Naomi Klein and Joseph Stiglitz on Economic Power

[Crackxyx]

what in the hell, De Soto says exactly how his observations apply, idgi why anyone is asking

[elgajd]

@sfjeff089 - DesSoto clearly described the mechanism: have well documt'd and properly executed property rights. He argues that when every thing is owned by the citizenry & everyone knows who that is & the courts keep it clear, trust is created. But the mechanism of trust prefigures property rights because it is instinctual & irrational. Read Weber; the rise of the Christian-right may be an effort to re-create trust. Klein rightly questioned this with two egs of power trumping those rights.

[muhammadzahmad]

very nice speech!!!

[elgajd]

Actually, DeSoto puts the trust issue quite well. Economic activity is a trust-based system. He links the trust to property rights, but I think the creation of trust pre-dated that with the expansion of Christianity. The property rights came about because of that trust - trust in the law and even a movement towards that trust.

Read Max Weber's The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Sadly, greed is more stupefying than sex, and is now being used to undermine that with pelf.

[sfjeff1089]

@elgajd He made a great case for the *need* for creating trust in an economic system, but I didn't see that he gave a complete picture on the best *mechanism* for creating trust.

[heartbeataudio]

totally agree with JejuLee: De Soto is the only one who seems to have an understanding on a more fundamental level.

[sfjeff1089]

@heartbeataudio Why don't we connect De Soto's arguments to what happened, so we can explore your idea. We saw a crisis in which banks created what were commonly known as "Instruments of financial mass destruction" and then were astonished when they imploded. The said actvity was illegal until the late 90's, when it was pushed through by massive bank lobbying. When the crisis hit, the bankers were the ones called to explain the mess and were put in charge of fixing it.

[sfjeff1089]

@sfjeff1089 (continued). So what relevance did De Soto's arguments have to that problem. Don't get me wrong. He did a great job of explaining what problems third world countries have, but these problems were tiny in comparison to the issue that the banks had so much freedom that they had the freedom to corrupt politicians with impunity.

[SoberHedgehog]

De Soto ftw. Very good discussion and it would've been better if a serious social democrat/liberal was in Klein's place.

[seppsters]

It's painfull to see fucking monkey Klein, next to people like Stiglitz and De Soto.

[sfjeff1089]

@seppsters It's more painful to see De Soto saying over and over that you need something that we already have except in one small area when the real issue is that the perpetrators of a massive scandal have too much power in Washington for us to do anything about it yet.

[LogicalFlawDetector]

Stiglitz should acquaint himself with the real principles of free markets. He then says it's really corporate welfarism and corporatism. Which one is it? Free markets or coporatism? Free markets are anti-bail out. I suggest reading Vernon Smith, another Nobel Prize-winning economist, who says the exact opposite of what Stiglitz said.

[dharmaatdawn]

@LogicalFlawDetector if real free market are anti bail out, why did they asked to be bailed out? why did they accept the money ? if free market suppose suppose to sort everything out and be so efficient then what happened to all the banks that were on the bring of collapse? if they were so efficient and migthy how come they didnt see their own bankrapcy untill it was too late??? Its easier to justify the free market dogma, the free market as they practiced now not really free.

[seppsters]

@dharmaatdawn

You don't get it. Businesses HAVE to go bankrupt. That's what distinguishes good businesses from bad. Now that they know there will be bail-outs, they have much less incentive to be efficient.

[dharmaatdawn]

@seppsters Thats will distinguish your bussines from my bussines, I agree. The same rules dont apply when u th one making them. All this free market mambo jumbo is ideologicall nonsense for the public to debate. the big business was never shy to use the state protectionism when it comes to subsidy or state tax exemptions. so please, give me some rethoric about competition, all i see corporate monopoly in the hands of few

[seppsters]

@dharmaatdawn

Rofl, you're just agreeing with De Soto. The problem is protectionism, not competition or the free markets, in environments with less interventionism big businesses are always more vulnerable to competition from smaller and more efficient businesses. That's what history tells us.

[toastycake942]

@seppsters You're talking about disruptive market innovation. The problem is this can take a very long time to play out, and in the mean time you have actors that take on the ability of distorting markets due to their size and power. In a way you're right, b/c any sane actor in that situation would hijack government and use it to create barriers to entry.

What I'm saying is you've got things backwards. The real answer is aggressively breaking up monopolies.

[sfjeff1089]

@seppsters Do you have any facts or data showing that smaller companies are more efficient? (or actually from your argument, do you have any facts or data showing that for any large company there are *always* smaller companies competing directly which are more efficient?) Also, any discussion of protectionism is meaningless without the context of what your trading partners are doing and what has been happening in currency markets, at least if you want to analyze in terms of cause and effect.

