Support for Venezuela’s Economic Policies On October 10, 2007, Joseph Stiglitz gave a speech at a forum on Strategies for Emerging Markets sponsored by the Bank of Venezuela.[71] He praised Venezuela's economic growth and "positive policies in health and education". He further stated, "Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez appears to have had success in bringing health and education to the people in the poor neighborhoods of Caracas, to those who previously saw few benefits of the countries oil wealth". In 2010, Venezuela began to experience one of the worst econmic crisis in the countries history.[72] Shortages in food, medicine and other basic necessities have been widespread. [73]
Stiglitz is literally insane. He's more crazy than even someone like Samuelson, who in the late 80s still predicted the Soviet Union's overtaking of the USA as the largest economy in the world... But at least Samuelson had his head screwed on somewhat correctly. "The effect of Stiglitz's influence is to make economics even more presumptively interventionist than Samuelson preferred. Samuelson treated market failure as the exception to the general rule of efficient markets. But the Greenwald-Stiglitz theorem posits market failure as the norm, establishing "that government could potentially almost always improve upon the market's resource allocation." And the Sappington-Stiglitz theorem "establishes that an ideal government could do better running an enterprise itself than it could through privatization" - Stiglitz 1994
*"that government could potentially almost always improve upon the market's resource allocation."* This should be enough to put this man in a asylum. How this man can have a nobel prize in economics?
The part where Venezuela has been boicoted is not a point. Ultimately, Chavez didn't know how to reform the economy, but neither his past or present opponents. In the end, poverty is almost the same, but this does not mean that those investments on education and healthcare were a failure. He did not deliver a new economic model; his opponents are also not presenting any option.
The freedom to own a gun allows a guy who would be buried alive otherwise to remain not buried alive. So either we can remove guns, shovels, and all goods (which could be used as blunt objects), or we can have an ever expanding group of goods that make everyone's lives better despite the ill will of others.
It's funny because guns and shovels have exactly the same usage. Oh wait, no. Shovels are for digging earth and guns are for killing. So no, that's a shit analogy.
markets would dissolve in 20 minutes without the government... who enforces contracts and private property? who manages the economic cycles? who protects the environment? Who protects the consumer? who provides education and health coverage for the over 65 population? the Koch brothers?
@ThomasSowell “The strongest argument for socialism is that it sounds good. The strongest argument against socialism is that it doesn't work. But those who live by words will always have a soft spot in their hearts for socialism because it sounds so good.”
OMG! i am as smart as ThomasSowell! i always divide people into 2 classes: those who live by words, and those who live by deeds, experiments, evidence.
"countries with higher social benefits have better standards of living" CONGRATULATIONS! you correlated your monthly wage with your annual wage -- you are an imbecile. we are not talking about benefits, you moron, we are talking about the amount/power of the govt.
JOHNNY they are correlated yes , but the causation is inverse ,in most of those cases those economies are and were before welfare states, highly productive , high marginal productivity and large amounts of capital means higher wages wich means a higher pool of income from wich to extract tax revenue and therefore the capacity to spend more on the public sector
@@Gary_oldmans_left_nut Your vomment is so full of fallacies , first of all , most of the third world in the last years as been enjoying low cost private education , even among the poorest famalies of already poor countries school fees dont take any more than 10% of income , the quality of this schools is considered high , and according to surveys of parents, much superior to the public ones , in some countries the enrollement is as high as 70% of the school age children , so your your first assumption that public services are weither higher quality or cheaper is just that faithfull assumption , specially whrn you take into account the fact that theres 0 economic incentive for the state agencies that manage such services to be efficient and take as 3 times more in tax ravenue per individual taxpayer than what most people spend in most analogous private services
socialism would have a better chance if the US didn't boycott every country that makes an attempt towards it. furthermore, Scandinavia, Canada and NZ are socialist enough.
- Easterly totally rebutted Stiglitz on Ethiopia, and Stiglitz had no answer beyond "Mistakes were made." - Stiglitz's argument about basically zero-sum rights doesn't hold water. - I read Phishing for Phools. Akerlof and Shiller did not make the argument that it's easier to exploit people than to provide value. They said that there's an equilibrium of exploitation that emerges as the cost and probability of enforcement is discovered. - Easterly's point about not being run by omniscient angels was prescient. Federalist 10, people - "good statesmen will not always be at the helm." Stiglitz once again said "mistakes were made." - The credit agencies worked fine until the government decided to start buying $4,500,000,000,000 of shit mortgages that it largely required banks to create. Although had the government not done that, the incentives would still have been perverse. - Stiglitz said Chavez had good intentions but didn't know how to do it. That's a slam dunk for Easterly on the knowledge factor. - "The only curb on market power is government" What? No. Competition is the biggest curb there is. - Stiglitz's point about voting for anti-trust is bunk from head to toe. The ICC was the poster child of a captured regulatory agency - Richard Olney (railroad bigwig) said it could be made of great use to the railroads, basically to capture it! The ensuing market power given to the railroads to kneecap the nascient trucking industry is now textbook. Stigler won a Nobel prize himself for this work. Historically, the government has created and enforced far more monopolies (such as the railroads!) than it has ever busted. And half the time it's busting, it's also doing so because other firms (like Netscape) can't compete. Stiglitz failed to address basically all of Easterly's arguments. I've read books and articles by Stiglitz and he is totally incapable of forming a coherent argument that stands up to the questions one would ask having taken a basic civics class. I'll need to find more debates with him and other smart people like Easterly to see if he can really post some decent arguments.
@@mr.generic5100 It's worth reading because it was written by a Nobel laureate. It's also interesting because it's a non-traditional use of economics, studying crime rather than stuff like wages, rents, and prices. It's also short, which is a plus - some books don't know when to stop. The idea is pretty neat, but the book itself I remember being less than riveting. And heck, the more econ and history books you read, it's harder for someone to BS you, as evidenced here.
@@SevenRiderAirForce thanks, I'll try to get my hands on it, I just thought the premise seemed oddly pro government, but their approach is probably more nuanced than I'm assuming.
@@mr.generic5100 I don't think prosecuting fraud is a controversial use of government, so I don't remember it being unusually pro government. I read it a while ago, but think something like people discovering over time the probability of success * weight of booty vs probability of failure * weight of punishment.
- On Ethiopia, a lot of Africa's growth came from China's increased demand for natural resources its not one dimensional - "there's an equilibrium of exploitation that emerges as the cost and probability of enforcement is discovered" - So basically you admit phishing exists unless the cost and probability of enforcement by regulators is high enough... "Stiglitz's argument about basically zero-sum rights doesn't hold water. " - The crime rate of many countries was raised by the freedom of poor & single mothers to have lots of children where the crime rate of China dropped because only rich people in urban areas could afford to have children, and in Japan there was a huge community pressure for poor people not to have too many children so literally freedom can lead to crime - The freedom of speech for lobbying has caused the government to be captured by corporate interests and they build suburbs that make people car dependent and have campaigns against safer public transportation - Freedom of private schools has led to predatory schools like Trump university - Freedom of congress to buy-sell stocks means they benefit from insider knowledge in the stock market and this powers some of the financialization of the economy that has caused the cost of living to rise for the average person - "The only curb on market power is government" What? No. Competition is the biggest curb there is - Well competition is seen as being internal to market power, and I agree that we should have competition between governments/states so that people can vote with their feet to the best government. Right now the 4% of the West owns like 50% of the worlds natural resources, geographic factors like amount of natural resources, sanctions and invasions by enemy countries, and landlockedness, temperature highly correlate with wealth. We don't have enough a sample size of Earths to see if "Economic freedom" correlates with wealth since right now economic freedom often means Western-aligned
17:00 His idea of government intervention into the economy is China recognizing that free markets reduce poverty. This is not government intervening! This is government ceasing to intervene! Markets are not an "instrument" of government, markets are what you get when you _remove government from the equation!_ Then he quickly switches his point to the assertion that government will always be involved in the economy and that the only success is where you get the right mixture. Stiglitz is a hack and a fraud!
