I disagree with those who say that he with a PhD and a medal should not give presentations at this basic level. I strongly disagree. What is the use of an economist or any other academician if he/she doesn't take action to change what he/she considers wrong? I think he is using his medal and reputation to make an influence, to get people to listen, and I think it is the correct, brave thing to do.
+Internet Troll (Mr Kay) you're the second libertarian I've seen says that income inequality is good because of your imaginary free-market... I also have to ask why is that good?
Stiglitz was one of the very few economists that sounded the alarms about the prospects of recession due to derivatives, and the faults within the economic models.
I read the superb book "The Price of Inequality" (read it twice and then loaned it out to friends). An articulate view of the economic problems in the USA. I'm very glad I'm Canadian.
thank god for people like Joe who aren't afraid to speak out, and who don't seek the cosy trappings of being an apologist for their rent seeking masters as is the norm with economists.
Like everything we read, hear, think, or see, this presentation cannot be explored in isolation. It is a primer to look into the entire issue of inequality. The presentation is only 16 minutes; as such, the most effective approach to encourage the audience to connect with the subject is to make it personal.
Guys who praise this video talk of Professor JE Stiglitz also take time to read his Nobel Lecture 2001. "Information and the Change in the Paradigm in the Economics" is the title. Freely available as PDF download. One of the best Nobel Lectures that we can come across.
The 5 myths discussed in the video. 1. That everyone benefits- trickle down economics 2. Those at the top desire the income- contributed more 3. Opportunity- American Dream, 4. This is inevitable, market forces, 5. We would have to pay a price to have change
This talk by Joseph is very insightful. It is really impressive the way he has explained the inequality in the United States. He explained well using his own experience. The reason for him to study economy was the discrimination and economic challenges that citizens in Gary faced and how it did not improve. According to me, inequality is not just a moral issue but one that has consequences for the economy, society and politics. He claims that the United States has been paying high prices in all these mentioned areas. He has explained well how poverty and inequality have grown in the United States in several years. He also mentions the various myths. Firstly, inequality is just a result of the market forces or the politics of envy. He disagrees and insists that inequality is largely a result of policy choices, not market forces alone. Secondly, that if the rich do well, others will benefit. He disagrees with this and states that the middle class has stagnated, many are worse off than they were decades ago and only the rich are benefited from the policies. Lastly, He challenges the notion that those who are at the top deserve their wealth. He states that the wealth is sometimes accumulated by exploiting the system and not by doing the hard work. Apart from these, he also highlights that there are fewer opportunities in the United States, particularly for those born in poverty. He uses the example of bankruptcy laws to show how rich people and corporations are often given priority in bankruptcy cases, while workers are left at a disadvantage. Despite all these challenges, he has a hope that in the United States, there could be some improvement. Like, if Americans understand the cost of inequality, then they will be able to take an action and will be able to move away from inequality as it happened in the past. I agree with Joseph and could relate this ongoing issue in the United States with Canada. Canada, like the United States, faces issues of inequality, but the scale and causes of these disparities differ due to differing economic systems, policies, and historical contexts. However, Canada's social safety nets provide a buffer, and there is greater public consensus on the importance of social programs. There is though hope for a change in Canada. There are some programs introduced by the Canadian government that are very persuasive. For instance, the Canada Child Benefit provides direct financial support to low and middle-income families. National Housing Strategy aimed to provide access to affordable housing. According to me, more progressive policies could ensure that economic growth is more inclusive and shared across all levels of society. Much more could be done to address the major issues like wealth inequality, tax loopholes and the investment in education.
(Inserts Billy Preston Slaughter guitar sound) The reason for Joseph Stiglitz's celebrity among Economists is simple. From the day he received his college degree from the Amherst College, he disproved 13 economic theories (footage of Joseph Stiglitz disproving the theories with great prejudice). Instead of putting him up against a wall, the Powers that be decided to be sent him to Stockholm to receive the Nobel Prize to be made an example of. Needless to say, once he heard of this, he definitely got there.
Thanks Prof Stiglitz for speaking out. Capitalism, as it is, is unattainable where top 0.1% have more wealth than bottom 90%. Income inequality in this rate will destroy democracy where very few will have the power to pull strings behind the electoral process. In the long run, income inequality will lead to social unrest. Cut throat capitalism overall dis-serves 95% of the population and undermines democracy. Capitalism without a strong democracy is an autocracy of the elite. If we don't fix it soon, we are already heading that way.I will not be surprised if we have guillotine in Times Square in 20 years.
