Joseph Stiglitz - Sharing the Benefits of Globalization

[klarekerry]

managing well 'globalization' does not exist Mr. Stiglitz!Big government is in bed w/ 'globalization'!!WE MUST RETURN TO SMALL GOVERNMENT !!!SOVEREIGNTY MR.STIGLITZ!!INDIVIDUAL AND DE/CENTRALIZED POWER SYSTEMS STOP YOUR CONTRADICTION!!

[bonzai348]

We need to educate everyone in the world, knowledge is the ultimate good for everything. You can use knowledge as many times you want

[robmanyou]

It's sad how large business interests can influence our policy so that they may exponentially boost their profits from being able to avoid the ethical employer-employee guidelines we have in the U.S. They do so by arguing that they are helping the poor in other nations when that is merely a byproduct. They are helping themselves to greater profits. They are availing themselves of the benefits of conducting business in the U.S. without following the same guidelines our small bus. must follow.

[irajkhodadoost]

All prophets from the East or the West and all seers from across the globe talk about taking care of each other; considering each other as members of the same family, but from the age of Reagonmics/Voodoo Economics/Deregulation/Taking it from the needy and giving it to the greedy policies of the 1980's, we see a widening gap between the rich and poor countries and the rich and poor people and the rampant greed has given us the likes of Enron, Worldcom, Leman Brothers, and a corrupt Congress.

[comptonproduction]

we have poor people in the USA just like the underdeveloped countries. people who have no means of support.

[lakid87]

lol @ 2:50 , she's getting bored

[freshfed]

empathy! sorry but if the US had any sense of empathy half the 3rd world would have a decent quality of life rather than the poverty that western society has imposed upon it!

[ZapatismoUSA]

"empathy" - Wow. completely ignoring the historical and contemporary facts about how globalization has been imposed through militarization and support of dictatorships and authoritarian regimes

[rickbar123]

THIS IS BULLSHIT

SHUT THE FUCKING DOOR ON IMPORTS

VOTE OUT ALL THE SOBs THAT WANT THE DOOR OPEN

SAVE AMERICA--SHUT THE DOOR ON IMPORTS

17% OUT OF WORK- WHY DO WE BEND OVER FOR THE CEO AND WALL STREET

[ray4ix]

Sure :D Than as a largest exporter U.s. will suffer too , other countries will shut the imp as well for the states.

[rickbar123]

fill me in, what do we export????

[ray4ix]

us and other advanced countries got higher exp than imp! That's why they are developing and thats why Americans live so wealthy. Just this year us got inp/exp at the same rates, because of the crisis.

[ZapatismoUSA]

@rickbar123 War, deregulation and privatization of social and public sectors.

[rickbar123]

Milton Freidman should rot in hell.

[nonameposter]

Instead of starting an economic war, you should tax the rich and support the poor -> more consum demand -> less unemployment

[rogeliogonzalezmarti]

¿Alguien podría ponerle al video subtítulos en español, por favor?

[salnoodles]

OMG!!! I can't take this interview constantly bobbing her head.

[gkgreger]

1) Free Trade/Market Capitalism or "Globalization", is a immoral system. The whole idea about money & it's use must change. Should a person suffer & be denied the things he or she needs because they do not have enough printed pieces of paper ? Under this British Global Free Trade Capitalist system, money is the "God" & those who have it are the Master Class. Those who don't have money are the peasant blue collar class. This is insanity! The British have bad ideas.

[estorpai]

SOFT TERRORISM kills more than hard terrorism.The former is done by Akaida.let me be clear, i am against both.

Now why terrorist groups like UNO,WTO,World Bank and security council should have any stake in the way our planet should be governed?We take part of the blame cos we allow this thugs to cheat poor people in Africa,south america and some parts of Asia. Down with this model.

[1000101er]

While I find Stiglitz's ideological overtone disagreeable, his economic ideas tend to be sound. I think however that many less educated leftists misconstrue his words as supporting the view that markets and trade are inherently bad and that he does little to discourage these interpretations.