No its not :\ government can use markets, "less intervening" and "ceasing to intervene" are two different things. China never had free market, they are authoritarian state under CCP since 1940th
Why does everybody seem to think this debate is Socialism vs Capitalism? It’s not. It is about mixed economies vs libertarian capitalism. A lot of commenters here really want to think they’re smarter than a Nobel laureate. And they’re using so many straw man arguments to get there. Sad.
Because Nobel laureate can't produce normative baseless or outright cringeworthy opinions (like Shockley), right. This would be a revelation to you, but person can do rigid scientific inquiry yet speak a lot of baseless normative opinions, and Stiglitz is quite famous for it. >It is about mixed economies vs libertarian capitalism. Nah, it's exactly about socialism as in Venezuela which Stiglitz has praised vs normal capitalism as in Sweden, Germany or any countries from the top of Heritage index list.
@@freyrnjordrson1418 You're only showing everyone reading that you weren't able to follow Stiglitz's argument. That definitely wasn't what he was advocating
Lmao India had a Nobel laureate Economist who did nothing but preach welfare Economics. In 1991 , india opened up the economy and embraced free market to some extent. More people came out of poverty because of that. And that idiot was against free market reforms. On top of that Nobel prize for economics is made up. Nobel Only chose hard science for prizes. Economics was created by the trust Later. Economics is a social science. Nobel laureate Paul Samuelson thought USSR's economy will surpass USA. Didn't happen. Only few Nobel laureate economists I will respect. Like Milton Friedman and Hayek. They don't really need a fake ass Nobel though. Milton's legacy itself is huge. Probably the most influential economist after Keynes In real world practical applications of his Economic theories.
He's got a whopping 1 argument: "The financial crisis!" Yeah, I remember, those dark times, the bread-lines, the mass starvation, the forced relocations, the gulags. Boy that financial crisis sure showed us how vital it is for State power to curb the excesses of an unfettered market economy.
I mean the government did pour over 7 trillion dollars into the economy in the form of printed money, loans, bond purchases, stimulus etc., which did keep this Recession from turning into a Depression. Did you mean to make that point?
Q B if you actually look at the subprime lending industry, the vast majority of it was produced by private banking organizations who needed another source of profit. Fannie and Freddie made up a very small part of the overall crisis. You guys really need to try to get beyond your constant anti-government ranting and come up with some actual arguments.
The government had a quota system in place to force banks to give loans to low-income people who couldn't afford them. This is undeniable. The government caused the financial crisis whether you want to admit it or not. This interview explains it well. www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/12/hey-barney-frank-the-government-did-cause-the-housing-crisis/249903/
I am kind of sad they missed the key point. When property rights are well defined, you don't need much government beyond helping to define/defend the property rights. When property rights are not well defined, you invariably need some form of governance to deal with tragedy of the commons.
I'd say you need good right of use systems that involve a minimum of government bureaucracy and direct intervention. Though our current system allows massive rent seeking. Title to land is legal privilege and can be profited from for no gain or investment in production. It fundamentally funnels wealth to those who happen to hold legal privilege/aka state sanctioned monopoly on land.
Stiglitz mentions Botswana as an example for why government is better for development, yet Botswana has incredibly free markets. In fact, Botswana ranks third in Africa in terms of economic freedom. Mauritius, the most economically free country in Africa, ranks second in HDI. Seychelles, the country with the highest HDI in Africa, ranks fourth in Africa for economic freedom. Rwanda, the second most economically free country, has broken into the top half of African countries by HDI and ranks second in economic growth per capita two and a half decades on from having a tenth of its population wiped out. Sense a trend?
Stiglitz is one of the greatest minds of our century. A minimum understanding of economics will point to the fact that the assumptions of free market are flawed, obsolete at least. Stiglitz did not claim against markets at any minute but for the appropriate balance among markets and public management. near the end Easterley condemned himself when he said cash transfer to the poor would be a solution, but markets on the own will never perform such transfer so again we would need a public entity to manage and distribute such a cash transfer. Leave markets free and prepare to work 80 hours a week, in poor health conditions, in a very polluted environment... free market ideology is based on perfect competition which is unrealistic. We need democracy, we need markets and do need a framework to regulate the market, we need help those in poverty and combat corruption.
27:39 the rights to own a gin is not the same (does not mean) with the right to shoot other person. Wow, is he realy a Nobel price laureate??? Amazing!!! Gin,
Open Challenge: find a quote in The Wealth of Nations that mentions monopolies as something emerging from a free market and not Government intervention.
Amazon is the best example. Jeff Bezos started his company in free-market capitalism in his basement; he eliminates all his competitors. Now his company is the biggest monopoly in history. You want more examples Apple, Google, Facebook; all of them started small in a free market capitalist system.
Virat K big company doesn’t mean monopoly. All of those companies you named have competitors. Google competes against bing, yahoo, duck duck go. Apple competes against google, Samsung. Amazon agains eBay, Walmart, and the thousands of other sites. It drives down prices. It’s also not the free market that let these companies get so big. It was government intervention and special interest stifling competition, making it harder for people to enter the market and killing small businesses. Remember, we don’t live in a free market system, we live in a mixed economy.
wow! I am just dealing with Air Canada, a government controlled, sanctioned and protected corporation. They refuse to issue a refund for a flight that they cancelled. I have no recourse. If there was any sort of free market with airlines, they would be forced to work with clients in a more open and honest manner, but Canada is a very mixed economy with more emphasis and power on the government side. We in Canada, have some of the world's most expensive cell phone systems, because the government protects these oligarchies. Banks ditto. Government interventions typically support robber barons and cronies. Government should be policing corporations. Instead they enable corporate misbehavior. If the markets were free in Canada, the airline, telecom and banking robber barons could not operate.
I have cows but no chickens, my buddy down the road has chickens but no cows. If I give my buddy some milk and he gives me some eggs we have just committed capitalism. Please I did not actually give my buddy milk I Do not want to go to prison.
I think people do not understand the differences. Stiglitz want markets but he say its important to have a well function government. Easterly want markets but he say government is not important.
The market for cell phones in sub-saharan Africa has changed social media. I've had to remove access to sending me friend requests from people wanting to know "how can hax phone". I spent a few weeks preaching to them the need for Bitcoin to replace their useless currency, but was eventually overwhelmed. Wish them all the best of luck.
It's been doing that steadily for the last 70 years, starting with the establishment of GATT imo. Institutionalization of free trade, at least in terms of lowering tariffs, quotas, etc, is partially responsible for the global extreme poverty rate declining to less than 20 pct. The vast majority of human history up until maybe 50 years ago was plagued with extreme poverty. A lot of people love to talk about how "free markets" are responsible for all these past human atrocities when in reality nothing resembling free market economics was ever employed regularly in the past. Colonialism was a political and economic system that was only profitable to those who benefited because they were allowed to employ forced labor, charge high prices as government sponsored monopolies, and tax their subjects. Most people didn't benefit, not even the common citizens of the metropolis country of a colonial empire. Early human civilization almost always had legal slavery. Slavery is the opposite of a free market. The labor supply literally isn't allowed to use their abilities in ways that they see fit. It's no coincidence that most colonial empires fell after WW2. Not only were all the affected countries bankrupted but they couldn't maintain their mercantilist policies. It was blatantly obvious that misguided economic policy was a major cause of the war. The fascists and Nazis literally wanted autarky. The only way a nation can theoretically achieve autarky (not that autarky is desirable) when it lacks the resources is to incorporate new territories that possess large amounts of natural resources. That's totally what Germany was doing.
The debate is immediately lost when the freedom of exchange is purported to be predictable or to end poverty, especially when it is by the fruits of one's own actions.
As soon as Easterly mentions Venezuela (first intervention) you realize that he'll probably give you more propaganda than real debate. Stiglitz, on the other hand, is honest enough to start by acknowledging that State VS markets is just a false dichotomy, and that the discussion should be about the right mix of these two structures for achieving equilibrium. It seems that market-fundamentalists cannot do with intellectual honesty.
Holy shit, did Stiglitz really cite Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle" as a case for government regulation? Dude, the book is fiction. It is actually a fictional story.
