Naomi Klein and Joseph Stiglitz on Economic Power

What is the role of the U.S. in the disposition of the world's economic and environmental resources? How are financial markets best defended from economic shock? Does liberalization ensure prosperity?

Journalist Naomi Klein speaks with economists Joseph Stiglitz and Hernando de Soto in a conversation moderated by David Harvey, Distinguished Professor of Anthropology at the Graduate Center - City University of New York (CUNY)

Category:

Education

Tags:

• economics
• economy
• power
• business

[shplatinky]

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

[JejuLee]

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

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

[Crackxyx]

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

[elgajd]

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

[sfjeff1089]

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

[sfjeff1089]

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

[sfjeff1089]

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

[sfjeff1089]

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

[sfjeff1089]

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

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

[sfjeff1089]

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

[sfjeff1089]

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