Prof. Stiglitz gave us a good description of how the banks charge us 1-3% of the cost of the digital transfer of the price of a commodity, when the actual digital cost is pennies.
On the minimum wage issue, Professor Stiglitz might have added a comment that IF a large enough number of people in any market area experience an increase in income, the result will be an increase in the cost of rental housing (absent an adequate supply of publicly-controlled rental housing). An increase in wage would help young adults living at home with parents, although there is the distinct possibility that parents would ask their adult children to pay more to them.
That’s nonsense. Minimum wage doesn’t increase demand for housing, or decrease the supply. It merely determines whether the price set by supply and demand is affordable. In the Treasure Valley, rent and house prices are sky high due to demand rising faster than supply, but a lack of increase in the incomes in the Treasure Valley is resulting in the remaining supply becoming unaffordable. If what you said were true, that increased wages increase rents, then the rent would be less than it is and unchanging as wages have been stagnant since 1979.
The idea that information systems could eliminate risk - and idea that gained strength in the 90s - is the proof of how arrogant some economists, bankers and financiers are. What they were saying is basically "we can decrease entropy not only locally but globally".
Chester at River Dee, close to Wales. spoon = su-du fork = gar-fu suduu|r = pl. (Ar) 1 Cestrian 2 Welsh hypocaust = heating system 77,000 in 2001 Page 103
What equality are we talking about? The ones in power will always have everything they want and the rules will never apply to them. Despite the "bad things" of capitalism, nobody has the desire to leave USA or Canada and move to China, Russia or Cuba. People are happy, but Mr Stiglitz is trying to convince them that they should not be.
tecnology provides tools to extend activity if wealth accumulation was one activity among groups of the 1950s then those groups would accumulate commanding sums as it relates to the extension of technology. so I am told.
If you are a worn out economist who has failed to predict the last big crisis which was the GFC and US housing crisis (which an astute person in his profession should have) and you have nothing useful to offer you would most likely go around promising people more equality which is exaxtly what he cannot give. It worked in the 1900's with the rise of revolution in Russia and it worked in the 1920's and 30's in nationalist Socialist Germany and some people are so ill informed about history and finance and economics that they will fall for the same politoco influenced economics again. It can and will only bring them more inequality. Stiglitz is living evidence that other people like him are still willing to spread this form of sham and confidence trickery again.
The current leaders are failing everywhere. The lack of equality is at the root of this failure. Maybe the answers are not so easy but for sure the current situation is untenable. Stiglitz is one of the few that recognised that austerity was not a good solution. As for not 'predicting' the last big crisis, I'm not sure who did, but if they did, they were persumably happy with it because it suited their perverted interests of inequality.
Equality ? Equality is such a subjective reality. You might also notice that there is not equality among the pushers of equality. It somehow does not apply to them. Just ask yourself why Stiglitz is standing up on the stage and not anyone else. It's because he doesn't believe in Equality himself. If he really believed in that absurd "equality" as a principle he would throw the privilidge open to anyone in the audience to preach what they want. But there is no chance of that because he wants the upper hand. It's total hypocrisy on his part. I see your cynicism about anyone who predicted the last big crisis. You gave them no credit. That's your business and one of your choices but if you continue to ignore people with a score on the board and back people who have shown no ability and a failure to analyse financial matters then you are just wishful thinking.
Stiglitz predicted austerity was not the answer - and he has been proven correct. There are many here in Europe - such as Merkel and the Central European bank who still dont understand that. For me he has a good score on the card.
Unfortunately, in the markets there is a significant degree of 'self-fulfilling prophesy' - and some of those predicting actiively participate in it coming to pass ... we see such manipulations it in the stock exchanges everyday. You shouldn't confuse this with 'prediction'.
