the point of my comment is that even though best case scenario for all is the Austrian philosophy of the market, free enterprise, would be the A1 option; however, it's not an option. it wouldn't work in the world we live in, as it is right now. the political and social engineering of national governments working with the UN, IMF, and other global agencies won't allow any truly free markets to exist anywhere in the world (except black or grey markets). that's why Keynesian economics dominates.
everyone with any understanding of "basic economics" understands that free markets work if their left to their own devices. unfortunately, we don't live in a world free of taxation, free of government regulations and agencies enforcing those regulations, and free of military spending and war. "market fundamentalism" isn't going to be a priority for those in charge, whether in the private or public sectors. it's ridiculous to keep the pedantic argument going when we know it'll never be.
Stiglitz is a moron. He babbles on about failure of the free markets; and then goes on to say it's not really free markets: it's really corporate-state nexus. Exactly my point.
Stiglitz has under hand two modelling methods: one that works, one that doesn't work. The problem is that many people are very fond of the second one and go on to note dumbly what they think Stiglitz said, just to try and dent his point... lol
What he said is that it's the lack of regulation that causes troubles and, then, he criticized the manner in which they gave money to the banks. The issue with the bailout was again the lack of limits.
@theawesomemanman The USA's "golden age" was the couple of decades after the second world war. When the US was adding millions to its middle class, and the middle class was gaining wealth year in year out. That was true social mobility, the American dream if you will. However, since the eighties social mobility has collapsed, income inequality soared, and the middle classes have been all but decimated. It looks almost like a reverse in development. Just my view from outside.
All fundamentalisms are bad, I wish they were all dead. I also wish that completely irrational fanatical state fundamentalism was dead, but unfortunately Stiglitz proves that it isn't.
@seppsters Stiglitz argues for "irrational fanatical state fundamentalism"?
I'm not sure about that. Have you actually read 'Freefall'? I really recommend it. He's worked for the IMF where he saw how the structural adjustment programmes ruined many developing nations. He knows exactly what's going on, and his alternative isn't statism, it's more 'market democracy' if you want to call it anything. 'Fundamentalist' he is not.
technically the crash was because of government DEREGULATION, which gave wall street bankers the opportunity to exploit an unregulated economy. The banks are not the only sector exploiting the economy for mass profits. Corporations make use of deregulation to ensure profits are emphasized over human life, politicians have endorsed deregulation and free economics resulting in a dismantling of: workers rights,social assistance,healthcare,education.
The fundamental principle that we need to grapple with is this , Humanity cannot be treated as batteries of energy so a few can enrich and empower themselves the consequence is a world of war,poverty,exploitation,enviornmental destruction and many other terrible ongoing challenges, or We share the earth for all generations to come in harmony and cooperation for our material and emotional needs, We need to understand our common source and our common destiny , our common humanity as one
My Keynes Hayek: The Clash That Defined Modern Economics is published in October by W.W.Norton. Read an extract at: sites.google.com/site/wapshottkeyneshayek/
@shadowgeyser but Americans aren't mad at the private sector- with few exceptions. Or if they are, they have no means of organizing that anger. Take a look at what Americans bitch about- 99% of it is directed at the govt- and that is EXACTLY what Goldman Sachs and Lockheed Martin want.
Take care.
Goldman Sachs doesn't care whether dems or repubs win in 2012. Why would they?
@qwertypoiu4321 when you revert to personal insults, you reveal your insecurity and lack of rhetorical capabilities. He must have struck a nerve. Someday, you'll realize capitalism, as it exists in the USA, is a short-sighted, self-defeating system. Hopefully, we will still be able to breath the air and drink the water after the "markets" are gone.
@tristramshandy3 This is just a fact, Stiglitz is a thug, marxist blowhard. He is promoting the fallacious, Marxist LTV exploitation theory. The US is a soft-socialist country like Canada and the UK, which is why the US went through such a large State-caused contraction beginning in 2007.
@qwertypoiu4321 yawn- name calling is empty of substance, and so is your argument. The US economy has been crashing every 15 years since its inception. Take a history course if you want to pretend to understand economics. Have a nice day.
@tristramshandy3 Fractional-Reserve Banking embezzlement has caused every major contraction in US history. Read a book for once, say de Soto's 'Money, Bank Credit and Economic Cycles', it is free online.
@qwertypoiu4321 How was the crisis caused by the government? Everyone that disagrees with you is not a socialist or Marxist, Stiglitz supports market reform to make globalism work.
@tristramshandy3 The market system can be reformed if th proper checks and balances are put back into place. Also a new Bretton woods needs to be put in place to move countries away from the floating exchange rates countries are now under.
Good point, but take into consideration that the world almost never saw 'true' communism. By definition the Soviet Union and its allies were a socialist states that were only aspiring to communism.
This guy is brilliant. If we had more economic minds like his in the white house we wouldn't be climbing out of a the current recession caused by FAILED neocon economic trickle down policies.
Budgets are like all other bills: they ought to be voted, even if you get the privilege of presenting them. Even if you appoint a genius there, if people believe in market orthodoxy, they will vote their own way up the economical gallows.
@AussieAustrianBlog So that's your point? You can't be serious... Do you really believe the subprime mortgage crisis could ever happen in a minimally regulated market? What would be the next step for you, changing the US capital to Las Vegas? Oh, wait, I see... you are one of the Lehman brothers.
@AussieAustrianBlog First and foremost, you seem to be the kind of guy that thinks every tiny movement the government makes is a mortal offense to the free market, so nevermind. For the record, I'm not the opposite and I don't think arbitrary adjusts of interest rates are such a good thing, but between US economy and USSR dictatorship there is a very large distance you don't seem to visualize. There are not only nuances between them, but a full spectrum. The world is not in black and white.
@outronome I'm merely pointing to the absurdity of his claim. Of course the USSR and US are quite different. But sound monetary affairs are vital to any society and not allowing market forces to determine these affairs is detrimental to the economy and the main factor for the GFC and all prevous booms/busts. So Mr Stiglitz is wrong in claiming the GFC is evidence free markets are flawed etc because we had free markets. The U.S. is uber-regulated and getting worse.
@AussieAustrianBlog If the US is uber-regulated, what would you call Canada's regulation of financial institutions? And, why didn't Canada have a financial meltdown? The obvious answer is regulation. Given that corporate governance almost completely failed in the financial sector, who is going to protect depositor wealth? Do want to take the chance that Iceland and Ireland did with the nation's citizens wealth? I don't see any reasonable solution other than government regulation.
@GenRipper The cause of economic recessions/depressions is unsustainable credit expansion that must ultimately lead to a bust. That is, government/central bank "central planning" with the money supply etc is what causes it - not free markets (refer Austrian Busines Cycle Theory). Administrative type regulations such as govt bank deposit gurantees, are secondary and merely exacerbate the problem. In the GFC case, it was moral hazard the govt created. Regulation created more problems.
@AussieAustrianBlog Well, if your reasoning is correct and GFC was caused by excessive regulation alone, so it should also happen, in larger intensity, in countries with much heavier regulation, don't you think?
@outronome I don't think you understand what I wrote. I never said regulation was the sole cause of the boom/bust cycle/GFC. To put it simply, i said: it is credit expansion that is responsible for booms and busts, government regulation only makes things worse. For example, FDR's "new deal."
@AussieAustrianBlog Thanks for clarifying, but actually I believe I understood it on first hand, and your correction doesn't change the fact that you put most of the blame on government regulation. But since you mentioned credit expansion, so let me upgrade my question as well: how would you explain the fact that countries like Brazil and India had massive credit expansion in the last decade, with considerable government regulation, and there was no economy colapse, but undeniable growth?
@outronome My previous comments above make it patently clear it is "credit expansion" which in itself is a result of interventionism/regulation. It is anything but free market. Learn Austrian Business Cycle Theory for the details. Simple answer re Brazil & India - they too will ultimately have a bust when credit (money supply) contracts significantly, exposing the malinvestments made during the boom. Yes, they have had real growth too. How are you defining growth by the way?
@AussieAustrianBlog You referred to credit expansion before, but to see this as a result of central bank regulation is typical of ABCT, which I'm acquainted with. This theory has been discarded by most of major economists since 30s, when it was made, including Hayek's fellow Milton Friedman. It came back as a convenient hype after 2008, but there is no evidence linking central bank regulation to boom-bust cyles. There were loads of them before 1913 in US - see the "panic of 1907", for instance.
@outronome You have just proven to me how poorly "acquainted" you are with ABCT (i'm not surpised). Austrian economics does not say central banking is the cause of booms/busts, rather it is credit expansion of any form. If you were familiar with Austrian economics you would know this. Austrian economists have gone into great detail studying and writing about historical episodes of credit expansion resulting in panics, inflation etc. ABCT is far from being discredited - quite the opposite.
@AussieAustrianBlog I believe it says central banking policies is one of the major factors that lead to business cycles, whatever you choose to call it a "cause" or not. On the other hand, you may even be an expert on the subject that feels authorized to say I'm not acquainted. What you cant' say is ABCT is not discredited: it is VERY discredited by a lot of mainstream economists, like Friedman, Sraffa, Krugman, Tullock, Kaplan, Laidler and others, and I'm not surprised you skip their critics.