That is, he walks a fine line in terms of keeping his words in line with accepted economic theory, but the nuances of his statements are lost on most who hear him.

[djboony]

lol why do people think economic progress is mountains of cheaply manufactured tat we dont need!

[optimusprimevil1984]

the poor complain they always do

but thats just idle chatter

our system brings rewards to all

at least to all that matter

[tonylee1973]

Since nafta and gatt the quality of life in the US has gone down hill. The minimum wage in Mexico is much smaller than the US. Its not Mexicans fault its the greedy globiliist and the whores in washington DC Also nationalism is a very strong force. People don't want to be a global citizen. It sounds cheesy

[ourearthhome]

Globalization in so far as it actually embodies economic progress, i.e. cheaper goods produced more efficiently with less cost, has the effect of raising land values everywhere. Land or at least the most valuable land and natural resources are monopolized in the hands of a few us and this is the primary reason why globalization has not benefitted everyone. A shift of taxation from labor and capital to land values is the most direct way to share the benefits of free trade/globalization.

[chicaactiva92]

Cosmicviewer got owned... you just shifted the definitions to fit your argument, poor job man

[cosmicviewer477]

Please point out where I shifted definitions. Be more specific.

[MountOlivet]

Everyone should read Making Globalization Work by Joseph Stiglitz.

[zsylvana]

The Leading Economist of Our Time.A higly

Intelligent person with very Warm and Solidaric Humanist personality!!We got not much of such persons!Hommage to Joseph Stiglitz!May people listen and learn of him!

[chinasucksforever]

Globalization = New Communism.

[oda1karyan]

Rather an equally bad counterpart

[8data]

great economist

[ourearthhome]

"The main, underlying idea of Henry George is the taxation of land and other natural resources. What was underlying his ideas is rent associated with things that are inelastically supplied, which are land and natural resources. And using natural resource extraction and using land rents as the basis of taxation is an argument that I think makes an awful lot of sense because it is a non-distortionary source of income and wealth.

Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel laureate (2001) in 2002 interview

[turs1405]

that woman is sooooo annoying.

[jimbob6986]

Gavo fiddles kids.

[Whoo69]

Stiglitz is one of the few economists with any real moral compass. Most economists are stupid libertarians who only care about themselves and corporations, it seems.

[jimbob6986]

I disagree, economics is often distorted and used by libertarians to push their agenda. Yes economists generally believe free markets are the best way of connecting supply with demand. But i have never heard of an economist espousing corporatism. In fact most ive heard rail against it. I have spent 4 years studying the subject under 5 different economics professors and only 1 could be described as avowedly laissez faire, and only in the sense that he is vehemently anti-monopoly.

[Richie7890]

@jimbob6986 Being "avowedly laissez faire" and "vehemently anti-monopoly" is a contradiction.

[LogicalFlawDetector]

@jimbob6986

A libertarian economist would support something like Hong Kong and Singapore, the two most freest markets in the world. Look up their GDP per capita and compare it to their former colonial rulers. The biggest threat to poor people are out of control governments and bad legal systems.  Just google economic freedom and GDP per capita. There is a strong correlation between free markets and GDP per capita.

[freshfed]

@Whoo69 sadly that is how western society has been developed, extremely self orientated, 'cult of the individual' our discourse is riddled with 'self' focus.

[SuntzuMocro]

@Whoo69 because you know most of them.

[bads06]

@Whoo69 Did he kill 13 SS Officers?

[calvinjones]

"Median income is lower today than it was 7 years ago."

Despite total wealth increasing. Relative wealth (ineqaulity) makes society worse off at a given income. So the US middle and lower class are loosing in both absoloute and relative terms.

[kev3d]

And yet the United states has overweight homeless. I cannot see, in statistical or in practical terms that the Middle class or even the lower class have less or that there is growing inequity. I make more money than both of my parents did at my age 30 years ago. Most people I know are the same way. More people travel internationally, have cable, more phones, Computers and everything else than 7 years ago. Im not understanding where this data is coming from.