I just want to make a footnote in minute 14:56 where the speaker says that in Peru indigenous people still suffer from the legacy of colonization is completely false. Indigenous people in Peru, Chile, Colombia, Brasil etc are still poor for two reasons: 1) they don’t have property rights to the land they explode. Why? Property rights didn’t exist until the Spaniards discovered America. These people were nomads, they didn’t see the need to settle in one place, therefore no need to claim a piece of land as mine. 2) In most LA countries indigenous people are giving FREE stuff by the government. I can’t speak of Peru but in Colombia our government gives them FREE lands, education, healthcare, subsidies for their crops, and food (which is spent on the males of the tribes and whatever is left is eaten by the females and then, whatever they leave is eaten by the children). They’re poor because they want to be poor. They have no incentive to improve their life. They’ll lose all those government benefits.
The sole reason the financial sector can impose costs on society is because of the support and exclusions government affords them. This is not a case of raw capitalism destroying everything if unhampered.
I can't understand why all people here seems to disagree with (or even hate) Stiglitz: If I would have the choice wether to live in the USA (strong role of markets) or one of the Scandinavian countries (strong role of the government) I would choose the latter. I guess this question can answer this debate.
"the biggest reduction of poverty in china was due to governament , governament recognized the importance of markets..." I know this line is real olympic level mental gymnastics that we are so used to hear from stiglitz to credit governament for the workings of markets , but it would actually look pretty good in an ironic libertarian bumper sticker
You can’t decouple markets and government. Markets are governed by rules and government creates the rules. So the government can use markets to its advantage with the right interventions, subsidies, regulations, etc.
I love to see Americans defend minimal government, when they go bankrupt because of healthcare and education. It's ridiculous. In most European countries we have free markets and strong governments. We have a mix of markets and socialism ideals, like free education and healthcare. And, because of that, we have a much better quality of life. The US is the proof that free markets alone don't work.
At 38.05 Stiglitz misinterprets (or manipulates) the last page of book one of the wealth of nations, where literally the opposite case is made about corporations, incentives and the takeaway in regards to regulation. It's fascinating that someone that doesn't even understand one of the founding books of economics has won the nobel prize.
The question of whether government or markets is the best way to address problems is not the best framing. Government intervention does not replace markets, it influences them. It’s really a debate over how much influence government should have over markets. And even then you run into the issue of many of the foundational rules that government creates that runs markets like property rights. Property rights are a form of regulation on the markets place. They don’t exist without government to create laws about them and in force them.
Capitalism, coupled with free trade and minimal regulation is the only idea discovered so far that improve the lives of people. You still need governments to protect party A and party B from harming party C, and to provide infrastructure ... but that's about it. Politicians should be limited in term so they don't get power happy. People, the citizenry who vote, need to be legal and educated on how government should work and does work.
"You should understand that we are never going to end poverty. The Bible says, "The poor you shall always have with you" (Matthew 26:11) ... So, it's over reaching . . ." The irony here, kind of annoys me... Because context matters.. and whether or not "the poor you shall always have with you" is true, given the context... The guy using this quote is a little, if not more, "over reaching".
A Name 1 The poor you will always have with you,[a] but you will not always have me. 12 When she poured this perfume on my body, she did it to prepare me for burial. 13 Truly I tell you, wherever this gospel is preached throughout the world, what she has done will also be told, in memory of her.”
Victoria Marulanda ok so... The bible verse he is quoting was not cited in the video... But I cited it. And you think I didnt read it? So you reply with just the bible verse? Because you think its self explanitory?? Wellp, here we go: o Context matters... o The guy used this verse as the leading justification for his argument (kind of?) o And then immediately after, he said "over reaching" = ironic because o The point of what Jesus was saying and the reason for the Bible verse was not because of the poor. o Jesus mentions the poor because the disciples mentioned the poor The verse is not and was not meant to decide how we deal with the poor, yet this guy is using it for that purpose (as a part of his arguement). AND that is why it is "over reaching". As I said in my first statement: *whether or not "the poor you shall always have with you" is true, given the context... The guy using this quote is a little, if not more, "over reaching".*
Economies based on extraction of resources are always subject to boom/bust because there is no focus on actual free markets, education and competitive improvements.
I agree with the food and building regulations because I have seen to much questionable practices that get exposed to late. But the free market is not a fix for a everything but getting a good government is farfetched too.
If Easterly is to take Adam Smith as the ultimate authority on how to promote long run economic growth, he must also confront the fact that Adam Smith claimed in the Wealth of Nations that the United States should stay an agrarian economy and that government attempt to promote its industrial sectors would only bring harm. But the US government would go on to intervene heavily in the US economy via tariffs to promote the northern industrial states at the expense of southern agrarian states through most of the nineteenth century. The government did so because it was captured by the industrial interests in the North. How would Easterly also explain the tremendous economic growth in the US during the Gilded Age? Will he claim that there was little state capture by the economic elites then contrary to a wall of historical evidence?
You can call all the faults you want with private enterprise but I can't remember a point in history that caused millions of deaths or use force so one pays for the meager services they provide.
I don't think markets really can fail. Unless you define failure as anything you don't like. "markets have failed to produce fusion power". Was 1929 crash market failure? It was a result of artificial monetary boom of the 1920's by the government. Just like 2008. Government produced result. I have no idea what Stiglitz is talking about in Africa having too free markets. They barely have property rights.
How is owning a gun = a deprivation of someone's life by default? Is he serious? That's so moronic in and of itself that the Nobel committee should revoke his prize.
You really know you've got a solid diversity of opinion when the 2 opposing sides can agree that the current U.S. administration demonstrates a drastic failure of Government. I mean just look at the economy--total ruination. Starvation, gulags, etc. Lord am I ever tired of pretentious egg-heads from the metropolitan/academic monoculture. GET A REAL SECOND OPINION FROM AN ACTUAL FUNCTIONING HUMAN BEING. I'd take a coal-miner or crop-farmer's perspective as more pertinent than what some ivory tower think-tank academic who has never done a literal minute of labor, thinks about labor and poverty and the government.
"I'd take a coal-miner or crop-farmer's perspective as more pertinent" If you listen to NPR, they seem to put on any random old timer schmuck they can find sitting around having coffee in the morning at Casey's the fucking gas station that will talk to them. No, they are usually not pertinent at all.
28:30, that says it all. Just because one person has the right to own a gun does not mean that someone else's right to live is impaired. For God's sake.
Market failures fix themselves. They never harm huge numbers. Government failures last generations and harm millions. The IMF impositions are just another example of coercion. I mean, if you have a gang that uses force, you don't blame government or markets, you blame who is imposing their ways on others. Coercion is the problem, not whether it's officially sanctioned or not.
Joe saying "No but I've read enough of it." Right after William says he just recently read both the Wealth of Nations and Theory of Moral Sentiments is hilarious.
I wonder if it ever occurred to Stiglitz to think about how China does not respect or observe the environmental laws that most western nations are now struggling under, and how that affects China's economic success vs the rest of the developed world in our present day... I also wonder if he recognizes how close China actually is to social and economic disaster thanks to their totalitarian policies.
I guess the question could be narrowed down to have some revelations. Either extreme will not produce good results - we have proof of that already more than enough. Will more free market reduce poverty? For me it seems like a "trickle down economy" argument. And the answer is pretty definitely no. Will enterprises rise salaries for common folks (the one that is most likely in poverty) without state defined minimum? Probably not. Will such worker succeed in getting out of poverty? Probably not. Should state define all salaries? Absolutely not. The goal of most enterprises is not to benefit society in whole but to earn revenue. They contribute to society outside their economic scope as little as possible (only if prescribed by law or by popular demand). A good mix is somewhere in between where the common folks will have access to education, medical care, transportation and decent living standard in that society when they are fully employed (being fully employed they have given their 100% to solve the issue). Then one can assume that some of these folks will try to get out of poverty (and they have some possibility of doing it) by getting better qualification and better job. Without education or medical care or other baseline requirements there probably will be more cash-sinks than opportunities to move up.
There has never been a truly laisez faire market economy in modern history... Stiglitz primary argument, "no private market has ever done anything like that" is essentially an appeal to ignorance.