You say the current leaders are failing everywhere and Stiglitz has been proven correct but he is wrong on that. So are you. Look at what happened in Ireland with their policies which in Stiglitz's view is "austerity". It has boomed for three years and looks like having another boom year with their "Austerity" policy. The highest growth in Europe. He not only is wrong from that understanding but is wrong on calling a financial balance "Austerity" since it is such a stupid thing to say when balance is all that so called "austerity" is. All that he says is "Austerity" is balance. The deficits are a failure to account and he makes out by some political spin that they are something good. The reality is he has no principles at all hates "Austerity" when it is applied to him. Would he stand on that 'Austerity' principle if someone short supplied him and said "you are practicing Austerity by insisting I give you all of what I owe you or insisting I Give you all you paid for". It's only good for him to tell others to do it and it's a political ploy. The reality is he is a failed economist with little of any good to offer. All "Austerity " means as it is being used is that one perspective of a financial transaction is being looked at. That is only half of the reality in any transaction. It a view from the perspective of one eyed people since balance is the desirable aspect of financial transactions. All the other perspectives are those which fail to understand basic financial transactions and are just plainly idiotic and illustrative of the misunderstandings that people have about finance.. How can you have a monetary system and stability if the numbers don't add up to a balance? Its crazy and just an excuse for people who can't budget..
Thank you very much))Joseph Stiglitz is best of economics.
Very few speakers will smile at the audience to accentuate a point. Joseph always does this and its very effective.
I'm going to be honest: it really creeps me out sometimes :-(
Milton Friedman did exactly the same thing
I love listening to Mr. Stiglitz.
Prof. Stiglitz gave us a good description of how the banks charge us 1-3% of the cost of the digital transfer of the price of a commodity, when the actual digital cost is pennies.
Stiglitz先生のこのレクチャーを聞き、日本でも大学(academy)の教授、学生、また政治家の方や官僚やビジネスパーソンの方がどう分析し, それぞれにどのような意見を持ち, 未来にどう活かされるか..活発に議論されたら良いと思います。経済学領域の大変良いレクチャーをありがとうございます。
Love this idea from Labour. The Corbyn-McDonnell pairing is desperately what Britain needs.
God, it's wonderful and refreshing to hear pure intelligence expressed in favor of economic balance, and financial harmony.
Wealth inequality threatens democracy.
i appreciate the level of articulation on the issue of market economics
I am really super impressed with John McDonnell he highly informed engaged and well read
physically active as well as intellectually
as apple is lovely for fruit, Joseph stiglitz is best of economics
Bravo. More.
On the minimum wage issue, Professor Stiglitz might have added a comment that IF a large enough number of people in any market area experience an increase in income, the result will be an increase in the cost of rental housing (absent an adequate supply of publicly-controlled rental housing). An increase in wage would help young adults living at home with parents, although there is the distinct possibility that parents would ask their adult children to pay more to them.
That’s nonsense. Minimum wage doesn’t increase demand for housing, or decrease the supply. It merely determines whether the price set by supply and demand is affordable. In the Treasure Valley, rent and house prices are sky high due to demand rising faster than supply, but a lack of increase in the incomes in the Treasure Valley is resulting in the remaining supply becoming unaffordable. If what you said were true, that increased wages increase rents, then the rent would be less than it is and unchanging as wages have been stagnant since 1979.
How is that directly related to supply, I am sure a Labour government would introduce rent controls and start building more social housing.
Joseph Stiglitz should start a bistro called United Steaks.
G
The idea that information systems could eliminate risk - and idea that gained strength in the 90s - is the proof of how arrogant some economists, bankers and financiers are. What they were saying is basically "we can decrease entropy not only locally but globally".
great analisys, great man
Does anyone know where can I see those graphs with more detail? Thanks!
United Stakes.
+SomeOne1121 ty xD , i though i was the only one hearing it
United steaks.
(licks lips)
I might have to stop watching. i can't not hear it
Powerful ideas brought forward there,
Thanks
Chester at River Dee, close to Wales.
spoon = su-du
fork = gar-fu
suduu|r = pl. (Ar)
1 Cestrian
2 Welsh
hypocaust = heating system
77,000 in 2001
Page 103
What equality are we talking about?
The ones in power will always have everything they want and the rules will never apply to them.