@outronome Yes, central banking is one major factor - anything that contributes to credit creation. But for you to make claims that are patently untrue is a big academic no-no. Krugman, whom i critique often, for one does not understand ABCT. To this day he refuses to debate this topic in any forum. Friedman ended up abandoning many of his views in his old age regarding credit expansion. It's funny how every Austrian saw this crisis coming, yet how many Chicago Schoolers, Keynesians did?? hmm
@AussieAustrianBlog The problem with economics (all lineages included) is methodological. There is no economic SCIENCE. Nowadays, to adopt the theory X and bash Y is a matter of faith. The bias and lack of evidence-based methodology is shocking for an outsider. Perhaps you are a sincere austrian, but all the austrians I met in real life just worked for banks and repeated their creed without thinking about it. I'm yet to see solid evidence both on austrian and keynesian claims.
@outronome Economics deals with human action, hence why mathematical modelling and other fancy stuff is of little use. Austrians deal with theory backed up by "real life" experiments/history - to this extent we support empirical data. If you study your history of panics, recessions, bubbles etc. you will find they were all preceded by credit expansion. I'm not sure what evidence you're specifically looking for but our track record and explanations speak for itself. I'd only suggest further study
@AussieAustrianBlog It's precisely because it's not a "hard science" that "universal laws" like "credit expansion = booms/busts" should be taken with a grain of salt. Even if there's evidence (and several people says it has none), we are dealing with a system not predictable as we wish. For each economic "rule" there is an ocean of exceptions, Since you're open minded, check Luhmann/systems theory. Economists in general should be more humble about their field. Actually, not only economists.
@outronome How can you apply "hard science" to human action? You cannot, hence why theory and quantitive measures are so important. Thats is, understand human action, cause and effect etc. I have little respect for most economists because they peddle snake oil. Almost half of all economists in western societies are employed by the government/related fields. I wonder why Austrians have been so accurate in their predictions throughout history? Just lucky guesses?
@AussieAustrianBlog 1 - The other half of economists is what worries most - they're on private banks and use their knowledge to bosses' pockets, with zero concern to clients' pockets. I've been there, and sorry if you are there, but it's intelectual/ethic hell. 2 - even if austrians were that accurate (so many people disagree), this argument is dangerously close to those of astrologers and psychanalists. A smart "predictor" only predicts about what he wants, keeping silent about exceptions.
@outronome Your argument is silly. Firstly, any resonable person is more likely to favour listening to someone with a proven track record in "predicting" than those who have no credibility. At the very least, it would be wise to investigate these persons and their explanations further. 2) Austrians are consistently on record with their predictions, including the recent GFC. Austrians were deadly accurate - e.g. there's a video of Ron Paul on here from 2003/04 spelling out what happened to a tee.
@outronome Austrians deal with cause and effect. It is easy to prove that we have the best explanations, or at the very least, discredit the Keynesian view. I'd like to hear your explanation as to why we have recessions if credit expansion and central planning have nothing to do with it. Back to the point of this video re Stiglitz coments on free markets...if we don't have a free market, how can we blame it?
@AussieAustrianBlog Gosh. There you go again. How can you put central planing/banking again on the spot as a cause of recession, just after you accused me in a quite agressive way just because I said exactly the same thing, linking it to ABCT? Listen, there was no central banking before 1913, and there were much more panic episodes. Your "any reasonable person" argument is the silly one, coming from someone pretending to be "academic", and ignoring data that contradicts your claims.
@AussieAustrianBlog "Cause and effect"... everybody deals with cause and effect, that's not an "austrians'" monopoly. This "we don't have a free market" is a circular, auto-referential and VERY politically biased argument that repeats the communist-soviet dilemma. Now it's my turn to make a question to you, you already did many: who, in your view, gets the major profits from a free market in the austrian molds? Go ahead.
@AussieAustrianBlog if you want to understand "human action", put down the economic books, which are of ZERO value, and pickup Shakespeare or Montaigne.
@outronome I'd love to hear your reasoning as to why huge monetary pumping would not create a boom and subsequent bust. Furthermore, why huge monetary stimulus in a recession, would lead to a recovery. At this point, it is the mainstream economists who need to restore credibility, if indeed they ever had any.
@AussieAustrianBlog Although I do not believe monetary stimulus alone in a recession would necessairily lead to a recovery and can indeed be harmful, I believe that, in certain conditions, it would not lead to ruin, and it could even help. Example: Argentina recovery (2002-) involved increase of money supply (please notice I'm not claiming this is a magic bullet). If credit expansion is well-thought, directing credit to increase supply of crucial economic goods, it can strenghten the market.
@GenRipper The reasonable solution is to separate banking from investing. If I put my money in a bank, the bank shouldn't be able to invest that money AND claim it can return the funds to me on demand. It's a fucking lie. People can decide what % of their funds to keep "on demand" and what % to let the bank invest for them.
@AussieAustrianBlog The problem seems to reside precisely in determining the point in which regulation is "too much" - Stiglitz himself says in his books that market freedom is vital to development - so could you point an example of a country in which true free market exists, in your personal view? But let's remember that China, France and Germany are certainly NOT free markets. Brazil and India are also quite regulated, and improving fast. So it seems we have more than one variable here.
Free-market economy ,are you kidding ? A system where central banks set interest rates is not a free-market economy but a regulated one !Crony capitalism isn't free-market capitalism but a perversion of both socialist and liberal economies mainly socializing losses and privatizing gains. If we really had a free-market economy we would have seen those banks go bust and competent people taking and starting over.I would have loved to see Milton Friedman debating Stiglitz,he would have crushed him.
Does this guy every get sick of bullshitting? A bigger liar I have never seen. This guy proves that the Nobel Prize is a complete farce. Obama is about to whack the shit out of Libya and he won the Noble Peace Prize.
throughout the video, you see these hands and a knee at the right of the screen but think little of it. then suddenly he asks a question and you think, why the hell is this guy interrupting?
then the camera pans over and you are treated to a grandfatherly fellow with a snowy beard who seems like an awfully good-humored old chap, and it makes your day somehow.
Most people with half a brain recognize what he is saying is correct. You don't need a degree to understand what has happened. The sad fact is that many in America are being programmed to believe whatever NBC, CBS, ABC, FOX, PBS says (or does not say) as being the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth! However, thanks to alternative sources like FSTV, LINKTV, Internet, and Democracy Now, most Americans are beginning to wise up and smell the coffee. The time for action is now.
So he says free market ideology is dead because the wall street crash show that it doesn't work but then goes on to say how it wasn't really free markets but corporate socialism, ie free market capitalism was never actually practised. Communist critic Slavoj Zizek has been making the same analogy about the fall of the Berlin wall and the fall of wall street since 2007 and he isn't half as smug about it.
@jimberkt so at one point, there may have been a free, open market. What happens is this: someone, through innovation and superior skills, corners and then controls the market. It then becomes more profitable for that concern to buy political influence, rather than continue increasing the value of their product. So eventually, free markets will always lead to corporate socialism.
Today, corporations pay for our elections, and therefore control our political system.
@SteinbergRothschild No, it was not unnecessary risk taken by banks and financial institutions caused this crisis, along with home owners taking on more debt than they can handle. Let's not have the name calling we are all adults here.
We urgently must adopt stringent and tough regulation for the banking and shadow banking industry. It's the only way to stabalise financial markets, to prevent more bailouts and more crises. We also need to find a way to claim our money back from the bankers. I don't see why the rest of the economy (or we as indivudals) should continue to heavily cross-subsidise a corrupt and malfunctioning banking sector.
Lol does this statist realise that government has steadily grown since Wilson? Government fundamentalists will obviously never die. Ask yourself this question... would you rather have the recession before or after the Fed was created? The Federal Reserve, Freddie and Fannie are to blame for this... what the hell did Bush think as going to happen when he tried to create an egalitarian "home ownership" society.
Do any of you people here realize the loudest voices in predicting and warning us about this recession were laissez-faire economists? People like Peter Schiff and Ron Paul have been warning us for over five years about the dangers of fiat money, artificially low interest rates and fractional reserve banking. Ludwig von Mises warned of the dangers of the business cycle way back in 1912, 98 years ago, in his book 'The Theory of Money and Credit'. And you claim free market thinking has failed?
@DystopianUtopia Senator Dorgan, a democrat, said, after the repeal of Glass-Steigal, EXACTLY what would happen. He was right. Nader also made the same prediction.
The left understands corporate influence has a terminal impact on our politics, and our economy. When will the right wake-up to that demonstrable fact?
I am not holding my breath.
Free market capitalism is a joke- especially when the consumer is ignorant and ill-informed (via corporate controlled media obfuscation)
Capitalism is the wage slavery of immense humanity in a politically corrupt,manipulated MARKET SYSTEM OF ARTIFICIAL SCARCITY ,a tyrannical,destructive system to perpetuate poverty and exploitation in the interest of the ruling class. Capitalism from its mercantile plundering and enslavement of African natives to its Millitaristic rise of European Powers to World wars and Financial serfdom of the world has been a DISASTEROUS imposition .
People seem to put this whole debate in the field of the private institutions vs. government management. The fact is that when Private institutions become elevated to the point where they have the powers of government, and government buys them out acquiring the powers of a private industry... That's socialism.