I long for the day debate is more conducted the way Joseph does, bring light balance about sides instead of a biased view, we need both sides of the coin because any side can go too far, using Jordan Peterson's language...
Non-profit universities are still free market compared to government run ones, where tuition is paid by all to benefit a few. Also, Harvard has a $41 billion endowment, so take the notion of non-profit with a grain of salt. Also, Harvard's lack of profit motive no doubt is why they don't expand and offer great education to more people in more places? Why don't they? Because their economic model is closer to regulated virtue signaling in that if more people have their degrees, the value of their degree is diminished even others can benefit from their education.
There aren't any examples of market failures. He didn't mention a single one. Every example he gave is only an example of why government intervention in markets doesn't work. There are only examples of market corrections that some people don't like.
DEFINING POVERTY AS HAVING LESS THAN 2 DOLLARS, AND THEN SAY VERY POOR AFRICANS BUY EXPENSIVE SMARTPHONES. WHERE DID THEY GET MORE THAN 2 DOLLAR. VERY CONTRADICTORY THEORY
The bible also says that if the Israelites followed the commandments (such as honoring gleaner's rights both for natives and sojourners and forgiving debts in years of jubilee) that there will be no poor persons among their own people.
Stiglitz's non-answering how would more Government power curb Government power being abused was very conspicuous. The man is clearly not guided by logic or evidence.
Income per capita might lead to fake ideas... Imagine 3 guys live in a country, and there 6 glasses of wine. One of the guys drinks them all and the other get none. Glasses of wine per capita in that case would be 2 per person... Careful
45:54 government vs market in context Fallibility, giving trust without loosing control to withdraw the trust when the trust is betrayed. Its about which that we have control more over. Gin,
35:30 Professor Stiglitz, authotarian government does not have incentives to do the right things, democracy government does. Imagine China were ruled by the Taiwanese system, the people would be bettered of, and so would the world.
Taiwan developed very fast under the authoritarian leader in the 1960s, 1970s, and the early 1980s. But since the democratization started, Taiwan has been far behind the other tigers in Asia.
frank wang had one had a choice to live in either economies/societies, it would not be difficult to choose for an average person. Imagine had China been ran like Taiwan...
@@219cafe 340m Chinese people go abroad every year in normal conditions , and almost all of them choose to go back to China. Most Chinese students studying in the US choose to go back to China. What do you think?
frank wang It does not mean they have an opportunity to stay without being coerced and choose to come back. Millions of North Korean have chosen to stay in their country, too. Yet, I agree that being argumentative is fruitless because neither of us show any statistical evidence to prove our point. You can choose what to believe in. I know for a fact that having citizenship to a free world nation is rather a privilege to many Chinese.
@@219cafe the so-called free world is not so free at all for many underprevileged people. Take a look at those homeless Americans in skid row LA, they are Americans too but I don't think they enjoy much freedom at all. If you walk in the middle of the night in any Chinese city, it is very safe for you. I have freedom from fear of being killed or robbed. However poor they are for all Chinese rural residents, they own their house and they have a small piece of land to grow their food, so we have no homeless people in China. The government has lifted 800m out of poverty, more than double of the US population. We know what we want, please leave us alone and mind your own business. If the west stops touting their own system, the world would be a better place. The world should not have only one model of political system because it would be so boring and so unrealistic.
Stiglitz first point: We're never going to end poverty. Meanwhile: Extreme poverty (living on less than $1.90 USD a day) is on track to be eradicated globally by 2030.
Extreme poverty and relative poverty are different. Stiglitz refers to the latter. Also, reduction of extreme poverty has been almost entirely due to government "big push" policies in China and India.
@@lexparsimoniae2107 Firstly, relative poverty doesn't matter at all. Considering yourself impoverished "relative" to others is a good way to build envy and resentment. I recommend people stop comparing themselves to others and they'll be much more grounded and healthy. Instead people should be comparing their situation to absolute poverty, which is the baseline for all human existence. Secondly, the policies that are reducing poverty in China and India are the implementation of at least some semblance of private property and free markets... Not government welfare programs.
@@chrisknorr1326 relative poverty is not about "envy". It's about access to opportunities. Also, no amount of private enterprise could have lifted the Chinese population out of poverty without government supervision. As Stiglitz points out, it's about getting the right mix of government and market, not getting rid of one or the other.
@@lexparsimoniae2107 This idea that, if the government sets people free, they can't improve their lots without benevolent handouts from the central government is provably wrong. Where does the government get's the money? isn't it from the private sector? For a real world example, look at hong kong, chilie, etc.
@@aminuabdulmanaf4434 the context matters in this conversation. When we are talking about development out of extreme poverty, the government can have an enormously important role ⏤ as it has had in China, India, and countless other places. Once we are in a more developed situation, then the government should allow the forces of market to kick in with full swing. There is no either / or in absolute terms. Context matters.
So the idea of big government and small government is really how big(much) or small(less) the government intervene to individu rights. In this case the rights for every individu to do trade, market. The more goverment intervention the more risk of coercion, the more coercion the more the market corrupted, the more market corrupted the more cost, the more cost the more pain and suffering. Keep in mind, cost, suffering, pain, as a consequence of individu free choice is fair and just. Cost paid as consequence of other people choice is not fair. Gin,
Support for Venezuela’s Economic Policies
On October 10, 2007, Joseph Stiglitz gave a speech at a forum on Strategies for Emerging Markets sponsored by the Bank of Venezuela.[71] He praised Venezuela's economic growth and "positive policies in health and education". He further stated, "Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez appears to have had success in bringing health and education to the people in the poor neighborhoods of Caracas, to those who previously saw few benefits of the countries oil wealth". In 2010, Venezuela began to experience one of the worst econmic crisis in the countries history.[72] Shortages in food, medicine and other basic necessities have been widespread. [73]
Stiglitz is literally insane. He's more crazy than even someone like Samuelson, who in the late 80s still predicted the Soviet Union's overtaking of the USA as the largest economy in the world... But at least Samuelson had his head screwed on somewhat correctly.
"The effect of Stiglitz's influence is to make economics even more presumptively interventionist than Samuelson preferred. Samuelson treated market failure as the exception to the general rule of efficient markets. But the Greenwald-Stiglitz theorem posits market failure as the norm, establishing "that government could potentially almost always improve upon the market's resource allocation." And the Sappington-Stiglitz theorem "establishes that an ideal government could do better running an enterprise itself than it could through privatization"
- Stiglitz 1994
*"that government could potentially almost always improve upon the market's resource allocation."*
This should be enough to put this man in a asylum. How this man can have a nobel prize in economics?
Lucas Soares he got the prize precisely because he is pushing the statist agenda.
The part where Venezuela has been boicoted is not a point. Ultimately, Chavez didn't know how to reform the economy, but neither his past or present opponents. In the end, poverty is almost the same, but this does not mean that those investments on education and healthcare were a failure. He did not deliver a new economic model; his opponents are also not presenting any option.
@@d4n4nable hmmm, did anything important happen between 2007 and 2010? Maybe related to the global economy? 🤔🤔🤔
The freedom to own a shovel takes away the other's freedom to not be buried alive.
John the Savage the freedom to a secure a border, takes away the right to live to someone else
The freedom to own a knife takes away the other's freedom to not be cut. See I can do it to.
The freedom to own a gun allows a guy who would be buried alive otherwise to remain not buried alive.
So either we can remove guns, shovels, and all goods (which could be used as blunt objects), or we can have an ever expanding group of goods that make everyone's lives better despite the ill will of others.
It's funny because guns and shovels have exactly the same usage. Oh wait, no. Shovels are for digging earth and guns are for killing. So no, that's a shit analogy.
markets would dissolve in 20 minutes without the government... who enforces contracts and private property? who manages the economic cycles? who protects the environment? Who protects the consumer? who provides education and health coverage for the over 65 population? the Koch brothers?
@ThomasSowell
“The strongest argument for socialism is that it sounds good. The strongest argument against socialism is that it doesn't work. But those who live by words will always have a soft spot in their hearts for socialism because it sounds so good.”