[sfjeff1089]

@seppsters I think that one thing you are looking at is that Large businesses will *never* go bankrupt unless the power and influence they have over overall society is kept below a certain threshold. Correct me if I am wrong, but most free market proponents argue that you don't need to keep the power and influence of large companies below any sort of threshold.

[Franky4fingers78]

@LogicalFlawDetector Joe said its corporate welfare under the "guise" of free market economy. He maintains that free market philosophy is flawed in the sense that it is never implemented and what has been going on for the past 40 years is deregulation of financial markets promoted by free-market proponents however maintaining a corporate welfare system. So he's criticizing the behavior of the government. I find it amusing that you think Stiglitz doesn't know principles of economic systems.

[LogicalFlawDetector]

@Franky4fingers78

I find it amusing that you in addition to deluding yourself into thinking that you understand free markets, think Stiglitz does too. The entire progress of western civilization was based on laissez faire capitalism. Case in point: Britain after 1846 when the Corn laws were abolished. Sweden and other Nordic nations until 1970s when the Social Democrat perverts took over. The United States from 1870-1920s. In the east, Hong Kong from 1961-1997 and Singapore.

[Franky4fingers78]

@LogicalFlawDetector Oh the irony. Your name is Logicalflawdetector and you're spending hours commenting on youtube about how you understand free markets better than a world renowned Nobel prize winner.

The idea of anything being free is related to the question - how free? You suggest Britain championing free market economics. Would you consider something free when there are certain restrictions? What exactly is a free market? The answer to that question is there have NEVER been a free market.

[Franky4fingers78]

@LogicalFlawDetector Britain controlled the markets of its colonies like India by subjecting them to production of raw materials for the factories in Britain. United States had a protected market for the majority of 1800s because they could not compete with European products. The fact is every country (and rightly so) protects its markets for products that are weaker in quality.

Toyota was heavily subsidized by Japan so was Samsung until both of these companies could compete internationally

[Franky4fingers78]

@LogicalFlawDetector What free market proponents like you do is selectively pick instances where countries with great economic might opened up markets because they could compete globally. India is being pressured by the US at the WTO to open up its tech sector since Indian companies can't compete with US companies. At the same time US protects its agro-economy against cheap eastern grains in a hypocritical manner.

[sfjeff1089]

@LogicalFlawDetector If 1870 - 1920 was truly proof that lassez faire was followed and it worked, then we wouldn't have seen Warren Harding run for office in 1920 on "A return to Laissez Faire". In actuality, what happened was he got elected, killed unions, lowered taxes on the rich, and set up a situation where financials grew to 40% of the economy by 1929. By the time Hoover was elected, the economy minus financials had already shrunk to the point the Great depression was inevitable.

[LogicalFlawDetector]

@sfjeff1089

LOL Did you just mouth the mainstream fallacy that laissez faire lead to the Great Depression? Moron, look up monetary contraction by the Fed, the deflationary effects of the Gold standard, the Smoot Hawley tariff, Davis Bacon Act, which initiated cartelization of the labor market--all government interventions.

[sfjeff1089]

@LogicalFlawDetector Ok, I am a moron and you believe that you can have a thriving economy while the middle class shrinks. Learn about the multiplier effect, the difference between spending earnings vs spending borrowings, the difference between the national savings rate and the savings rate of the bottom 90%, and the relationship between the velocity of money, the amount of money, and economic health/stability, then throw the first stone.

[sfjeff1089]

@LogicalFlawDetector So, the effects of the Gold standard were absolutely a problem. No argument there. There is a right-wing myth that the Smoot-Hawley tariff was bad because it was protectionist. Actually, that's not the case. The Smoot-Hawley tariff was bad because it was *excessively* protectionist. Tariffs went from 25% to 50% overnight in the beginning of a world-wide depression. Not good, but saying this is problematic goes far short of proving the proper level is 0.

[sfjeff1089]

@LogicalFlawDetector OMG!!! I just realized I have been wrong all these years. I have assumed that monetary contraction occurred when an economic spending base that was already living past its means by mortgaging everything lost major portions of the asset sectors, deleveraged, and saw further erosion based on the multiplier effect on lost financial sectors.

... and here it turns out that it was just the fed contracting the money supply the whole time. How could I have been so blind?????

[sfjeff1089]

@LogicalFlawDetector Alright. Free markets are anti-bail out. Let's assume that everybody in the discussion agrees either that the banks should not have been bailed out or the portion of the banks engaging in bets should not have been bailed out.

How do you get from today's society to a society where that can be enforced? It does no good to argue against crime in a free society unless you also make provisions for hiring policemen.