@Michael B....Joseph Stiglitz is a crony closet globalist lackey, cheering on for Main Street while secretly serving the corporate masters!!! Here's my evidence!!!! Go to Google and type, """World Economic Forum Joseph Stiglitz says get rid of cash, move to a digital currency!!!""" WHAT??? LOL, Paging Mr. Orwell, paging Mr. Orwell, you have a telephone call sir, it's Big Brother Mr. Orwell, he wants a cashless society and prefers a monitored centrally planned digital currency backed by IMF Special Drawing Rights Mr. Orwell!!!!! Need I say more??????
It blows my mind that people as smart as Stiglitz can talk about how the top .1%'s share of income has tripled in the last 30 years, and they fail to draw the parallel between this and private sector credit growth, which directly translates to inflation of the value of financial assets. In fact, it is THE fundamental cause. The 0.1% are not making more. They are not producing more goods or services. They are simply getting paid higher rents on the financial assets they own.
For me this is the only red talk that has ever mattered. And a lot of pain and suffering would have been prevented If people with the power to do so, made the proper commitment to end inequality. I think the me mentality is that ending inequality doesn't produce profits, but that a grave mistake.
It's the same in the UK. It's beyond me how anybody can argue in favour of trickle-down economics when inequality is such a massive problem and getting worse by the day. I love listening to Stiglitz. He's so sane. And humane.
To give all the money to a select few and hope it "trickles down" to you is the same as saying over lords were good in the Middle Ages. The United States has a greater income discrepancy then was recorded in the "Gilded Age" and we are now moving back to the "Middle Ages".
Correct. The term you're looking for is "economic fuedalism". The vast peasantry will be thoroughly dependent on the charity of unelected uber-rich. The uber-rich will control the narrative: "say nice things about me, do my bidding to get my charity". This is already common in academia where the uber-rich sponsor economics chairs. So which is worse? Dependence on a few uber-rich or dependence on government? I would argue that so long as government is dependent on support from the people it will be more responsive to the needs of the people. The uber-rich can just helicopter over the slums and crumbling roads and need never face a ballot box.
In this TEDx talk, Joseph Stiglitz discusses the pervasive issue of inequality and its detrimental effects on society and the economy. His analysis goes beyond inequality's moral and ethical dimensions, delving into the structural and economic consequences that exacerbate systemic issues and hinder long-term prosperity. Stiglitz begins by emphasizing the unprecedented income and wealth inequality levels in many advanced economies, particularly the United States. He highlights how the top 1% of earners have captured a disproportionate share of economic gains over recent decades while wages for most workers have stagnated. He argues that this divergence is not a natural outcome of market forces but a result of policy decisions that favor the wealthy, such as tax cuts for high earners, deregulation, and weakened labor protections. One of Stiglitz's most compelling points is about the economic inefficiency of inequality. He argues that inequality undermines economic growth by reducing aggregate demand. When wealth is concentrated at the top, it leads to lower consumption, as the wealthy spend a smaller proportion of their income than lower-income individuals. This lack of spending power among most of the population stifles economic activity, leading to slower growth and fewer opportunities for upward mobility. Stiglitz also discusses the relationship between inequality and social mobility. He highlights how growing inequality creates barriers for individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds, limiting access to quality education, healthcare, and opportunities. This entrenched inequality perpetuates a cycle where the rich get richer, and the poor struggle to escape poverty. This lack of mobility undermines the fundamental promise of meritocracy and fairness, which underpin democratic societies. Another critical point is the connection between inequality and political instability. Stiglitz argues that extreme inequality erodes trust in institutions and democracy. When people feel that the system is rigged in favor of the elite, it breeds resentment, disillusionment, and social unrest. He warns that inequality is not just an economic problem but a political and social one with far-reaching consequences for societal cohesion and stability. Stiglitz also critiques the myth that inequality is necessary for innovation and growth. He dismantles the argument that rewarding the wealthy spurs innovation, pointing out that some of the most innovative periods in history-such as the post-war economic boom-occurred during relatively low inequality. He emphasizes that well-designed policies, such as investments in education and infrastructure, can promote innovation and growth without exacerbating inequality. One of the most potent aspects of Stiglitz’s talk is his focus on solutions. He calls for progressive taxation, more substantial labor rights, and policies that expand access to education and healthcare. He emphasizes that addressing inequality is not just a matter of redistribution but of restructuring the rules of the economy to ensure fairness and opportunity for all. This video provides a sobering yet hopeful perspective on inequality. Stiglitz’s analysis is data-driven and deeply human, highlighting the urgent need to tackle inequality for moral reasons, economic stability, social cohesion, and democratic integrity. His call to action resonates strongly in today’s world, where inequality remains a pressing global issue.