OMG! i am as smart as ThomasSowell!
i always divide people into 2 classes: those who live by words, and those who live by deeds, experiments, evidence.
"countries with higher social benefits have better standards of living"
CONGRATULATIONS! you correlated your monthly wage with your annual wage -- you are an imbecile.
we are not talking about benefits, you moron, we are talking about the amount/power of the govt.
JOHNNY they are correlated yes , but the causation is inverse ,in most of those cases those economies are and were before welfare states, highly productive , high marginal productivity and large amounts of capital means higher wages wich means a higher pool of income from wich to extract tax revenue and therefore the capacity to spend more on the public sector
@@Gary_oldmans_left_nut Your vomment is so full of fallacies , first of all , most of the third world in the last years as been enjoying low cost private education , even among the poorest famalies of already poor countries school fees dont take any more than 10% of income , the quality of this schools is considered high , and according to surveys of parents, much superior to the public ones , in some countries the enrollement is as high as 70% of the school age children , so your your first assumption that public services are weither higher quality or cheaper is just that faithfull assumption , specially whrn you take into account the fact that theres 0 economic incentive for the state agencies that manage such services to be efficient and take as 3 times more in tax ravenue per individual taxpayer than what most people spend in most analogous private services
socialism would have a better chance if the US didn't boycott every country that makes an attempt towards it. furthermore, Scandinavia, Canada and NZ are socialist enough.
- Easterly totally rebutted Stiglitz on Ethiopia, and Stiglitz had no answer beyond "Mistakes were made."
- Stiglitz's argument about basically zero-sum rights doesn't hold water.
- I read Phishing for Phools. Akerlof and Shiller did not make the argument that it's easier to exploit people than to provide value. They said that there's an equilibrium of exploitation that emerges as the cost and probability of enforcement is discovered.
- Easterly's point about not being run by omniscient angels was prescient. Federalist 10, people - "good statesmen will not always be at the helm." Stiglitz once again said "mistakes were made."
- The credit agencies worked fine until the government decided to start buying $4,500,000,000,000 of shit mortgages that it largely required banks to create. Although had the government not done that, the incentives would still have been perverse.
- Stiglitz said Chavez had good intentions but didn't know how to do it. That's a slam dunk for Easterly on the knowledge factor.
- "The only curb on market power is government" What? No. Competition is the biggest curb there is.
- Stiglitz's point about voting for anti-trust is bunk from head to toe. The ICC was the poster child of a captured regulatory agency - Richard Olney (railroad bigwig) said it could be made of great use to the railroads, basically to capture it! The ensuing market power given to the railroads to kneecap the nascient trucking industry is now textbook. Stigler won a Nobel prize himself for this work. Historically, the government has created and enforced far more monopolies (such as the railroads!) than it has ever busted. And half the time it's busting, it's also doing so because other firms (like Netscape) can't compete.
Stiglitz failed to address basically all of Easterly's arguments. I've read books and articles by Stiglitz and he is totally incapable of forming a coherent argument that stands up to the questions one would ask having taken a basic civics class. I'll need to find more debates with him and other smart people like Easterly to see if he can really post some decent arguments.
Hey if you're still here, I'd like to know what you personally think about the book "phishing for fools"
@@mr.generic5100 It's worth reading because it was written by a Nobel laureate. It's also interesting because it's a non-traditional use of economics, studying crime rather than stuff like wages, rents, and prices. It's also short, which is a plus - some books don't know when to stop. The idea is pretty neat, but the book itself I remember being less than riveting.
And heck, the more econ and history books you read, it's harder for someone to BS you, as evidenced here.
@@SevenRiderAirForce thanks, I'll try to get my hands on it, I just thought the premise seemed oddly pro government, but their approach is probably more nuanced than I'm assuming.
@@mr.generic5100 I don't think prosecuting fraud is a controversial use of government, so I don't remember it being unusually pro government. I read it a while ago, but think something like people discovering over time the probability of success * weight of booty vs probability of failure * weight of punishment.
- On Ethiopia, a lot of Africa's growth came from China's increased demand for natural resources its not one dimensional
- "there's an equilibrium of exploitation that emerges as the cost and probability of enforcement is discovered" - So basically you admit phishing exists unless the cost and probability of enforcement by regulators is high enough...
"Stiglitz's argument about basically zero-sum rights doesn't hold water. "
- The crime rate of many countries was raised by the freedom of poor & single mothers to have lots of children where the crime rate of China dropped because only rich people in urban areas could afford to have children, and in Japan there was a huge community pressure for poor people not to have too many children so literally freedom can lead to crime
- The freedom of speech for lobbying has caused the government to be captured by corporate interests and they build suburbs that make people car dependent and have campaigns against safer public transportation
- Freedom of private schools has led to predatory schools like Trump university
- Freedom of congress to buy-sell stocks means they benefit from insider knowledge in the stock market and this powers some of the financialization of the economy that has caused the cost of living to rise for the average person
- "The only curb on market power is government" What? No. Competition is the biggest curb there is - Well competition is seen as being internal to market power, and I agree that we should have competition between governments/states so that people can vote with their feet to the best government. Right now the 4% of the West owns like 50% of the worlds natural resources, geographic factors like amount of natural resources, sanctions and invasions by enemy countries, and landlockedness, temperature highly correlate with wealth. We don't have enough a sample size of Earths to see if "Economic freedom" correlates with wealth since right now economic freedom often means Western-aligned
17:00 His idea of government intervention into the economy is China recognizing that free markets reduce poverty. This is not government intervening! This is government ceasing to intervene! Markets are not an "instrument" of government, markets are what you get when you _remove government from the equation!_ Then he quickly switches his point to the assertion that government will always be involved in the economy and that the only success is where you get the right mixture. Stiglitz is a hack and a fraud!
Perfect example of leftist double-think.
Astute observation.
How can stiglitz have any credibility as a Keynesian at this point?
You're still a utopian
No its not :\ government can use markets, "less intervening" and "ceasing to intervene" are two different things. China never had free market, they are authoritarian state under CCP since 1940th
Why does everybody seem to think this debate is Socialism vs Capitalism? It’s not. It is about mixed economies vs libertarian capitalism.
A lot of commenters here really want to think they’re smarter than a Nobel laureate. And they’re using so many straw man arguments to get there. Sad.
can't agree anymore
Because Nobel laureate can't produce normative baseless or outright cringeworthy opinions (like Shockley), right. This would be a revelation to you, but person can do rigid scientific inquiry yet speak a lot of baseless normative opinions, and Stiglitz is quite famous for it.
>It is about mixed economies vs libertarian capitalism.
Nah, it's exactly about socialism as in Venezuela which Stiglitz has praised vs normal capitalism as in Sweden, Germany or any countries from the top of Heritage index list.
@@freyrnjordrson1418 You're only showing everyone reading that you weren't able to follow Stiglitz's argument. That definitely wasn't what he was advocating
And government controlling something isn't necessarily socialism either.
Lmao India had a Nobel laureate Economist who did nothing but preach welfare Economics.
In 1991 , india opened up the economy and embraced free market to some extent. More people came out of poverty because of that. And that idiot was against free market reforms.
On top of that Nobel prize for economics is made up. Nobel Only chose hard science for prizes. Economics was created by the trust Later.
Economics is a social science. Nobel laureate Paul Samuelson thought USSR's economy will surpass USA. Didn't happen.
Only few Nobel laureate economists I will respect. Like Milton Friedman and Hayek. They don't really need a fake ass Nobel though. Milton's legacy itself is huge.
Probably the most influential economist after Keynes In real world practical applications of his Economic theories.
"The freedom to own a gun takes away the other's freedom to live." Stiglitz believes to own a gun is to murder someone else by default.
Wow.
The freedom to own a shovel takes away the other's freedom to not be buried alive.
John, bring your comment to the main thread, i want it on the top!
LOL. I added it to the main thread at your request
One of the many, many head-shaking clownish things he said that should've been challenged in a proper debate.
Stiglitz is a Communist.