[kasraman]

at first I felt that de Soto was straying away from the discussion. within a half hour, i realized that he was the discussion.

[sfjeff1089]

@kasraman It all comes down to which ingredient is missing. Sort of a Maslow's heirarchy of economic needs. It does little good to focus on our massive, but met need for air and water when we are starving. But if you come from a region where water is the major problem, then there is less point in focusing on food.

[piwi87]

Que maestro Hernando de Soto.

[Henry696]

what does Hernando de Soto says about Chavez?? that he is a what?

[Schniddo]

@Henry696 A "titler"

[shplatinky]

"there is nothing more unequal than the equal treatment of unequals" ... BRILLIANT.

[Bellantoni]

Naomi will you shut up and let Joe talk.

[MegF142857]

De Soto at :47... an incentive for the government to get the "property rights" of the shadow finance market is so they can tax it more efficiently. Governments need to know transactions and who has what in order to steal from the people. That's why they hate barter, as just one example. With the trillions flowing around, then seems money there for the picking. How about 1-3% transaction fees on the derivative gambling? Bankers do it to us for credit card fees, so turn around is fair play.

[MegF142857]

Naomi Klein at :42... applause... for mentioning the obvious thieves of Government Sachs (aka Goldman Sachs) and the revolving door between Fed / Treasury and Wallstreet, particularly Goldman Sachs. Why isn't this mentioned everyday, as so obvious!!

[MiauZi69]

@MegF142857 because the USA is rundown state with just a few at power who are still benefiting from all that. Just watched a reportage where a camera team filmed the new jail in-trays. It was shocking. Such a treatment would be unthinkable in Europe. Most in-trays were drugaddicts and psychic ill people that need treatment and help, not punishment and a treatment that is so humiliating. I really lost nearly all my positive feelings about the US there.

[MegF142857]

@MiauZi69 Well, ole Martha Stewart did pretty well in prison. HA! I agree that folks shouldn't be in jail for drug offense or if mentally ill. I'd also remove the death penalty. Wonder if you saw Federal or state or county jail in that expose. What manner folks are kept will vary by prison. Some of the nicest prisons saw were in Sweden. Heck, that was nicer than my own house!

[MegF142857]

Naomi Klein at :34 is wrong that we have seen a true free market. We didn't because they knew with their buddies in the Fed and Treasury that they would be bailed out. What was the downside? If you let them fail, then we'd see more of a free market. Don't socialize the downside and privatize the upside.

[MegF142857]

Refreshing talk where they go into the theft and transfer of money to bankers and elites. That the US behaved like a "banana republic". Meanwhile nothing has changed nearly a year later. They have gotten away with it. I can only hope the upcoming election shakes things up.

[PaoloPaolo49]

Add De Soto to the title!

[JejuLee]

De Soto is simply more focused--like a laser--on the real problem; i.e., there is no longer a system of property law--in effect--in the U.S.; this applies to all property, as when a rogue criminal organzation like Goldman Sachs can print money at will, you have nothing they can't take from you.

Stiglitz and Klein really seem sophmoric in the presence of De Soto.

[Scientisticsoviet]

@JejuLee It is indeed an important problem; Not the only one though.

[diogenix1]

Hernando De Soto says the truth but he is way too mono-directional. He is like a man with a hammer who treats every problem like a nail.

He has stifled the potential variety of discourse that could be had by constantly harping on property rights.

[Scientisticsoviet]

@diogenix1 He makes a good point though if you think about some of the implications: You can't regulate something the you have no information on (knowledge of). In a way, all other regulations stem from the single one which demands that what you claim is true in fact.

[MarkoKraguljac]

Although better than most public discussions, its still too much on surface. Prominent thinkers are obligated to reveal reality how it really is, without mystification. Otherwise, they are just paid porn stars of Tiger Woods caliber. Truth is authority, not the other way around. De Soto and Harvey improved this discussion the most.

[rickbar123]

Do you smoke crack ?

[apexpark]

considering how privatized CUNY is becoming, with the blessings of administrators like this prez, I find this HILARIOUS.

[spylus]

how privatized is CUNY becoming? you mean a lack of 'open enrollment' makes the school private?

[apexpark]

No, the fact that after patterson's proposed cuts go into effect, CUNY will be less than 50% funded by state monies. the question is: at what point is a public university no longer public? And, for the record, "CUNY" never had open enrollment. The junior or "community" colleges had open enrollment for a short period of time, not the senior colleges.

[spylus]

So then, what is the advantage of a (majority) publicly-funded institution over a private one?

[JusticeNature]

Hernando de Soto - has hit the nail on the head.