[cruxbucket]

are you an economist. let alone a Nobel prize winning ones. those are good credentials. inflation has actually lowered our incomes. the middle class is slowly disappearing in America.

[kev3d]

Yet other economists disagree. Like Milton Friedman, also a Nobel Laureate, who believed (some say proved) that laissez-faire was far more beneficial. As for the Shrinking middle class, the poverty rate (census bureau data) was about 23% in 1959, and roughly 12.6 in 2005. With 60% of "poor" households having cable TV, I can only infer from the data that the middle class (if its going anywhere) is up. Recessions and other factors will take their toll, but the cycle continues, usually upward.

[cosmicviewer477]

The middle-class is actually shrinking in terms of REAL wealth. The average worker is tremendously more efficient and well-trained than his/her counterpart back in 1959, yet though we're working much harder, our incomes and collective/individual wealth have stagnaged if not decreased.

[kev3d]

How so? Billions of people have Cellphones, Computers, Electricity, Medicine, Television, Sports, Recreation and access to clean water; Far more in raw numbers and by percentage than ever before. Working much harder? 100 years ago a 60 hour work week was considered light. Machines have replaced manual labor from the cotton gin to the computer. Economies go up and down, but the collective wealth almost always increases. What is your definition of wealth or hard work?

[cosmicviewer477]

I concede to your "hard work" argument. However, I don't know if having a cellular phone and a few unnecessary material items constitutes as success or progress. At the end of the day, if there is a shock to these people's lives, is there a saftey net and wealth to tap into to survive the shock. This is what I'm suggesting here. And, for most people, the answer is "no". Most poeple, despite the outward appearance of wealth, wouldn't be able to survive a major financial blow.

[kev3d]

What then is wealth? What do you mean "survive"? Did millions die during the great depression? People may or may not withstand the shock of financial turmoil, but that entirely depends on the nature of the crisis. If a person's income is based on stocks only, then perhaps not. But if they sell food, then probably they will be ok (since people still need to eat) Either way, more people of a greater range in age, race, gender and religion have more options for acquiring and maintaining wealth.

[cosmicviewer477]

Survival is not necessarily just being alive. When you're burdened down with debt, you might be alive, but you're barely surviving, if that. The only reason why this crisis hasn't hit much harder in the U.S. is because New Deal measures are in place. That is what we have over our Great Depression predecessors. If it were left up to free-market proponents, we would be in deeper trouble, and frankly, they are the ones who are at fault currently.

[kev3d]

That is not the case at all. First of all, the new deal did not get the US out of the Depression; WW2 did. Second, most of the New deal programs were dismantled during the war. Before government began regulating the housing market, banks had to be very careful about lending money. If loans were not repaid, losses went straight to the banks and the bank failed. If the banks KNOW there will be a safety net, they can be reckless, sure enough they were and now here we are.

[Blucius13]

WW2 got us out of the depression the same way the New Deal programs had intended. WW2 was just a mega New Deal.

[kev3d]

No, the New Deal as it was designed, failed, and WW2 cost Over a quarter million lives. So sure, when in a state of total war, unemployment is largely eliminated. I'm not sure its a good trade off.

[Blucius13]

It is not a good trade off, I'm just saying that the goal of the New Deal was to increase aggregate demand. WW2 accomplished this. After all The New Deal was a Government System designed by bureaucrats so there was multiple goals including greed.

[tonylee1973]

The federal reserve?

[laughs422]

it's called neo-feudalism and not so good if you think about it

[8data]

totally agree with calvin jones

we have greater ability to communicate than ever before and as a result less ability to understand how to have a socially just place to live

[Whoo69]

Joseph Stiglitz should be listened to more by these phony pro-corporate free traders who claim they're "pro-developing world" and really want them to become industrialized and prosperous.

[DaXue]

Dr.Stiglitz's work gives the pro-corporate traders all the reason to loathe him, as has been the case at the very least since he published his 'Globalization and its Discontents' book six years ago. Of particular note in his book is the seemingly cynical approach he takes to the IMF and their supposed opportunistic approach to economic aid for developing countries that could be misinterpreted for conspiracy theory.