01:00 Intro
04:00 First ten min of Easterly speech
16:00 First ten min of Stiglitz speech
30:00 Dialogue between both interlocutors
He's got a whopping 1 argument: "The financial crisis!" Yeah, I remember, those dark times, the bread-lines, the mass starvation, the forced relocations, the gulags. Boy that financial crisis sure showed us how vital it is for State power to curb the excesses of an unfettered market economy.
Never mind that it was caused by a Clinton policy to force banks to give loans to people who couldn't afford them, all in the name of "homes for all".
I mean the government did pour over 7 trillion dollars into the economy in the form of printed money, loans, bond purchases, stimulus etc., which did keep this Recession from turning into a Depression. Did you mean to make that point?
After causing the crisis in the first place.
Q B if you actually look at the subprime lending industry, the vast majority of it was produced by private banking organizations who needed another source of profit. Fannie and Freddie made up a very small part of the overall crisis. You guys really need to try to get beyond your constant anti-government ranting and come up with some actual arguments.
The government had a quota system in place to force banks to give loans to low-income people who couldn't afford them. This is undeniable. The government caused the financial crisis whether you want to admit it or not.
This interview explains it well.
www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/12/hey-barney-frank-the-government-did-cause-the-housing-crisis/249903/
great talk. am watching from kampala uganda
So whats your favorite part about government? is it the incompetence or the corruption?
That's beautiful, man!
I have no patience for corruption yet sometimes I find incompetence to be entertaining.
corruption is inherent to living beings
Glad to see more of these kinds of debates with direct public involvement
I am kind of sad they missed the key point. When property rights are well defined, you don't need much government beyond helping to define/defend the property rights. When property rights are not well defined, you invariably need some form of governance to deal with tragedy of the commons.
I'd say you need good right of use systems that involve a minimum of government bureaucracy and direct intervention. Though our current system allows massive rent seeking. Title to land is legal privilege and can be profited from for no gain or investment in production. It fundamentally funnels wealth to those who happen to hold legal privilege/aka state sanctioned monopoly on land.
Stiglitz mentions Botswana as an example for why government is better for development, yet Botswana has incredibly free markets. In fact, Botswana ranks third in Africa in terms of economic freedom. Mauritius, the most economically free country in Africa, ranks second in HDI. Seychelles, the country with the highest HDI in Africa, ranks fourth in Africa for economic freedom. Rwanda, the second most economically free country, has broken into the top half of African countries by HDI and ranks second in economic growth per capita two and a half decades on from having a tenth of its population wiped out. Sense a trend?
Stiglitz is one of the greatest minds of our century. A minimum understanding of economics will point to the fact that the assumptions of free market are flawed, obsolete at least. Stiglitz did not claim against markets at any minute but for the appropriate balance among markets and public management. near the end Easterley condemned himself when he said cash transfer to the poor would be a solution, but markets on the own will never perform such transfer so again we would need a public entity to manage and distribute such a cash transfer. Leave markets free and prepare to work 80 hours a week, in poor health conditions, in a very polluted environment... free market ideology is based on perfect competition which is unrealistic. We need democracy, we need markets and do need a framework to regulate the market, we need help those in poverty and combat corruption.
He keeps referring to an idealized government but ignores his version if markets is equally idealized.
27:39 the rights to own a gin is not the same (does not mean) with the right to shoot other person.
Wow, is he realy a Nobel price laureate??? Amazing!!!
Gin,
Open Challenge: find a quote in The Wealth of Nations that mentions monopolies as something emerging from a free market and not Government intervention.
Iván Carrino it’s impossible, natural monopolies do not exist
@@bakerelkins469 It happens all the time the free market leads to monopolies. You are delusional.
Virat K name a time that the free market lead to a monopoly.
Amazon is the best example. Jeff Bezos started his company in free-market capitalism in his basement; he eliminates all his competitors. Now his company is the biggest monopoly in history. You want more examples Apple, Google, Facebook; all of them started small in a free market capitalist system.
Virat K big company doesn’t mean monopoly. All of those companies you named have competitors. Google competes against bing, yahoo, duck duck go. Apple competes against google, Samsung. Amazon agains eBay, Walmart, and the thousands of other sites. It drives down prices. It’s also not the free market that let these companies get so big. It was government intervention and special interest stifling competition, making it harder for people to enter the market and killing small businesses. Remember, we don’t live in a free market system, we live in a mixed economy.
wow! I am just dealing with Air Canada, a government controlled, sanctioned and protected corporation. They refuse to issue a refund for a flight that they cancelled. I have no recourse. If there was any sort of free market with airlines, they would be forced to work with clients in a more open and honest manner, but Canada is a very mixed economy with more emphasis and power on the government side. We in Canada, have some of the world's most expensive cell phone systems, because the government protects these oligarchies. Banks ditto. Government interventions typically support robber barons and cronies. Government should be policing corporations. Instead they enable corporate misbehavior. If the markets were free in Canada, the airline, telecom and banking robber barons could not operate.
I heard the satellite television service sucks ass too. With all the mandatory "Canadian" programming.
I have cows but no chickens, my buddy down the road has chickens but no cows. If I give my buddy some milk and he gives me some eggs we have just committed capitalism. Please I did not actually give my buddy milk I Do not want to go to prison.
Hi I heard you own some cows and are engaging in economic trades. Don't worry. I'm from the government and I'm here to help you.
I think people do not understand the differences. Stiglitz want markets but he say its important to have a well function government. Easterly want markets but he say government is not important.
The market for cell phones in sub-saharan Africa has changed social media. I've had to remove access to sending me friend requests from people wanting to know "how can hax phone". I spent a few weeks preaching to them the need for Bitcoin to replace their useless currency, but was eventually overwhelmed. Wish them all the best of luck.
So just how CAN hax phone?
@@MilwaukeeF40C if you can't find it on XDA developers, then you aren't going to hax phone.
It's been doing that steadily for the last 70 years, starting with the establishment of GATT imo. Institutionalization of free trade, at least in terms of lowering tariffs, quotas, etc, is partially responsible for the global extreme poverty rate declining to less than 20 pct. The vast majority of human history up until maybe 50 years ago was plagued with extreme poverty. A lot of people love to talk about how "free markets" are responsible for all these past human atrocities when in reality nothing resembling free market economics was ever employed regularly in the past. Colonialism was a political and economic system that was only profitable to those who benefited because they were allowed to employ forced labor, charge high prices as government sponsored monopolies, and tax their subjects. Most people didn't benefit, not even the common citizens of the metropolis country of a colonial empire. Early human civilization almost always had legal slavery. Slavery is the opposite of a free market. The labor supply literally isn't allowed to use their abilities in ways that they see fit. It's no coincidence that most colonial empires fell after WW2. Not only were all the affected countries bankrupted but they couldn't maintain their mercantilist policies. It was blatantly obvious that misguided economic policy was a major cause of the war. The fascists and Nazis literally wanted autarky. The only way a nation can theoretically achieve autarky (not that autarky is desirable) when it lacks the resources is to incorporate new territories that possess large amounts of natural resources. That's totally what Germany was doing.
This was an excellent debate! Really enjoyed this!!
Stiglizt “2/3 of Venezuelans were living under poverty before Chavez” FALSE!
Source?
The argument to majority sanctioned violence is a no win automatically. This was a futile effort.
The debate is immediately lost when the freedom of exchange is purported to be predictable or to end poverty, especially when it is by the fruits of one's own actions.
As soon as Easterly mentions Venezuela (first intervention) you realize that he'll probably give you more propaganda than real debate. Stiglitz, on the other hand, is honest enough to start by acknowledging that State VS markets is just a false dichotomy, and that the discussion should be about the right mix of these two structures for achieving equilibrium. It seems that market-fundamentalists cannot do with intellectual honesty.
Holy shit, did Stiglitz really cite Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle" as a case for government regulation? Dude, the book is fiction. It is actually a fictional story.
I love how Joe's "t" sounds like "k". Every time he says United Steaks makes me smile.
Such an excellent debate of the real issue. …..can markets left to themselves create a good society…this is what we need more of.