Capitalism, Corporate or State dominated or In It together is the wage slavery of immense humanity for abstract process of Capital accumulation and concentration for the elite, 250 top corporations control over 1/3 of the world GDP. More than 3 billion workers are on 2 dollars a day. Capitalism is template of perpetual war,oppression,enviornmental destructions,animal cruelty and suffering, A dehumanising distorting minority imposition in thier inatiable drive for ever more Profit no matter what
@PissedFechtmeister the former will always lead to the latter- barring an INCREDIBLY well educated, well informed consumer acting as a check on malfeasance- and that has never existed, and probably never will in the USA.
@tristramshandy3 A big part of the problem is that the people let the government get away with it, and usually actually support the government. Lots of Americans support farm subsidies, for example, even though most of the money goes to giant corporations.
Are you really saying I shouldn't be mad at the government in and of itself? I am as big a fan of the banks that helped cause the crisis as you are. Why can't we be mad at both?
You and I probably have very different views (I'm a libertarian), but I'm sure we can agree government intervention has aided banksters. Don't fall into the trap of thinking it's the government vs the banks. It's not.
@DystopianUtopia no, I am saying most Americans direct ALL of their anger at the government- so they vote out the dems or repubs, replacing them with dems or repubs. The problem is, the banks own BOTH the dems and the repubs. Bush's treasury secretary was a former ceo of Goldman Sachs. Obama's number one contributor in 2008 was goldman sachs.
Our government has been taken over by big business.
@tristramshandy3 Are you kidding? So if I take a bribe I deserve no blame for my crimes? I agree, govt does a horrible job at regulating businesses because they're CORRUPT. I'm perfectly happy working in the tech sector where businesses have independent standards bodies -- except in the case of the internet where we again can see the govt corruption resulting in heinous performance.
Capitalism is the wage slavery of immense humanity in a politically manipulated market system of artificial scarcity and manipulation to perpetuate the conditions of bondage and servitude of the working class in the interest of the owning/ruling class across the world. A system of commodity production for the abstract process of capital accumulation and concentration for an elite and increasing misery and suffering for immense humanity. Capitalism is evil.
@arzoyan you are wrong. capitalism reflects the society it works upon- so ours is short-sighted, greed based, and frankly, stupid.
However, if you run a capitalist system in a country that is very well educated and very well informed, the consumer is in a position to act as a check on market malfeasance.
Capitalism itself isn't evil. Capitalism just can't work well in an ignorant, ill-informed citizenry, which is what the USA has historically had (and perhaps worse today than ever before)
@arzoyan you are wrong. capitalism reflects the society it works upon- so ours is short-sighted, greed based, and frankly, stupid.
However, if you run a capitalist system in a country that is very well educated and very well informed, the consumer is in a position to act as a check on market malfeasance.
Capitalism itself isn't evil. Capitalism just can't work well in an ignorant, ill-informed citizenry, which is what the USA has historically had (and perhaps worse today than ever before)
I would claim that equality is important. Free-markets are when two teams fight it out in the market arena, and because one team loses once it implies that the other gets to control all property. This wastes enormous talent and effort because just because one person is at the right place at the right time doesn't mean the other doesn't deserve the property. Consider Bill Gates contributions vs. other programmers. It's not even that really, the government grants the corps their property.
@successfulbuild YOU claim that equality is important but MOST PEOPLE are inherently self-serving scumbags. "Free-markets" pretty much legalizes that scumbaggery.
And mockingbird83 pretty sums it up. Do you know how high income tax rates are in Denmark? The highest in Europe!!!
@amazingyou1uber Yes, people are self serving morons because they have to be in a capitalist economy. People can't even take care of their basic needs without submitting themselves to wage slavery. Of course it doesn't help that the media has standards that are unattainable and encourages people to endlessly buy products. That is how capitalism succeeds.
This shows the thinking of the market nazis though. "We own the property, we own the oil wells, we can kill people who oppose us." This is a heavily flawed way of thinking and we need to abolish "interventionism" by changing not only our foreign policy, but our economic system as well. Away from capitalism and towards some kind of egalitarian system, probably socialism.
"State A" making war on "state b" leads to worsening conditions in both. Muslims were making many advancements prior to US/capitalist intervention and it was only through US support of the most extreme Islamic regimes that crushed all of their attempts at building up democracies. Consider Indonesia where a US supported dictator killed a million people, and only AFTER the US stopped intervening have they made progress, whereas continued interference in Iraq has led to more fundamentalism.
Stiglitz is CLUELESS.. The free marker is not responsible for the financial crises, the government is. The free market if allowed to run would have prevented the crises. AND BRITAIN! Britiain is in WORSE shape than we are.
He said it's corporate welfare under the GUISE of free market economics. Yeah, he's the clueless one. The 'big government bad, free market good' circular logic is exactly the fundamentalist myth that corporate PR promotes to dimwits like you. The reality for them is 'public oversight and consumer protection laws bad, subsidies tax breaks and bailouts good'. Go work 12 hours a day in a sweatshop for pennies in an outsourced American factory and then argue that government regulations are to blame.
@kotash2 our government fucked us all royally in the uk. the banks should've gone under like any other failed business. other banks would've taken their place. instead 600 billion pounds of taxpayers money is thrown at them...that's a serious gamble right there...thanks gordan brown the mug that's supposed to be on top of economics.
@kotash2 "The free marker is not responsible for the financial crises, the government is"..spoken like a true economics-illiterate. Read some Douglas North
Fuck you, Norway can sustain this fantasy forever. When Norway runs out of natural resources and SWF money, it will have to get off its lazy ass and earn a living like everyone else.
Doesn't matter who's in power. Governments or corporations, it's intellectualism that matters. For every Norway, there's also a Singapore (or Hong Kong if you think we in Singapore are suffering)
Intellectualism? Americans are literally born with capitalism in their blood. And socialist countries run by working class heroes pity us.
IT DOES MATTER WHO'S IN POWER. The majority should always be in power. Not some small oligarch group 1% minority controlling every aspect of life in a country.
Norway will remain the most sustainable country on this planet. Their police don't even carry guns in public! FUCK.
@cherylwens Suffering? Singapore's supposed to be one of the most egalitarian countries, if I'm not mistaken.
Anyway,its the underlying institutions of a region that matter, that's where intellectuals come in,they're the ones who help shape the institutional structure. For ppl saying "govts are responsible, not the free market", guess what,it's a cycle! The laissez faire system allows higher-income elites to come in power. those elites make up the govt. the govt screws the system. And so on..
@unijade "Singapore's supposed to be one of the most egalitarian countries, if I'm not mistaken."
It has the second most free market in the world and that is the reason for it's prosperity. Look at how poor India was across the board because of it's protectionist policies and when it liberalized it's market its middle class grew.
Also as Milton Friedman said "Business is the biggest enemy of the free market". Politicians have to resist bribes.
I've not lived in Scandinavia before. So I shall not pose any critique of their societies. I do not rule out the possibility that Scandinavians willingly submit to onerous taxes because we are all products of environmental influences. Just as some are willing to die for their religion. Crux of the matter is that even though Nordic nations have big governments, they also practise capitalism. It sure isn't communism there. As I've said before, it's just a matter of semantics.
You live in Singapore. They're bitches to market fundamentalism. The gap between the rich and poor in Singapore is growing every day thanks to your ridiculous faith in the so-called "free markets".
Pls google "highest density millionaires". There will always be a gap between the rich and poor because of darwinism. Or do you want to distribute trophies to every kid in the playground?
Nope. Norway has the biggest middle class on earth. There's only 6 billionaires in Norway. Compare that to the 360 in America. In America, you can either be poor as fuck (starve to death) or be super rich (addicted to money). In Norway, you don't have to starve to death. Lowest crime rate. Higher living standards. High taxes. Huge welfare state.
American corporations love to collect their trophies from government.
Tune into CNBC or Bloomberg. All you hear is "government needs to stop regulating" and "free markets are great". Same exact motherfuckers who asked for bailouts. Market fundamentalism, it's a bitch.
The brain of the boffin fails to grasp the idea that humans are not rational algorithms. Try regulation in Africa. Will we see a superpower emerging from that region? Last I checked, Somalia actually thrived when they were in Anarchy. Systems don't matter. It's the people that counts. Start working on social problems before you nitpick on which economic system is superior, which political system is superior etc.
No one can explain why governments are somehow intellectually and morally superior to the market to be able to dictate economic policies. George W Bush is hardly a philosopher king, if you ask me.
There was market fundamentalism before 1913 and we were out of the panic of 1893 quite quickly enough. I don't know of any typical American who knows about 1893 crash as much as they know about Great Depression.
you're calling someone a 'leftist liar', a 'keynesian vampire', and as 'working for international bankers' while wearing 'sheep clothes'...because he doesn't support your personal idea of what economics should be. and HE is narrow minded?
i am genuinely curious - how do you live with your own stupidity?
@bobzilla211 Not really. Still 9% unemployment. Wall Street is doing great becuase we have corporate welfare system that is artificially propping them up. Stiglitz was right all along.
@CaronteEmpire Ever wonder why people listen to Stiglitz and not to the Austrian loons? Because Stiglitz lives in the real world - Austrians have their heads in the clouds.
They're Utopians, just like Marxian Communists and certain sects of Christianty.
No one will ever listen to Austrians for this reason - ever... I mean really: they will NEVER EVER listen to Austrians - ever!
Government intervention in favor of corporations will be inevitable in a capitalist system. Government is supposed to regulate corporations to prevent corporate abuse. Instead, corporations will regulate government because it is in their financial interest to do so. This is called "regulatory capture" in a free market economy and is well-documented.