Despite the "bad things" of capitalism, nobody has the desire to leave USA or Canada and move to China, Russia or Cuba. People are happy, but Mr Stiglitz is trying to convince them that they should not be.
Short termism has penetrated every aspect of life n society
tecnology provides tools to extend activity if wealth accumulation was one activity among groups of the 1950s then those groups would accumulate commanding sums as it relates to the extension of technology.
so I am told.
LOL. England already was Unionland back in the 70s. It didn't end well. Remember?
I love Stiglitz but he says “United Steaks” every time.
Uniced Stakes
If you are a worn out economist who has failed to predict the last big crisis which was the GFC and US housing crisis (which an astute person in his profession should have) and you have nothing useful to offer you would most likely go around promising people more equality which is exaxtly what he cannot give. It worked in the 1900's with the rise of revolution in Russia and it worked in the 1920's and 30's in nationalist Socialist Germany and some people are so ill informed about history and finance and economics that they will fall for the same politoco influenced economics again. It can and will only bring them more inequality.
Stiglitz is living evidence that other people like him are still willing to spread this form of sham and confidence trickery again.
The current leaders are failing everywhere. The lack of equality is at the root of this failure. Maybe the answers are not so easy but for sure the current situation is untenable. Stiglitz is one of the few that recognised that austerity was not a good solution. As for not 'predicting' the last big crisis, I'm not sure who did, but if they did, they were persumably happy with it because it suited their perverted interests of inequality.
Equality ? Equality is such a subjective reality. You might also notice that there is not equality among the pushers of equality. It somehow does not apply to them.
Just ask yourself why Stiglitz is standing up on the stage and not anyone else. It's because he doesn't believe in Equality himself.
If he really believed in that absurd "equality" as a principle he would throw the privilidge open to anyone in the audience to preach what they want. But there is no chance of that because he wants the upper hand. It's total hypocrisy on his part.
I see your cynicism about anyone who predicted the last big crisis. You gave them no credit.
That's your business and one of your choices but if you continue to ignore people with a score on the board and back people who have shown no ability and a failure to analyse financial matters then you are just wishful thinking.
Stiglitz predicted austerity was not the answer - and he has been proven correct. There are many here in Europe - such as Merkel and the Central European bank who still dont understand that. For me he has a good score on the card.
Unfortunately, in the markets there is a significant degree of 'self-fulfilling prophesy' - and some of those predicting actiively participate in it coming to pass ... we see such manipulations it in the stock exchanges everyday. You shouldn't confuse this with 'prediction'.
You say the current leaders are failing everywhere and Stiglitz has been proven correct but he is wrong on that. So are you.
Look at what happened in Ireland with their policies which in Stiglitz's view is "austerity". It has boomed for three years and looks like having another boom year with their "Austerity" policy. The highest growth in Europe.
He not only is wrong from that understanding but is wrong on calling a financial balance "Austerity" since it is such a stupid thing to say when balance is all that so called "austerity" is.
All that he says is "Austerity" is balance. The deficits are a failure to account and he makes out by some political spin that they are something good.
The reality is he has no principles at all hates "Austerity" when it is applied to him.
Would he stand on that 'Austerity' principle if someone short supplied him and said "you are practicing Austerity by insisting I give you all of what I owe you or insisting I Give you all you paid for". It's only good for him to tell others to do it and it's a political ploy.
The reality is he is a failed economist with little of any good to offer.
All "Austerity " means as it is being used is that one perspective of a financial transaction is being looked at. That is only half of the reality in any transaction. It a view from the perspective of one eyed people since balance is the desirable aspect of financial transactions. All the other perspectives are those which fail to understand basic financial transactions and are just plainly idiotic and illustrative of the misunderstandings that people have about finance..
How can you have a monetary system and stability if the numbers don't add up to a balance? Its crazy and just an excuse for people who can't budget..
I'm pretty sure Jhon McDonnell says he admires Stalins economic policy. So he's pretty left wing
he has not explain what brought inequalityu im 90 if icould have some help j can explain tre real aauses of the ineqwalities