the government is one of many elements infringing on a system to prevent it from truly consisting of liberty, freedom and opportunity

[thegreatpadaxes]

nothing is the same on paper as it is in practice. I believe what BDC03 was trying to say was that, we had a functional, healthy free market that mostly did what it was supposed to, (even out prosperity), until about 100 years ago when the balance was thrown off.

[eshnajizzle]

@bdc03 Depending on what you mean by a free market, you could say no-one has ever had a free market.

This obviously not being what you meant, yes, we do have more limitations on the market now, but I for one, am glad that it is so; if we haven't had a free market, we surely haven't had a functional one either.

[AdversusHaereses]

@bdc03 Not true. In the Gilded Age, the only people who had any ownership were mostly the robber barrons. This was during a period when the government stayed away from interfering in the economy. In a time span between 1870 and 1920, 40% of the market cycle was made of recessions. It was only when government started becoming a massive beast that the economy began to stabilise. The true solution is neither big spending nor a laissez faire economy, but the widespread ownership of property.

[befranklintoo]

it is exact that this kind of IMF sympathizer does not agree with any thing that blocks the Humanity and concern of peoples of all origins.

never would I trust this man in any way like any other banker.