@philomonger Not in a free market, in a regulated market. The opportunity for regulatory capture in a laissez-faire environment is nil for obvious reasons
You ignore the fact that laissez-faire is totally impossible in a democracy. An important function of government is to regulate any activity that has a public effect, and this includes economic activity. Thus, as long as there is a democratic government, there can be no laissez-faire.
That is not true. As a matter of fact, the very same institutions that are guilty of regulatory capture are in favor of "free markets". I find it disturbing that Wall Street supports government intervention only when it benefits them. When there are regulations that protect consumers and put corporate interests in jeopardy, Wall Street goes apeshit and usually spend additional millions on lobbying and television ads bashing the government.
I second what philomonger said. Market fundamentalists favor a dog eat dog world where the gifted, clever and lucky are entitled to whatever they can get their hands on.
Regulatory capture is a product of one's ability to garner enough wealth and power to manipulate public policy. And if they were not "FREE" to do so, it would not exist.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Because anyone who thinks Government intervention is helpful in a free market economy needs their brains examined. Talk about not caring for the public! HAHAHA thats about the most naieve thing ive heard yet. The govt. is the KING of that, do you think deflating currency markets is "caring for the people?' Your either insane or delusional. Govt will KILL you! Dont buy that one? Go ask the Iraqi people how well Govt. looks after one's interest. Ha, boy that was a good one.
sysopkc - forget your nationalism for a moment and take a look at a globe next time you're near one and have a look for 'little' states called Norway, Sweden, FInland and Denmark. Some of THE most interventionist countries around and they're not running from their govt. The US just has some profound distrust of its own government for some reason which noone understands - maybe because you believe the slanted and contemporarily irrelevant govt rhetoric of a handful of men from a few centuries ago
The general wealth in Scandanavia is exaggerated. Though Scandanavians are probably happier than Americans, but that could be because Americans are more obese and religious.
In some ways the US financial markets are more "regulated" than various EU countries, in some ways less. When talking about business cycles, we're talking about financial controls and fiscal policy, not the general tax rate. In that regard, I believe the US is one of the worst on earth.
I think the scandinavian model is the best we can take, adjust, improve and adopt on a world base. It's not simply about wealth (the GDP capita is not so much higher than other countries, except Norway), but it's all a world of differences: public services, strong welfare, high condition of life, flexible labor market, labor safety, good tax system, good balance of free market, but especially social equality. Equality is in the culture first, then in the system.
Well I don't know what "equality" means. Either it means something that people do normally, or it means something forced by the state that always leads to a lower aggregate standard of living. "Equality" is NEVER something to be "strived for".
And while in a pure free market individuals would have more job choice, more safety and such, it's all moot because muslims will be the majority soon enough and so it's all going to end.
When muslims become a majority, Sweden will become a muslim state, with muslim economic policies and anti-intellectual laws. Unless the Swedish state decides to forcefully deport all muslims ("conversions" in the face of deportation are likely to be contrived, and so no conversion from islam would be accepted after the policy was announced), then Sweden will become a muslim state. It'll probably be renamed. So it's just state A at war with state B, and state A is a little less tyrannical.
@fringeelements I lived in Sweden before. Södertälje to be exact. There are muslims everywhere. Muslim economic policies? You're assuming that every muslim is some kind of "Saudi Arabian capitalist billionaire". I know plenty of muslims who are socialists. Sweden is going to do fine.
@fringeelements Sweden accumulated it's wealth through free market principles it adopted up until the 70s and since the liberal party recently won it has again started mass privatization and deregulation and a return to free market principles while still maintaing the welfare segment of it's policy. Like Denmark (who also have classical liberals in power) it a free market- welfare state if that makes any sense. In fact, Denmark has the 10th freest market in the world.
@mockingbird83 You realise those populations are TINY right? You also realise that Denmark and Sweden are undergoing right wing reforms right (especially Sweden)?
@bonfirejovi Right-wing reforms pushed through by radical parties that managed to get elected surfing on the wave of popular fear and mistrust that the recession has created. For other examples of this, look at the Weimar Republic, Italy pre-Mussolini, or Spain pre-Franco.
the point of my comment is that even though best case scenario for all is the Austrian philosophy of the market, free enterprise, would be the A1 option; however, it's not an option. it wouldn't work in the world we live in, as it is right now. the political and social engineering of national governments working with the UN, IMF, and other global agencies won't allow any truly free markets to exist anywhere in the world (except black or grey markets). that's why Keynesian economics dominates.
BogartWestern 5 days ago
everyone with any understanding of "basic economics" understands that free markets work if their left to their own devices. unfortunately, we don't live in a world free of taxation, free of government regulations and agencies enforcing those regulations, and free of military spending and war. "market fundamentalism" isn't going to be a priority for those in charge, whether in the private or public sectors. it's ridiculous to keep the pedantic argument going when we know it'll never be.
BogartWestern 5 days ago
Is that David Harvey next to him?
TheRacistsMustDie 1 week ago
@TheRacistsMustDie Indeed it is.
devourerofbabies 1 week ago
Stiglitz is a moron. He babbles on about failure of the free markets; and then goes on to say it's not really free markets: it's really corporate-state nexus. Exactly my point.
LogicalFlawDetector 2 months ago
@LogicalFlawDetector
Stiglitz has under hand two modelling methods: one that works, one that doesn't work. The problem is that many people are very fond of the second one and go on to note dumbly what they think Stiglitz said, just to try and dent his point... lol
What he said is that it's the lack of regulation that causes troubles and, then, he criticized the manner in which they gave money to the banks. The issue with the bailout was again the lack of limits.
KrugmanTheKing 1 month ago
@LogicalFlawDetector
What he meant here was that the government wasn't very demanding when they sent money.
KrugmanTheKing 1 month ago
@theawesomemanman The USA's "golden age" was the couple of decades after the second world war. When the US was adding millions to its middle class, and the middle class was gaining wealth year in year out. That was true social mobility, the American dream if you will. However, since the eighties social mobility has collapsed, income inequality soared, and the middle classes have been all but decimated. It looks almost like a reverse in development. Just my view from outside.
Take care.
BigMillRip 2 months ago
All fundamentalisms are bad, I wish they were all dead. I also wish that completely irrational fanatical state fundamentalism was dead, but unfortunately Stiglitz proves that it isn't.
seppsters 3 months ago
@seppsters Stiglitz argues for "irrational fanatical state fundamentalism"?
I'm not sure about that. Have you actually read 'Freefall'? I really recommend it. He's worked for the IMF where he saw how the structural adjustment programmes ruined many developing nations. He knows exactly what's going on, and his alternative isn't statism, it's more 'market democracy' if you want to call it anything. 'Fundamentalist' he is not.
Take care.
BigMillRip 2 months ago
technically the crash was because of government DEREGULATION, which gave wall street bankers the opportunity to exploit an unregulated economy. The banks are not the only sector exploiting the economy for mass profits. Corporations make use of deregulation to ensure profits are emphasized over human life, politicians have endorsed deregulation and free economics resulting in a dismantling of: workers rights,social assistance,healthcare,education.
metalgear767 4 months ago
Paulson said Oh no, pour money out as we pour money in.
909jtscofield 5 months ago
Someone kill this evil evil man.
SteinbergRothschild 6 months ago
@SteinbergRothschild Kill who?
keithradamsstatus 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The fundamental principle that we need to grapple with is this , Humanity cannot be treated as batteries of energy so a few can enrich and empower themselves the consequence is a world of war,poverty,exploitation,enviornmental destruction and many other terrible ongoing challenges, or We share the earth for all generations to come in harmony and cooperation for our material and emotional needs, We need to understand our common source and our common destiny , our common humanity as one
arzoyan 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
My Keynes Hayek: The Clash That Defined Modern Economics is published in October by W.W.Norton. Read an extract at: sites.google.com/site/wapshottkeyneshayek/
Nicholas Wapshott
nhwapshott 7 months ago
Why did not he resist the policies of World Bank while he was president then? He is trying to send in white sheet.
publiceconomist 7 months ago
@shadowgeyser but Americans aren't mad at the private sector- with few exceptions. Or if they are, they have no means of organizing that anger. Take a look at what Americans bitch about- 99% of it is directed at the govt- and that is EXACTLY what Goldman Sachs and Lockheed Martin want.
Take care.