I just want to make a footnote in minute 14:56 where the speaker says that in Peru indigenous people still suffer from the legacy of colonization is completely false. Indigenous people in Peru, Chile, Colombia, Brasil etc are still poor for two reasons:
1) they don’t have property rights to the land they explode. Why? Property rights didn’t exist until the Spaniards discovered America. These people were nomads, they didn’t see the need to settle in one place, therefore no need to claim a piece of land as mine.
2) In most LA countries indigenous people are giving FREE stuff by the government. I can’t speak of Peru but in Colombia our government gives them FREE lands, education, healthcare, subsidies for their crops, and food (which is spent on the males of the tribes and whatever is left is eaten by the females and then, whatever they leave is eaten by the children). They’re poor because they want to be poor. They have no incentive to improve their life. They’ll lose all those government benefits.
This could have been a 30 second video. No. Nothing will ever solve poverty entirely. Some people are just lazy sacks of shite.
The sole reason the financial sector can impose costs on society is because of the support and exclusions government affords them. This is not a case of raw capitalism destroying everything if unhampered.
I can't understand why all people here seems to disagree with (or even hate) Stiglitz: If I would have the choice wether to live in the USA (strong role of markets) or one of the Scandinavian countries (strong role of the government) I would choose the latter. I guess this question can answer this debate.
Vastly More people choose the USA so you don't count
"the biggest reduction of poverty in china was due to governament , governament recognized the importance of markets..."
I know this line is real olympic level mental gymnastics that we are so used to hear from stiglitz to credit governament for the workings of markets , but it would actually look pretty good in an ironic libertarian bumper sticker
You can’t decouple markets and government. Markets are governed by rules and government creates the rules. So the government can use markets to its advantage with the right interventions, subsidies, regulations, etc.
I love to see Americans defend minimal government, when they go bankrupt because of healthcare and education. It's ridiculous.
In most European countries we have free markets and strong governments. We have a mix of markets and socialism ideals, like free education and healthcare. And, because of that, we have a much better quality of life.
The US is the proof that free markets alone don't work.
At 38.05 Stiglitz misinterprets (or manipulates) the last page of book one of the wealth of nations, where literally the opposite case is made about corporations, incentives and the takeaway in regards to regulation. It's fascinating that someone that doesn't even understand one of the founding books of economics has won the nobel prize.
Dear lord, Stiglitz's opening remarks were so vague and full of cliches that it's embarrassing.
The question of whether government or markets is the best way to address problems is not the best framing. Government intervention does not replace markets, it influences them. It’s really a debate over how much influence government should have over markets. And even then you run into the issue of many of the foundational rules that government creates that runs markets like property rights. Property rights are a form of regulation on the markets place. They don’t exist without government to create laws about them and in force them.
Capitalism, coupled with free trade and minimal regulation is the only idea discovered so far that improve the lives of people. You still need governments to protect party A and party B from harming party C, and to provide infrastructure ... but that's about it. Politicians should be limited in term so they don't get power happy. People, the citizenry who vote, need to be legal and educated on how government should work and does work.
"You should understand that we are never going to end poverty. The Bible says, "The poor you shall always have with you" (Matthew 26:11) ... So, it's over reaching . . ." The irony here, kind of annoys me... Because context matters.. and whether or not "the poor you shall always have with you" is true, given the context... The guy using this quote is a little, if not more, "over reaching".
A Name 1 The poor you will always have with you,[a] but you will not always have me. 12 When she poured this perfume on my body, she did it to prepare me for burial. 13 Truly I tell you, wherever this gospel is preached throughout the world, what she has done will also be told, in memory of her.”
Victoria Marulanda ok so...
The bible verse he is quoting was not cited in the video... But I cited it. And you think I didnt read it? So you reply with just the bible verse? Because you think its self explanitory??
Wellp, here we go:
o Context matters...
o The guy used this verse as the leading justification for his argument (kind of?)
o And then immediately after, he said "over reaching" = ironic because
o The point of what Jesus was saying and the reason for the Bible verse was not because of the poor.
o Jesus mentions the poor because the disciples mentioned the poor
The verse is not and was not meant to decide how we deal with the poor, yet this guy is using it for that purpose (as a part of his arguement). AND that is why it is "over reaching".
As I said in my first statement: *whether or not "the poor you shall always have with you" is true, given the context... The guy using this quote is a little, if not more, "over reaching".*
@@aname5053 she was responding with the context... just trying to give context not explaining anything
26:10, wtf kind of remark toward Trump was that?
Whose freedoms have been taken away? For God's sake Stiglitz.
Thank-you . Very well said
Economies based on extraction of resources are always subject to boom/bust because there is no focus on actual free markets, education and competitive improvements.
Yes because free people are more compassionate than controlling people
I agree with the food and building regulations because I have seen to much questionable practices that get exposed to late. But the free market is not a fix for a everything but getting a good government is farfetched too.
The "free market" is largely a myth anyway.
It’s already ended extreme poverty for over 1 billion people
If Easterly is to take Adam Smith as the ultimate authority on how to promote long run economic growth, he must also confront the fact that Adam Smith claimed in the Wealth of Nations that the United States should stay an agrarian economy and that government attempt to promote its industrial sectors would only bring harm. But the US government would go on to intervene heavily in the US economy via tariffs to promote the northern industrial states at the expense of southern agrarian states through most of the nineteenth century. The government did so because it was captured by the industrial interests in the North. How would Easterly also explain the tremendous economic growth in the US during the Gilded Age? Will he claim that there was little state capture by the economic elites then contrary to a wall of historical evidence?
You can call all the faults you want with private enterprise but I can't remember a point in history that caused millions of deaths or use force so one pays for the meager services they provide.
I don't think markets really can fail. Unless you define failure as anything you don't like. "markets have failed to produce fusion power". Was 1929 crash market failure? It was a result of artificial monetary boom of the 1920's by the government. Just like 2008. Government produced result. I have no idea what Stiglitz is talking about in Africa having too free markets. They barely have property rights.
Proportion of GDP going in to basic research has only declined after the government took over and crowded out the funding.
Insider trading has no victims, it shouldn't be/isn't a crime.
1929 was a result of both market failure and bad policy.
Until governments and international banks are dealt with, there will never be free markets.
You can never have a free market period. Markets cannot exist without government first creating the rules that govern them.
@@milespq5561 I Markets exist with no government and when the government bans them, they still exist. Illegal markets exist even in prisons.
How is owning a gun = a deprivation of someone's life by default? Is he serious? That's so moronic in and of itself that the Nobel committee should revoke his prize.
You really know you've got a solid diversity of opinion when the 2 opposing sides can agree that the current U.S. administration demonstrates a drastic failure of Government. I mean just look at the economy--total ruination. Starvation, gulags, etc. Lord am I ever tired of pretentious egg-heads from the metropolitan/academic monoculture. GET A REAL SECOND OPINION FROM AN ACTUAL FUNCTIONING HUMAN BEING. I'd take a coal-miner or crop-farmer's perspective as more pertinent than what some ivory tower think-tank academic who has never done a literal minute of labor, thinks about labor and poverty and the government.
"I'd take a coal-miner or crop-farmer's perspective as more pertinent"
If you listen to NPR, they seem to put on any random old timer schmuck they can find sitting around having coffee in the morning at Casey's the fucking gas station that will talk to them. No, they are usually not pertinent at all.
"If you listen to NPR..." Well there's your first problem right there.
28:30, that says it all.
Just because one person has the right to own a gun does not mean that someone else's right to live is impaired. For God's sake.
What does impaired mean?
Prof. Easterly should do stand-up
when he says "as long as the poor get some of that wealth" as at the very end, I think primarily of universal basic income.
Market failures fix themselves. They never harm huge numbers. Government failures last generations and harm millions. The IMF impositions are just another example of coercion. I mean, if you have a gang that uses force, you don't blame government or markets, you blame who is imposing their ways on others. Coercion is the problem, not whether it's officially sanctioned or not.
Joe saying "No but I've read enough of it." Right after William says he just recently read both the Wealth of Nations and Theory of Moral Sentiments is hilarious.
I wonder if it ever occurred to Stiglitz to think about how China does not respect or observe the environmental laws that most western nations are now struggling under, and how that affects China's economic success vs the rest of the developed world in our present day... I also wonder if he recognizes how close China actually is to social and economic disaster thanks to their totalitarian policies.