Myths 5:22 inequality is the politics of envy 5:53 trickle-down economics 8:49 opportunity (American dream) 13:47 a big price to pay to reduce inequality
In 2009 Joseph stiglitz was praising the economic policies of Venezuela and today that country is in the verge of collapse ...people don't debate stiglitz because he's not worth it
@@arm6915 Brazil is still a developing country and it is currently going through a period of economic contraction just like how the United States went through the 2008 housing crisis but Venezuela on the other hand which Dr Joseph stiglitz praised for years is on the verge of absolute collapse
How terrific that a well respected economist like Joseph Stiglitz is thinking like Norwegian, who considers the social stress of disparity of social structures and or the disparity of consequences. The fact that the our society has no way of determining such factors means that rather than fixing any reprocautions of social stress some companies, like the Churtoff Group, make millions off the selling of equipment for enforcing under duress, which some believe is the theft of the rights of others.
The escalation of inequality reveals the increasing failure of capitalism. The broken promise of a market system if left entirely on its own. This reveals a legitimate role of government in correcting such a failure.
It saddens me, that the slow growth and decreased mobility of the last decade have damaged the image of the free market as creator of properity for everyone.
East Tennessee has been in extreme poverty for 250 years so to say the last 30 years is way off the mark, the federal reserve and politics deserve the credit for a very large part of the downfall of the true country
I specially agree that trickle down economic haven´t distributed the benefits for the 50% of the population, the profits of the 1% aren't going to be redistributed without a new taxation system
The rich own the poor, the have all the money, the power and the brains, and that's that. The only thing the rich don't have is a heart, so you can cry all you want.
When in many countries unjustice rules and the rest of the world invest in those countries what we could expect in globalization era. We aré supporting these economic systems.
Lmao!!!! I love Joseph Stiglitz and I've read and agree with his book "The Price of Inequality" but I can't stop laughing at how he pronounces "The Unitik Stakes." Hahahha.
@Alex.....Joseph Stiglitz is a crony closet globalist lackey, cheering on for Main Street while secretly serving the corporate masters!!! Here's my evidence!!!! Go to Google and type, """World Economic Forum Joseph Stiglitz says get rid of cash, move to a digital currency!!!""" WHAT??? LOL, Paging Mr. Orwell, paging Mr. Orwell, you have a telephone call sir, it's Big Brother Mr. Orwell, he wants a cashless society and prefers a monitored centrally planned digital currency backed by IMF Special Drawing Rights Mr. Orwell!!!!! Need I say more??????
Stiglitz ends his talk with "Will we pull back from the brink?" Right now, with Trump's Presidency (2017), we're falling over Niagara Falls. That's if we look at national politics and Congress. At a local scale, possibly we can pull ourselves back from the brink, one business at a time and one city at a time. A book by Gar Alperovitz "What Then Must We Do?," outlines what we can each do in our daily lives, for example, participate in consumer cooperatives like Credit Unions. If we own or work in a business, we can possibly turn it into a worker-owned business. Or we can urge our cities and counties to provide services such as electricity and internet. All these steps have the stats on their side in terms of efficiency, productiveness, and equality of income. They also help us to change our culture in the direction of equality, cooperation, and trust--a culture supportive of the political changes that we need.
Societies have a difficult task ahead, capitalism and just the evolution of our mentality indicates that we have little interest in what is to happens in other places or to others, let alone our future. Those who are looking at these sort of videos and have an interest in changing or allowing for change, have the responsibility over the other 90% who dedicate their time to gossip or sports news. What I really believe is that change comes when people find a reason to make life for everyone better, a reason to study or to access education that is not to increase their own wealth or status in society. When these changes are met, can we have a conscious community and one that is ready to face the challenges that threaten our current way of life.
Stiglitz makes a lot of good points but he stumbles massively on one conclusion. He states that America has some of the worst equality of opportunity, and proceeds to state the statistic of the chances of a person rising from poverty to wealth in America, which conflates outcome and opportunity. This is a logical mistake. Just because America has the lowest actual percentage of upward mobility does not necessarily mean that America structurally has the lowest opportunity. Michael Jordan and I have very different outcomes when it comes to basketball skill, does that necessitate that we had different opportunity? Not at all, yet this is the exact point that Stiglitz makes. You would need more than a statistical outcome to say that opportunity in America sucks.
The extreme inequality we have now favors extreme monopolies, the wealthy billionaires absorb all the money from the lower classes, store it away in fiscal heavens and so the money is not reinvested. Middle class people on the other hand reinvest almost all the money and so the businnes cycle continues. So, unless you tax away the extreme inequality we have now, you wont have prosperity, this is just 1+1. You have either a middle class economy or you have a billionaires and poor people economy, you cant have both. The "free market"-mantra is just pure ideology, not factual in the real world
Capitalism is for sure the best form of government, but just like any other government it's abused. I'm still wondering why all classes aren't taxed the same percentage...to me it just makes the most sense.
capitalism is a form of economy, not government. They often go together, but they are different things. And, your tax idea does not fit with the reality we all share. The wealthy get more from the infrastructure, both physical and legal/social, then the workers. Remember, the basis of capitalism is to pay people less then their work is worth. That how profits are made.