Goldman Sachs doesn't care whether dems or repubs win in 2012. Why would they?
tristramshandy3 7 months ago
Stiglitz is a thug marxist blowhard.
qwertypoiu4321 7 months ago
@qwertypoiu4321 when you revert to personal insults, you reveal your insecurity and lack of rhetorical capabilities. He must have struck a nerve. Someday, you'll realize capitalism, as it exists in the USA, is a short-sighted, self-defeating system. Hopefully, we will still be able to breath the air and drink the water after the "markets" are gone.
tristramshandy3 7 months ago
@tristramshandy3 This is just a fact, Stiglitz is a thug, marxist blowhard. He is promoting the fallacious, Marxist LTV exploitation theory. The US is a soft-socialist country like Canada and the UK, which is why the US went through such a large State-caused contraction beginning in 2007.
qwertypoiu4321 7 months ago
@qwertypoiu4321 yawn- name calling is empty of substance, and so is your argument. The US economy has been crashing every 15 years since its inception. Take a history course if you want to pretend to understand economics. Have a nice day.
tristramshandy3 7 months ago
@tristramshandy3 Fractional-Reserve Banking embezzlement has caused every major contraction in US history. Read a book for once, say de Soto's 'Money, Bank Credit and Economic Cycles', it is free online.
qwertypoiu4321 7 months ago
@qwertypoiu4321 How was the crisis caused by the government? Everyone that disagrees with you is not a socialist or Marxist, Stiglitz supports market reform to make globalism work.
keithradamsstatus 5 months ago
@tristramshandy3 The market system can be reformed if th proper checks and balances are put back into place. Also a new Bretton woods needs to be put in place to move countries away from the floating exchange rates countries are now under.
keithradamsstatus 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"very well educated and very well informed" societies are socialist not capitalist. (2)
drgctube 8 months ago
if youtube doesnt stop advertising, i'm gonna stop using it! any alternatives people?
bullshitohen1 8 months ago
@bullshitohen1 read books. start with the complete essays of montaigne.
tristramshandy3 7 months ago
First: Free markets fail
Second: But we havent had free markets
.... wut? How can you then conclude step 2 from step 1?
Wolder8888 8 months ago
@Wolder8888 Free markets are impossible by definition.
thesparitan 8 months ago
@Wolder8888
Good point, but take into consideration that the world almost never saw 'true' communism. By definition the Soviet Union and its allies were a socialist states that were only aspiring to communism.
ConradInternational 8 months ago
This guy is brilliant. If we had more economic minds like his in the white house we wouldn't be climbing out of a the current recession caused by FAILED neocon economic trickle down policies.
MaudsPas 9 months ago 5
@MaudsPas
Budgets are like all other bills: they ought to be voted, even if you get the privilege of presenting them. Even if you appoint a genius there, if people believe in market orthodoxy, they will vote their own way up the economical gallows.
KrugmanTheKing 1 month ago
huh free markets does not work is he brain dead. we donot have free markets due to government interference
davidmaren2000 9 months ago
@davidmaren2000 My friend, if you live in US you certainly don't know what real government interference is.
outronome 9 months ago
Stiglitz couldn't be more wrong in his assertions here. Then again, i'm not surprised...
AussieAustrianBlog 9 months ago
@AussieAustrianBlog because... ?
outronome 9 months ago
@outronome He's suggesting we had a free-market pre 2008. His comments are laughable. I suppose Soviet Russia was a democracy also Joseph?!
AussieAustrianBlog 9 months ago
@AussieAustrianBlog So that's your point? You can't be serious... Do you really believe the subprime mortgage crisis could ever happen in a minimally regulated market? What would be the next step for you, changing the US capital to Las Vegas? Oh, wait, I see... you are one of the Lehman brothers.
outronome 9 months ago
@outronome First and foremost, explain how arbitrarily adjusting interest rates is free market?
AussieAustrianBlog 8 months ago
@AussieAustrianBlog First and foremost, you seem to be the kind of guy that thinks every tiny movement the government makes is a mortal offense to the free market, so nevermind. For the record, I'm not the opposite and I don't think arbitrary adjusts of interest rates are such a good thing, but between US economy and USSR dictatorship there is a very large distance you don't seem to visualize. There are not only nuances between them, but a full spectrum. The world is not in black and white.
outronome 8 months ago
@outronome I'm merely pointing to the absurdity of his claim. Of course the USSR and US are quite different. But sound monetary affairs are vital to any society and not allowing market forces to determine these affairs is detrimental to the economy and the main factor for the GFC and all prevous booms/busts. So Mr Stiglitz is wrong in claiming the GFC is evidence free markets are flawed etc because we had free markets. The U.S. is uber-regulated and getting worse.
AussieAustrianBlog 7 months ago
@AussieAustrianBlog If the US is uber-regulated, what would you call Canada's regulation of financial institutions? And, why didn't Canada have a financial meltdown? The obvious answer is regulation. Given that corporate governance almost completely failed in the financial sector, who is going to protect depositor wealth? Do want to take the chance that Iceland and Ireland did with the nation's citizens wealth? I don't see any reasonable solution other than government regulation.
GenRipper 7 months ago
@GenRipper The cause of economic recessions/depressions is unsustainable credit expansion that must ultimately lead to a bust. That is, government/central bank "central planning" with the money supply etc is what causes it - not free markets (refer Austrian Busines Cycle Theory). Administrative type regulations such as govt bank deposit gurantees, are secondary and merely exacerbate the problem. In the GFC case, it was moral hazard the govt created. Regulation created more problems.
AussieAustrianBlog 7 months ago
@AussieAustrianBlog Well, if your reasoning is correct and GFC was caused by excessive regulation alone, so it should also happen, in larger intensity, in countries with much heavier regulation, don't you think?
outronome 7 months ago
@outronome I don't think you understand what I wrote. I never said regulation was the sole cause of the boom/bust cycle/GFC. To put it simply, i said: it is credit expansion that is responsible for booms and busts, government regulation only makes things worse. For example, FDR's "new deal."
AussieAustrianBlog 7 months ago
@AussieAustrianBlog Thanks for clarifying, but actually I believe I understood it on first hand, and your correction doesn't change the fact that you put most of the blame on government regulation. But since you mentioned credit expansion, so let me upgrade my question as well: how would you explain the fact that countries like Brazil and India had massive credit expansion in the last decade, with considerable government regulation, and there was no economy colapse, but undeniable growth?
outronome 7 months ago
@outronome My previous comments above make it patently clear it is "credit expansion" which in itself is a result of interventionism/regulation. It is anything but free market. Learn Austrian Business Cycle Theory for the details. Simple answer re Brazil & India - they too will ultimately have a bust when credit (money supply) contracts significantly, exposing the malinvestments made during the boom. Yes, they have had real growth too. How are you defining growth by the way?
AussieAustrianBlog 7 months ago
@AussieAustrianBlog You referred to credit expansion before, but to see this as a result of central bank regulation is typical of ABCT, which I'm acquainted with. This theory has been discarded by most of major economists since 30s, when it was made, including Hayek's fellow Milton Friedman. It came back as a convenient hype after 2008, but there is no evidence linking central bank regulation to boom-bust cyles. There were loads of them before 1913 in US - see the "panic of 1907", for instance.
outronome 7 months ago
@outronome You have just proven to me how poorly "acquainted" you are with ABCT (i'm not surpised). Austrian economics does not say central banking is the cause of booms/busts, rather it is credit expansion of any form. If you were familiar with Austrian economics you would know this. Austrian economists have gone into great detail studying and writing about historical episodes of credit expansion resulting in panics, inflation etc. ABCT is far from being discredited - quite the opposite.
AussieAustrianBlog 7 months ago
@AussieAustrianBlog I believe it says central banking policies is one of the major factors that lead to business cycles, whatever you choose to call it a "cause" or not. On the other hand, you may even be an expert on the subject that feels authorized to say I'm not acquainted. What you cant' say is ABCT is not discredited: it is VERY discredited by a lot of mainstream economists, like Friedman, Sraffa, Krugman, Tullock, Kaplan, Laidler and others, and I'm not surprised you skip their critics.
outronome 7 months ago
@outronome Yes, central banking is one major factor - anything that contributes to credit creation. But for you to make claims that are patently untrue is a big academic no-no. Krugman, whom i critique often, for one does not understand ABCT. To this day he refuses to debate this topic in any forum. Friedman ended up abandoning many of his views in his old age regarding credit expansion. It's funny how every Austrian saw this crisis coming, yet how many Chicago Schoolers, Keynesians did?? hmm
AussieAustrianBlog 7 months ago
@AussieAustrianBlog The problem with economics (all lineages included) is methodological. There is no economic SCIENCE. Nowadays, to adopt the theory X and bash Y is a matter of faith. The bias and lack of evidence-based methodology is shocking for an outsider. Perhaps you are a sincere austrian, but all the austrians I met in real life just worked for banks and repeated their creed without thinking about it. I'm yet to see solid evidence both on austrian and keynesian claims.
outronome 7 months ago
@outronome Economics deals with human action, hence why mathematical modelling and other fancy stuff is of little use. Austrians deal with theory backed up by "real life" experiments/history - to this extent we support empirical data. If you study your history of panics, recessions, bubbles etc. you will find they were all preceded by credit expansion. I'm not sure what evidence you're specifically looking for but our track record and explanations speak for itself. I'd only suggest further study
AussieAustrianBlog 7 months ago
@AussieAustrianBlog It's precisely because it's not a "hard science" that "universal laws" like "credit expansion = booms/busts" should be taken with a grain of salt. Even if there's evidence (and several people says it has none), we are dealing with a system not predictable as we wish. For each economic "rule" there is an ocean of exceptions, Since you're open minded, check Luhmann/systems theory. Economists in general should be more humble about their field. Actually, not only economists.
outronome 7 months ago
@outronome How can you apply "hard science" to human action? You cannot, hence why theory and quantitive measures are so important. Thats is, understand human action, cause and effect etc. I have little respect for most economists because they peddle snake oil. Almost half of all economists in western societies are employed by the government/related fields. I wonder why Austrians have been so accurate in their predictions throughout history? Just lucky guesses?