Joseph Stiglitz appears to confuse the economic health of the government with individuals wealth/poverty level
No. A well regulated market with State presence in areas that do not deal with products can.
Stiglitz' forearms are shredded gahd damn
I guess the question could be narrowed down to have some revelations. Either extreme will not produce good results - we have proof of that already more than enough. Will more free market reduce poverty? For me it seems like a "trickle down economy" argument. And the answer is pretty definitely no.
Will enterprises rise salaries for common folks (the one that is most likely in poverty) without state defined minimum? Probably not. Will such worker succeed in getting out of poverty? Probably not.
Should state define all salaries? Absolutely not.
The goal of most enterprises is not to benefit society in whole but to earn revenue. They contribute to society outside their economic scope as little as possible (only if prescribed by law or by popular demand). A good mix is somewhere in between where the common folks will have access to education, medical care, transportation and decent living standard in that society when they are fully employed (being fully employed they have given their 100% to solve the issue). Then one can assume that some of these folks will try to get out of poverty (and they have some possibility of doing it) by getting better qualification and better job.
Without education or medical care or other baseline requirements there probably will be more cash-sinks than opportunities to move up.
There has never been a truly laisez faire market economy in modern history... Stiglitz primary argument, "no private market has ever done anything like that" is essentially an appeal to ignorance.
I long for the day debate is more conducted the way Joseph does, bring light balance about sides instead of a biased view, we need both sides of the coin because any side can go too far, using Jordan Peterson's language...
Why don’t they ask China, how it had solved the “most”’of their poverty population??
i guess there are difference between the intervention from smart governments and not so smart governments
Yes
Non-profit universities are still free market compared to government run ones, where tuition is paid by all to benefit a few. Also, Harvard has a $41 billion endowment, so take the notion of non-profit with a grain of salt. Also, Harvard's lack of profit motive no doubt is why they don't expand and offer great education to more people in more places? Why don't they? Because their economic model is closer to regulated virtue signaling in that if more people have their degrees, the value of their degree is diminished even others can benefit from their education.
So the native south americans aren't to blame at all for their situation they find themselves right now in 2018, after 500 years? Hardly the case.
Speaking of markets- i bet there's a market for "economists" who can give political cover to politicians and bureaucrats seeking vast power.
There aren't any examples of market failures. He didn't mention a single one. Every example he gave is only an example of why government intervention in markets doesn't work. There are only examples of market corrections that some people don't like.
DEFINING POVERTY AS HAVING LESS THAN 2 DOLLARS, AND THEN SAY VERY POOR AFRICANS BUY EXPENSIVE SMARTPHONES. WHERE DID THEY GET MORE THAN 2 DOLLAR. VERY CONTRADICTORY THEORY
Joseph Stiglitz in a way responsible for the death and poverty in Venezuela. I'm not going to watch it what would be the point?
The bible also says that if the Israelites followed the commandments (such as honoring gleaner's rights both for natives and sojourners and forgiving debts in years of jubilee) that there will be no poor persons among their own people.
Stiglitz's non-answering how would more Government power curb Government power being abused was very conspicuous. The man is clearly not guided by logic or evidence.
Bill yet Jo got the Noble. Go figure! Bill your amazing.
Centralized vs Distributed
wow good thing this wasn't a debate 2nd guy would have last in his first 30 secs of talking.
Income per capita might lead to fake ideas... Imagine 3 guys live in a country, and there 6 glasses of wine. One of the guys drinks them all and the other get none. Glasses of wine per capita in that case would be 2 per person... Careful
8:26 Venezuelans refer to this as "the Maduro diet"
45:54 government vs market in context Fallibility, giving trust without loosing control to withdraw the trust when the trust is betrayed. Its about which that we have control more over.
Gin,
35:30 Professor Stiglitz, authotarian government does not have incentives to do the right things, democracy government does. Imagine China were ruled by the Taiwanese system, the people would be bettered of, and so would the world.
Taiwan developed very fast under the authoritarian leader in the 1960s, 1970s, and the early 1980s. But since the democratization started, Taiwan has been far behind the other tigers in Asia.
frank wang had one had a choice to live in either economies/societies, it would not be difficult to choose for an average person. Imagine had China been ran like Taiwan...
@@219cafe 340m Chinese people go abroad every year in normal conditions , and almost all of them choose to go back to China. Most Chinese students studying in the US choose to go back to China. What do you think?
frank wang It does not mean they have an opportunity to stay without being coerced and choose to come back. Millions of North Korean have chosen to stay in their country, too. Yet, I agree that being argumentative is fruitless because neither of us show any statistical evidence to prove our point. You can choose what to believe in. I know for a fact that having citizenship to a free world nation is rather a privilege to many Chinese.
@@219cafe the so-called free world is not so free at all for many underprevileged people. Take a look at those homeless Americans in skid row LA, they are Americans too but I don't think they enjoy much freedom at all. If you walk in the middle of the night in any Chinese city, it is very safe for you. I have freedom from fear of being killed or robbed. However poor they are for all Chinese rural residents, they own their house and they have a small piece of land to grow their food, so we have no homeless people in China. The government has lifted 800m out of poverty, more than double of the US population. We know what we want, please leave us alone and mind your own business. If the west stops touting their own system, the world would be a better place. The world should not have only one model of political system because it would be so boring and so unrealistic.
Markets only exist in a vancume. The more of a vacume the more of a market you have.
Free market and never in the global property only increase the gap of the worth just become a United States rich become richer and pool becomes pooler
decentralised kernels ... but intertwined
Best Joseph Stiglitz
33:25 argument to cloud the cause of a problem. Saying all make mistake therefore...
Can someone get Stiglitz a book on the crash of 2008?
There are so many aah aah.
it seems we still don't understand economics.
But who got the tootsie roll!?
Is that a matter of debate? Obviously,no!
Stiglitz first point: We're never going to end poverty. Meanwhile: Extreme poverty (living on less than $1.90 USD a day) is on track to be eradicated globally by 2030.
Extreme poverty and relative poverty are different. Stiglitz refers to the latter.
Also, reduction of extreme poverty has been almost entirely due to government "big push" policies in China and India.
@@lexparsimoniae2107 Firstly, relative poverty doesn't matter at all. Considering yourself impoverished "relative" to others is a good way to build envy and resentment. I recommend people stop comparing themselves to others and they'll be much more grounded and healthy. Instead people should be comparing their situation to absolute poverty, which is the baseline for all human existence.
Secondly, the policies that are reducing poverty in China and India are the implementation of at least some semblance of private property and free markets... Not government welfare programs.
@@chrisknorr1326 relative poverty is not about "envy". It's about access to opportunities.
Also, no amount of private enterprise could have lifted the Chinese population out of poverty without government supervision. As Stiglitz points out, it's about getting the right mix of government and market, not getting rid of one or the other.
@@lexparsimoniae2107 This idea that, if the government sets people free, they can't improve their lots without benevolent handouts from the central government is provably wrong. Where does the government get's the money? isn't it from the private sector? For a real world example, look at hong kong, chilie, etc.
@@aminuabdulmanaf4434 the context matters in this conversation. When we are talking about development out of extreme poverty, the government can have an enormously important role ⏤ as it has had in China, India, and countless other places.
Once we are in a more developed situation, then the government should allow the forces of market to kick in with full swing.
There is no either / or in absolute terms. Context matters.
So the idea of big government and small government is really how big(much) or small(less) the government intervene to individu rights.
In this case the rights for every individu to do trade, market.
The more goverment intervention the more risk of coercion, the more coercion the more the market corrupted, the more market corrupted the more cost, the more cost the more pain and suffering.
Keep in mind, cost, suffering, pain, as a consequence of individu free choice is fair and just.
Cost paid as consequence of other people choice is not fair.
Gin,
If I am a shady Globalist I am going to select a shady economist in order for my shady plan successfully executed.
Holy shit 36:00, please Stiglitz just leave.
'Market power'. No, that's not what Smith meant.
the UK hade steel coal and train under there development didn't work