Stiglitz to Tea Party: Gov't Saved US from Depression

Complete video at: http://fora.tv/2010/02/22/Joseph_Stiglitz_Freefall

What would Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz say at a Tea Party convention? Stiglitz says he would defend the role of government in economic affairs, positing that the bank bailout saved the country from depression.

-----

Joseph Stiglitz, winner of the 2001 Nobel Prize Winner for Economics and author of Freefall sits down with Andrew Leonard, Senior Technology and Business Writer for Salon.

Stiglitz argues that America exported bad economics, bad policies and bad behavior to the rest of the world. Stiglitz outlines a way forward building on ideas that he has championed his entire career: restoring the balance between markets and government; addressing the inequalities of the global financial system; and demanding more good ideas (and less ideology) from economists. - Commonwealth Club of California

Joseph Stiglitz was chief economist at the World Bank until January 2000. Before that he was the chairman of President Clinton's Council of Economic Advisers. He was awarded the Nobel Prize in economics in 2001. He is currently a finance and economics professor at Columbia University. He is most recently the author of Freefall: America, Free Markets, and the Sinking of the World Economy.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• government
• control
• intervention
• free
• markets
• market
• based
• economics
• economy
• economists
• recession
• regulations
• stimulus
• bailout
• crash
• crisis
• obama
• fora.tv
• foratv
• fora
• tv
• joseph
• stiglitz
• commonwealth
• club

[Visfen]

Wheneve somebody says "balance" I call bullshit.

[FletchforFreedom]

@Franky4fingers78 A simple Google search should suffice. According to US Census Bureau figures, the long and steady decrease in the gap between the wages of balck and white workers is unequivocal in the data ... until the passage of Johnson's Not-so-"Great-Society". Thomas Sowell has pointed this out many times as have Williams, Wortham (sp?), and a number of other respected economists (unlike the one in the video) and historians.

[FletchforFreedom]

@Franky4fingers78 Segregation LONG preceded the concept of "separate but equal" and, again, if no one would otherwise desegregate the busses, no law would be required or implemented. The concept was no "acceoptance" of the existence of racism because the ruling did not address that point. It rested solely on the Constitutional question of whether rights were violated. The naivete is your own. Racists harm themselves economically allowing non-racists to be more prosperous and out-compete.

[FletchforFreedom]

@Franky4fingers78 No law is necessary to prevent people from doing what they otherwise would not. Absent state enforcement, neither slavery nor segregation can survive because a minority, no matter how small can undermine the institution (as happened with free and slave states). The problem with democracy you describe is very real but does not change the dynamic. Neither slavery nor segregation can continue societally absent enforcement.

[Franky4fingers78]

@FletchforFreedom I'm also curious about disparity between black and white wages claim. Can you explain what you mean by that and post some figures supporting your claim?

[Franky4fingers78]

@FletchforFreedom "State laws made people sit in the back of the bus" - The idea of segregation was based on the concept of "Separate but equal". The argument for this position was based on acceptance that there was racism among the people and hence segregation was required to protect minorities from whites. It is quite naive of you if you think people follow equality laws because its the right thing to do. Society made them do it so now they accept it and follow it as norm.

[Franky4fingers78]

@FletchforFreedom I am curious about your argument about state imposing slavery or segregation. I would agree that laws are implemented by the State and hence the State is responsible for unequal citizen rights, however in a democracy the State does what the people want it to do. Our Bill of Rights "always" proclaimed equality but it was never interpreted in that manner until the Civil Rights Act of 1964. If you leave it to the people, the majority will continue to oppress the minority.

[oldickeastman]

stiglitz talks in terms of bubbles and of bailouts saving the economy -- when the second mortages were needed to give us a money supply since his tribesmen in fiance were not lending their interest takings to domestic production -- if there was no "bubble" there would be no money, no purchasing power, no hiring power. The bubble was our only purchasing power in the lower non-elite loop. Stiglitz knows the routines but covers for Rothschild -- a man can't be both a doctor and an assassin

[KrugmanTheKing]

@weavermama

Beyond that, fiscal policy and can and will work if done properly and at the right time; monetary policies may also have very beneficial effects on the economy -- look at the central bank, just North of the line: it succeeds to maintain manageable inflation.

Governmental regulations in fact do not limit your freedom, it is what can ensure your emancipation from your dependence on your employer... it can also be used to affect the economy.

[KrugmanTheKing]

@weavermama

The government is one instance you can use in specific ways and at specific times; the reason it's important is that it gives you an other word than your sole workforce to have a say on the market. Likewise, I wouldn't advise handing all powers from working unions or public associations that works on several things because it's again an intermediate ground which widens your influence.

That's a political reason to never give all power to one instance of decision.