AussieAustrianBlog 7 months ago
@AussieAustrianBlog 1 - The other half of economists is what worries most - they're on private banks and use their knowledge to bosses' pockets, with zero concern to clients' pockets. I've been there, and sorry if you are there, but it's intelectual/ethic hell. 2 - even if austrians were that accurate (so many people disagree), this argument is dangerously close to those of astrologers and psychanalists. A smart "predictor" only predicts about what he wants, keeping silent about exceptions.
outronome 7 months ago
@outronome Your argument is silly. Firstly, any resonable person is more likely to favour listening to someone with a proven track record in "predicting" than those who have no credibility. At the very least, it would be wise to investigate these persons and their explanations further. 2) Austrians are consistently on record with their predictions, including the recent GFC. Austrians were deadly accurate - e.g. there's a video of Ron Paul on here from 2003/04 spelling out what happened to a tee.
AussieAustrianBlog 7 months ago
@outronome Austrians deal with cause and effect. It is easy to prove that we have the best explanations, or at the very least, discredit the Keynesian view. I'd like to hear your explanation as to why we have recessions if credit expansion and central planning have nothing to do with it. Back to the point of this video re Stiglitz coments on free markets...if we don't have a free market, how can we blame it?
AussieAustrianBlog 7 months ago
@AussieAustrianBlog Gosh. There you go again. How can you put central planing/banking again on the spot as a cause of recession, just after you accused me in a quite agressive way just because I said exactly the same thing, linking it to ABCT? Listen, there was no central banking before 1913, and there were much more panic episodes. Your "any reasonable person" argument is the silly one, coming from someone pretending to be "academic", and ignoring data that contradicts your claims.
outronome 7 months ago
@AussieAustrianBlog "Cause and effect"... everybody deals with cause and effect, that's not an "austrians'" monopoly. This "we don't have a free market" is a circular, auto-referential and VERY politically biased argument that repeats the communist-soviet dilemma. Now it's my turn to make a question to you, you already did many: who, in your view, gets the major profits from a free market in the austrian molds? Go ahead.
outronome 7 months ago
@AussieAustrianBlog if you want to understand "human action", put down the economic books, which are of ZERO value, and pickup Shakespeare or Montaigne.
Have a great day.
tristramshandy3 7 months ago
@outronome Lastly, i'm more than open to an academic debate via white-papers on this topic. Otherwise, lets call it a day. All the best, chris
AussieAustrianBlog 7 months ago
@outronome I'd love to hear your reasoning as to why huge monetary pumping would not create a boom and subsequent bust. Furthermore, why huge monetary stimulus in a recession, would lead to a recovery. At this point, it is the mainstream economists who need to restore credibility, if indeed they ever had any.
AussieAustrianBlog 7 months ago
@AussieAustrianBlog Although I do not believe monetary stimulus alone in a recession would necessairily lead to a recovery and can indeed be harmful, I believe that, in certain conditions, it would not lead to ruin, and it could even help. Example: Argentina recovery (2002-) involved increase of money supply (please notice I'm not claiming this is a magic bullet). If credit expansion is well-thought, directing credit to increase supply of crucial economic goods, it can strenghten the market.
outronome 7 months ago
@GenRipper The reasonable solution is to separate banking from investing. If I put my money in a bank, the bank shouldn't be able to invest that money AND claim it can return the funds to me on demand. It's a fucking lie. People can decide what % of their funds to keep "on demand" and what % to let the bank invest for them.
shaunak84 7 months ago
@AussieAustrianBlog The problem seems to reside precisely in determining the point in which regulation is "too much" - Stiglitz himself says in his books that market freedom is vital to development - so could you point an example of a country in which true free market exists, in your personal view? But let's remember that China, France and Germany are certainly NOT free markets. Brazil and India are also quite regulated, and improving fast. So it seems we have more than one variable here.
outronome 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Free-market economy ,are you kidding ? A system where central banks set interest rates is not a free-market economy but a regulated one !Crony capitalism isn't free-market capitalism but a perversion of both socialist and liberal economies mainly socializing losses and privatizing gains. If we really had a free-market economy we would have seen those banks go bust and competent people taking and starting over.I would have loved to see Milton Friedman debating Stiglitz,he would have crushed him.
hamzyboy 10 months ago
Comment removed
hamzyboy 10 months ago
2 waters? shut the fuck up
gen6k 10 months ago
Does this guy every get sick of bullshitting? A bigger liar I have never seen. This guy proves that the Nobel Prize is a complete farce. Obama is about to whack the shit out of Libya and he won the Noble Peace Prize.
VeryHugeAss 10 months ago
SPOILER ALERT
throughout the video, you see these hands and a knee at the right of the screen but think little of it. then suddenly he asks a question and you think, why the hell is this guy interrupting?
then the camera pans over and you are treated to a grandfatherly fellow with a snowy beard who seems like an awfully good-humored old chap, and it makes your day somehow.
jaybeebles 1 year ago
sweden here. we dont have the oil of our norwegian brothers but were doing just fine anyway.
random0moniker 1 year ago
So is he saying that free markets failed or that corporatism failed?
CrowdPleeza 1 year ago
Most people with half a brain recognize what he is saying is correct. You don't need a degree to understand what has happened. The sad fact is that many in America are being programmed to believe whatever NBC, CBS, ABC, FOX, PBS says (or does not say) as being the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth! However, thanks to alternative sources like FSTV, LINKTV, Internet, and Democracy Now, most Americans are beginning to wise up and smell the coffee. The time for action is now.
romeoechomike369 1 year ago
So he says free market ideology is dead because the wall street crash show that it doesn't work but then goes on to say how it wasn't really free markets but corporate socialism, ie free market capitalism was never actually practised. Communist critic Slavoj Zizek has been making the same analogy about the fall of the Berlin wall and the fall of wall street since 2007 and he isn't half as smug about it.
jimberkt 1 year ago 7
@jimberkt so at one point, there may have been a free, open market. What happens is this: someone, through innovation and superior skills, corners and then controls the market. It then becomes more profitable for that concern to buy political influence, rather than continue increasing the value of their product. So eventually, free markets will always lead to corporate socialism.
Today, corporations pay for our elections, and therefore control our political system.
Adios amigo.
tristramshandy3 7 months ago
@jimberkt The crash was the result of GOVERNMENT you fucking evil stupid moron.
SteinbergRothschild 6 months ago
@SteinbergRothschild No, it was not unnecessary risk taken by banks and financial institutions caused this crisis, along with home owners taking on more debt than they can handle. Let's not have the name calling we are all adults here.
keithradamsstatus 5 months ago
Sorry Stiglitz, neo-liberalism is alive and well.
rmulkey7 1 year ago
We urgently must adopt stringent and tough regulation for the banking and shadow banking industry. It's the only way to stabalise financial markets, to prevent more bailouts and more crises. We also need to find a way to claim our money back from the bankers. I don't see why the rest of the economy (or we as indivudals) should continue to heavily cross-subsidise a corrupt and malfunctioning banking sector.
psa12 1 year ago
Lol does this statist realise that government has steadily grown since Wilson? Government fundamentalists will obviously never die. Ask yourself this question... would you rather have the recession before or after the Fed was created? The Federal Reserve, Freddie and Fannie are to blame for this... what the hell did Bush think as going to happen when he tried to create an egalitarian "home ownership" society.
bonfirejovi 1 year ago
Do any of you people here realize the loudest voices in predicting and warning us about this recession were laissez-faire economists? People like Peter Schiff and Ron Paul have been warning us for over five years about the dangers of fiat money, artificially low interest rates and fractional reserve banking. Ludwig von Mises warned of the dangers of the business cycle way back in 1912, 98 years ago, in his book 'The Theory of Money and Credit'. And you claim free market thinking has failed?
DystopianUtopia 1 year ago
@DystopianUtopia Mises was a moron as is ron paul and any of the mindless fucktards who follow them.
nilbud 8 months ago
@DystopianUtopia Senator Dorgan, a democrat, said, after the repeal of Glass-Steigal, EXACTLY what would happen. He was right. Nader also made the same prediction.
The left understands corporate influence has a terminal impact on our politics, and our economy. When will the right wake-up to that demonstrable fact?
I am not holding my breath.
Free market capitalism is a joke- especially when the consumer is ignorant and ill-informed (via corporate controlled media obfuscation)
Adios!
tristramshandy3 7 months ago
But market fundamentaists are still alive.
schusterlehrling 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Capitalism is the wage slavery of immense humanity in a politically corrupt,manipulated MARKET SYSTEM OF ARTIFICIAL SCARCITY ,a tyrannical,destructive system to perpetuate poverty and exploitation in the interest of the ruling class. Capitalism from its mercantile plundering and enslavement of African natives to its Millitaristic rise of European Powers to World wars and Financial serfdom of the world has been a DISASTEROUS imposition .
arzoyan 1 year ago
People seem to put this whole debate in the field of the private institutions vs. government management. The fact is that when Private institutions become elevated to the point where they have the powers of government, and government buys them out acquiring the powers of a private industry... That's socialism.
touyubeian 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Capitalism, Corporate or State dominated or In It together is the wage slavery of immense humanity for abstract process of Capital accumulation and concentration for the elite, 250 top corporations control over 1/3 of the world GDP. More than 3 billion workers are on 2 dollars a day. Capitalism is template of perpetual war,oppression,enviornmental destructions,animal cruelty and suffering, A dehumanising distorting minority imposition in thier inatiable drive for ever more Profit no matter what
arzoyan 1 year ago
FORA TV - the world is stinking
tothatextent 1 year ago
Where did Stiglitz get the idea that free market capitalism is the same as corporate welfarism? The two are complete opposites.
PissedFechtmeister 1 year ago
@PissedFechtmeister the former will always lead to the latter- barring an INCREDIBLY well educated, well informed consumer acting as a check on malfeasance- and that has never existed, and probably never will in the USA.
tristramshandy3 1 year ago
@tristramshandy3 A big part of the problem is that the people let the government get away with it, and usually actually support the government. Lots of Americans support farm subsidies, for example, even though most of the money goes to giant corporations.
PissedFechtmeister 1 year ago
@PissedFechtmeister a bigger part of the problem is that people get mad at the government instead of getting mad at the private sector which runs it.
Our govt exists today as a distraction- the business interests WANT you to be mad at the govt- that takes the heat off of them/
It's a fun shell game.
Have a nice day.
tristramshandy3 1 year ago 8
@tristramshandy3
Are you really saying I shouldn't be mad at the government in and of itself? I am as big a fan of the banks that helped cause the crisis as you are. Why can't we be mad at both?
You and I probably have very different views (I'm a libertarian), but I'm sure we can agree government intervention has aided banksters. Don't fall into the trap of thinking it's the government vs the banks. It's not.
DystopianUtopia 8 months ago
@DystopianUtopia no, I am saying most Americans direct ALL of their anger at the government- so they vote out the dems or repubs, replacing them with dems or repubs. The problem is, the banks own BOTH the dems and the repubs. Bush's treasury secretary was a former ceo of Goldman Sachs. Obama's number one contributor in 2008 was goldman sachs.
Our government has been taken over by big business.
Let's get corporate cash out of our elections.
Take care.
tristramshandy3 8 months ago 19
@tristramshandy3 agreed.
saduddinshajan 6 months ago
@tristramshandy3
most americans dont even vote at all
Zatzzo 5 months ago
@tristramshandy3 Are you kidding? So if I take a bribe I deserve no blame for my crimes? I agree, govt does a horrible job at regulating businesses because they're CORRUPT. I'm perfectly happy working in the tech sector where businesses have independent standards bodies -- except in the case of the internet where we again can see the govt corruption resulting in heinous performance.
shaunak84 7 months ago
@shaunak84 I am not kidding. I stand by everything I wrote. Have a great day.
Have you read the essays of Montaigne? Possibly the greatest book ever published!
tristramshandy3 7 months ago
Capitalism is the wage slavery of immense humanity in a politically manipulated market system of artificial scarcity and manipulation to perpetuate the conditions of bondage and servitude of the working class in the interest of the owning/ruling class across the world. A system of commodity production for the abstract process of capital accumulation and concentration for an elite and increasing misery and suffering for immense humanity. Capitalism is evil.
arzoyan 1 year ago 2
@arzoyan you are wrong. capitalism reflects the society it works upon- so ours is short-sighted, greed based, and frankly, stupid.
However, if you run a capitalist system in a country that is very well educated and very well informed, the consumer is in a position to act as a check on market malfeasance.
Capitalism itself isn't evil. Capitalism just can't work well in an ignorant, ill-informed citizenry, which is what the USA has historically had (and perhaps worse today than ever before)
tristramshandy3 1 year ago 2
@tristramshandy3 " very well educated and very well informed" societies are socialist not capitalist.
nilbud 8 months ago
@nilbud not necessarily. Viva Montaigne.
tristramshandy3 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@arzoyan you are wrong. capitalism reflects the society it works upon- so ours is short-sighted, greed based, and frankly, stupid.
However, if you run a capitalist system in a country that is very well educated and very well informed, the consumer is in a position to act as a check on market malfeasance.
Capitalism itself isn't evil. Capitalism just can't work well in an ignorant, ill-informed citizenry, which is what the USA has historically had (and perhaps worse today than ever before)
tristramshandy3 1 year ago
I would claim that equality is important. Free-markets are when two teams fight it out in the market arena, and because one team loses once it implies that the other gets to control all property. This wastes enormous talent and effort because just because one person is at the right place at the right time doesn't mean the other doesn't deserve the property. Consider Bill Gates contributions vs. other programmers. It's not even that really, the government grants the corps their property.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
@successfulbuild YOU claim that equality is important but MOST PEOPLE are inherently self-serving scumbags. "Free-markets" pretty much legalizes that scumbaggery.
And mockingbird83 pretty sums it up. Do you know how high income tax rates are in Denmark? The highest in Europe!!!
amazingyou1uber 1 year ago
@amazingyou1uber Yes, people are self serving morons because they have to be in a capitalist economy. People can't even take care of their basic needs without submitting themselves to wage slavery. Of course it doesn't help that the media has standards that are unattainable and encourages people to endlessly buy products. That is how capitalism succeeds.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
@successfulbuild you are ridiculously misinformed....i hope u open ur eyes someday...
funkysnarf 1 year ago
@funkysnarf That is rich a ron paulite claiming someone is misinformed. Comedy gold.
nilbud 8 months ago
This shows the thinking of the market nazis though. "We own the property, we own the oil wells, we can kill people who oppose us." This is a heavily flawed way of thinking and we need to abolish "interventionism" by changing not only our foreign policy, but our economic system as well. Away from capitalism and towards some kind of egalitarian system, probably socialism.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
"State A" making war on "state b" leads to worsening conditions in both. Muslims were making many advancements prior to US/capitalist intervention and it was only through US support of the most extreme Islamic regimes that crushed all of their attempts at building up democracies. Consider Indonesia where a US supported dictator killed a million people, and only AFTER the US stopped intervening have they made progress, whereas continued interference in Iraq has led to more fundamentalism.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
5 stars for Mr Stiglitz Wisdom.
steigerpower 1 year ago
Joe is Wrong!
Does this mean he likes the Chinese system?
ericclaptonismygod31 1 year ago
Stiglitz is CLUELESS.. The free marker is not responsible for the financial crises, the government is. The free market if allowed to run would have prevented the crises. AND BRITAIN! Britiain is in WORSE shape than we are.
kotash2 1 year ago
He said it's corporate welfare under the GUISE of free market economics. Yeah, he's the clueless one. The 'big government bad, free market good' circular logic is exactly the fundamentalist myth that corporate PR promotes to dimwits like you. The reality for them is 'public oversight and consumer protection laws bad, subsidies tax breaks and bailouts good'. Go work 12 hours a day in a sweatshop for pennies in an outsourced American factory and then argue that government regulations are to blame.
retron23 1 year ago
@kotash2 our government fucked us all royally in the uk. the banks should've gone under like any other failed business. other banks would've taken their place. instead 600 billion pounds of taxpayers money is thrown at them...that's a serious gamble right there...thanks gordan brown the mug that's supposed to be on top of economics.
artysm7 1 year ago
@kotash2 "The free marker is not responsible for the financial crises, the government is"..spoken like a true economics-illiterate. Read some Douglas North
unijade 1 year ago
Norway is drunk on oil and natural gas!
Fuck you, Norway can sustain this fantasy forever. When Norway runs out of natural resources and SWF money, it will have to get off its lazy ass and earn a living like everyone else.
Socialist drivel!
ericclaptonismygod31 1 year ago
Doesn't matter who's in power. Governments or corporations, it's intellectualism that matters. For every Norway, there's also a Singapore (or Hong Kong if you think we in Singapore are suffering)
cherylwens 2 years ago
Intellectualism? Americans are literally born with capitalism in their blood. And socialist countries run by working class heroes pity us.
IT DOES MATTER WHO'S IN POWER. The majority should always be in power. Not some small oligarch group 1% minority controlling every aspect of life in a country.
Norway will remain the most sustainable country on this planet. Their police don't even carry guns in public! FUCK.
diapasonify 2 years ago 2
@diapasonify uk police don't either but we're quite different to norway.
artysm7 1 year ago
@cherylwens Suffering? Singapore's supposed to be one of the most egalitarian countries, if I'm not mistaken.
Anyway,its the underlying institutions of a region that matter, that's where intellectuals come in,they're the ones who help shape the institutional structure. For ppl saying "govts are responsible, not the free market", guess what,it's a cycle! The laissez faire system allows higher-income elites to come in power. those elites make up the govt. the govt screws the system. And so on..
unijade 1 year ago
@unijade "Singapore's supposed to be one of the most egalitarian countries, if I'm not mistaken."
It has the second most free market in the world and that is the reason for it's prosperity. Look at how poor India was across the board because of it's protectionist policies and when it liberalized it's market its middle class grew.
Also as Milton Friedman said "Business is the biggest enemy of the free market". Politicians have to resist bribes.
bonfirejovi 1 year ago
I've not lived in Scandinavia before. So I shall not pose any critique of their societies. I do not rule out the possibility that Scandinavians willingly submit to onerous taxes because we are all products of environmental influences. Just as some are willing to die for their religion. Crux of the matter is that even though Nordic nations have big governments, they also practise capitalism. It sure isn't communism there. As I've said before, it's just a matter of semantics.
cherylwens 2 years ago
Market fundamentalism isn't dead yet. The culture of 50 cent and Paris Hilton is. My condolences to America.
cherylwens 2 years ago
You live in Singapore. They're bitches to market fundamentalism. The gap between the rich and poor in Singapore is growing every day thanks to your ridiculous faith in the so-called "free markets".
diapasonify 2 years ago
Pls google "highest density millionaires". There will always be a gap between the rich and poor because of darwinism. Or do you want to distribute trophies to every kid in the playground?
cherylwens 2 years ago
Nope. Norway has the biggest middle class on earth. There's only 6 billionaires in Norway. Compare that to the 360 in America. In America, you can either be poor as fuck (starve to death) or be super rich (addicted to money). In Norway, you don't have to starve to death. Lowest crime rate. Higher living standards. High taxes. Huge welfare state.
American corporations love to collect their trophies from government.
diapasonify 2 years ago
Tune into CNBC or Bloomberg. All you hear is "government needs to stop regulating" and "free markets are great". Same exact motherfuckers who asked for bailouts. Market fundamentalism, it's a bitch.
diapasonify 2 years ago
The brain of the boffin fails to grasp the idea that humans are not rational algorithms. Try regulation in Africa. Will we see a superpower emerging from that region? Last I checked, Somalia actually thrived when they were in Anarchy. Systems don't matter. It's the people that counts. Start working on social problems before you nitpick on which economic system is superior, which political system is superior etc.
cherylwens 2 years ago
No one can explain why governments are somehow intellectually and morally superior to the market to be able to dictate economic policies. George W Bush is hardly a philosopher king, if you ask me.
cherylwens 2 years ago
I thought Hong Kong is a freer economy than USA. What about Singapore? New Zealand? Forget the Nobel Prize. It's a popularity contest.
cherylwens 2 years ago
There was never any market fundamentalism.
How could there be a market fundamentalism without the gold standard?
Regulators did not "deregulate" enough: deregulation requires the end of the Federal Reserve and the Central Banking model of finance.
special1740 2 years ago
Actually, there's always market fundamentalism. Recall the Panic of 1893. We were on the gold standard.
diapasonify 2 years ago
@diapasonify
There was market fundamentalism before 1913 and we were out of the panic of 1893 quite quickly enough. I don't know of any typical American who knows about 1893 crash as much as they know about Great Depression.
special1740 2 years ago
you're calling someone a 'leftist liar', a 'keynesian vampire', and as 'working for international bankers' while wearing 'sheep clothes'...because he doesn't support your personal idea of what economics should be. and HE is narrow minded?
i am genuinely curious - how do you live with your own stupidity?
bobzilla211 2 years ago 40
@bobzilla211 He probably is on of those Ron Paul supporters. Even most conservatives want regulations.
ChaoticSouls 1 year ago
@bobzilla211 He lives with his own stupidity the same way you do - live in denial.
tothatextent 1 year ago
@bobzilla211
" you're calling someone a 'leftist liar', a 'keynesian vampire', "
He was probably learning from the university of Professors Beck and Limbaugh. See here, the Ann Coulterisation of public discourse.
We need to shut down Fox News Channel.
tigerone1970 1 year ago
@bobzilla211 I don't disagree with you, but I just find this comment funny since it responds to something that is similar to 99% of youtube comments.
redarrowhead2 9 months ago
well this was over a year ago and market fundamentalism has proven to be more resistant to death than a zombie vampire rasputin.
bobzilla211 2 years ago 3
@bobzilla211 Not really. Still 9% unemployment. Wall Street is doing great becuase we have corporate welfare system that is artificially propping them up. Stiglitz was right all along.
MaudsPas 9 months ago
this guy was right on.......my prediction?, U.S economy is doomed
reduskdawn 2 years ago
@CaronteEmpire Ever wonder why people listen to Stiglitz and not to the Austrian loons? Because Stiglitz lives in the real world - Austrians have their heads in the clouds.
They're Utopians, just like Marxian Communists and certain sects of Christianty.
No one will ever listen to Austrians for this reason - ever... I mean really: they will NEVER EVER listen to Austrians - ever!
pilkingtonphil 2 years ago
We will listen to your opinion when you'll get your Nobel prize in economics like him
frepi 2 years ago
wow america sucks
scout6686 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Joseph Stiglitz is dead.
Soon.
Market Rule.
szymonch 2 years ago
Government intervention in favor of corporations will be inevitable in a capitalist system. Government is supposed to regulate corporations to prevent corporate abuse. Instead, corporations will regulate government because it is in their financial interest to do so. This is called "regulatory capture" in a free market economy and is well-documented.
philomonger 2 years ago 4
@philomonger Not in a free market, in a regulated market. The opportunity for regulatory capture in a laissez-faire environment is nil for obvious reasons
Invirtuo 2 years ago
You ignore the fact that laissez-faire is totally impossible in a democracy. An important function of government is to regulate any activity that has a public effect, and this includes economic activity. Thus, as long as there is a democratic government, there can be no laissez-faire.
philomonger 2 years ago 2
Ok I'll accept your thesis but my comment still stands. Regulatory capture doesn't exist in a free-market.
Invirtuo 2 years ago
Comment removed
MrThecolorfulsung 2 years ago
That is not true. As a matter of fact, the very same institutions that are guilty of regulatory capture are in favor of "free markets". I find it disturbing that Wall Street supports government intervention only when it benefits them. When there are regulations that protect consumers and put corporate interests in jeopardy, Wall Street goes apeshit and usually spend additional millions on lobbying and television ads bashing the government.
MrThecolorfulsung 2 years ago 2
I second what philomonger said. Market fundamentalists favor a dog eat dog world where the gifted, clever and lucky are entitled to whatever they can get their hands on.
Regulatory capture is a product of one's ability to garner enough wealth and power to manipulate public policy. And if they were not "FREE" to do so, it would not exist.
MrThecolorfulsung 2 years ago
Bring on Polanyi!
mockingbird83 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Because anyone who thinks Government intervention is helpful in a free market economy needs their brains examined. Talk about not caring for the public! HAHAHA thats about the most naieve thing ive heard yet. The govt. is the KING of that, do you think deflating currency markets is "caring for the people?' Your either insane or delusional. Govt will KILL you! Dont buy that one? Go ask the Iraqi people how well Govt. looks after one's interest. Ha, boy that was a good one.
sysopkc 2 years ago
sysopkc - forget your nationalism for a moment and take a look at a globe next time you're near one and have a look for 'little' states called Norway, Sweden, FInland and Denmark. Some of THE most interventionist countries around and they're not running from their govt. The US just has some profound distrust of its own government for some reason which noone understands - maybe because you believe the slanted and contemporarily irrelevant govt rhetoric of a handful of men from a few centuries ago
mockingbird83 2 years ago 22
The general wealth in Scandanavia is exaggerated. Though Scandanavians are probably happier than Americans, but that could be because Americans are more obese and religious.
In some ways the US financial markets are more "regulated" than various EU countries, in some ways less. When talking about business cycles, we're talking about financial controls and fiscal policy, not the general tax rate. In that regard, I believe the US is one of the worst on earth.
watch?v=OeEd4vVr8aY
fringeelements 1 year ago
@fringeelements yo i'm protean's ghetto cousin fresh outta the pen. bend over white boy!
TheGreezyNigger 1 year ago
@fringeelements
I think the scandinavian model is the best we can take, adjust, improve and adopt on a world base. It's not simply about wealth (the GDP capita is not so much higher than other countries, except Norway), but it's all a world of differences: public services, strong welfare, high condition of life, flexible labor market, labor safety, good tax system, good balance of free market, but especially social equality. Equality is in the culture first, then in the system.
Shaikailash 1 year ago
Well I don't know what "equality" means. Either it means something that people do normally, or it means something forced by the state that always leads to a lower aggregate standard of living. "Equality" is NEVER something to be "strived for".
And while in a pure free market individuals would have more job choice, more safety and such, it's all moot because muslims will be the majority soon enough and so it's all going to end.
fringeelements 1 year ago
@fringeelements "it's all moot because muslims will be the majority soon enough and so it's all going to end." What exactly do you mean by that?
sharperguy 1 year ago
When muslims become a majority, Sweden will become a muslim state, with muslim economic policies and anti-intellectual laws. Unless the Swedish state decides to forcefully deport all muslims ("conversions" in the face of deportation are likely to be contrived, and so no conversion from islam would be accepted after the policy was announced), then Sweden will become a muslim state. It'll probably be renamed. So it's just state A at war with state B, and state A is a little less tyrannical.
fringeelements 1 year ago
@fringeelements I lived in Sweden before. Södertälje to be exact. There are muslims everywhere. Muslim economic policies? You're assuming that every muslim is some kind of "Saudi Arabian capitalist billionaire". I know plenty of muslims who are socialists. Sweden is going to do fine.
amazingyou1uber 1 year ago
@fringeelements Sweden accumulated it's wealth through free market principles it adopted up until the 70s and since the liberal party recently won it has again started mass privatization and deregulation and a return to free market principles while still maintaing the welfare segment of it's policy. Like Denmark (who also have classical liberals in power) it a free market- welfare state if that makes any sense. In fact, Denmark has the 10th freest market in the world.
bonfirejovi 1 year ago
@mockingbird83 You realise those populations are TINY right? You also realise that Denmark and Sweden are undergoing right wing reforms right (especially Sweden)?
bonfirejovi 1 year ago
@bonfirejovi Right-wing reforms pushed through by radical parties that managed to get elected surfing on the wave of popular fear and mistrust that the recession has created. For other examples of this, look at the Weimar Republic, Italy pre-Mussolini, or Spain pre-Franco.
Sadiquit0 1 year ago