Wow, the degree of inequality is bad... Nice one Stiglitz, did you need a PhD in economics to work that out mate? What a fucking genius, someone give him a medal, oh wait, they already have... Give him another one!
Equality of outcome = Inequality of opportunity will almost always cause inequality of outcome, it is a failure of logic and reasoning to assume that anywhere one sees inequality, it must have been cause by inequality of opportunity. Wealth inequality = taking from producers and giving to non-producers. America's growing wealth inequality is not the fault of capitalism, but of central bank market intervention, which goes against the very principles of capitalism, trade deals, decimation of unions, right to work laws, illegal immigration and outsourcing. One answer to growing wealth inequality is to rein in or shut down the Fed and shore up the U.S. Dollar.
I would disagree pretty strongly. I think it is a far greater commentary on government interference. It is not the free markets fault that the government would encourage a practice of buying homes, taking on a high level of debt and lowering interest rates as the cherry on top. There have been two recent studies that are conflicted on the exact numbers but both have concluded that GDP growth is reduced as a nations debt to GDP level increases - again government detracting from the market.
The problem wasn't the housing bubble which in fact was caused by legislation to some degree as you say. The main problem in 2007/08 was the under-regulation of the banking sector. Because of that banks only had a minimal percentage of equity which lead to this immense entanglement between them and between them and foreign banks. Bubbles will always occur from time to time but the finance sector has to have enough capital to absorb such shocks. Because of that most economists started to overthink the neoliberal ideology and tried to find better models. Nowadays I can't imagine a serious economist arguing that you would not need the government to correct market failure, to redistribute income or to regulate the market to some degree. Not even Milton Friedman said that.
We Canadians call it sharing which isn't a bad thing. Americans call it socialism and in the U.S. this has a very bad connotation for some reason. How much of this is accident of birth?
please, don't read this if you like your opinions over learning more about what is true. (i'd say -lying to yourself - but when we do i think we lie to ourselves about it). we don't see things the same. we could fight about that or shout each other down or my favorite try and belittle the person speaking especially without trying to understand the ideas. or, if you are secure in who you are and seek the truth or at least more understanding, we could learn from those who see the world differently. but we need to talk together and respect each other and respect views that differ from ours. it's hard but we need to make the effort to understand each other together. without that what other option is there? those who have must protect their holdings with violence. without dialogue the only conversation of those who are disenfranchised is violence. not my preference and i know it's really hard to control the rush of chemicals/hormones in our system and listen to the voices of those with whom we who disagree. difficult yes but i'd suggest let's try. imho a world where talk of change and new ideas is repressed with violence so the only way another view can be heard is responding with violence, will produce something much harder to live with than learning to master our own energy and work together intelligently. of course we're just talking.
There is an aristocracy in the US. When Trump eliminates estate taxes this aristocracy will be permanent. Trump will be King because it will take over 10 billion to become president. Each one of you will be working for the aristocracy.
The aristocracy overthrew the existing government in a bankruptcy restructuring when they wrote the conjobstitution., The authors were a group of bankers and lawyers, who are the descendants of a long line of pirates. spies, thieves, slavers and merchants of war. You are already working for the aristocracy. If you think Trump is any different from any of his predecessors, you're far more than a day late and a dollar short.
Stiggy is smart guy..one thing on which he is ill informed .... THE DEBT...a criminal bank cartel prints the dollars..loans them to gvt for bonds..I have to try to pay off the bonds and their vig with tax payments...future tax payments !
What he says about median income is only true of households. Individual median incomes are higher than ever I think. The point is the average household size varies from year to year so are not comparable while an individual is only ever one person. Look up Thomas sowell for something better than this sophistry.
For starters, we undeniably live in a global economy but he talks about inequality as if the US economy operates in a box. He doesn't mention that global inequality has been going down. Or that inequality in Europe has been on the rise too. He's painting a picture to sell books and get on TV, not present an honest debate.
What special strategy do you need? You implement higher taxes on higher earnings and redistribute that money to people with lower income and students. It is simple as that.
Taxes on wealth (on capital gains for example), not on income. Income tax raises would just worsen things both in a fiscal point of view and in term of the distribution of income by discouraging work and encouraging tax avoidance. A capital gains tax would however put a stop to the disproportionate growth of return on capital over the overall economy.
It was the government that made the low interest rate loans available to students. People got worthless degrees that wont even pay them enough to pay back the loans. The do gooders have done enough. STOP MEDDLING!
Growing inequality and poverty can be curbed. Every citizen can be guaranteed nothing less than a middle-class standard of living. My video - poverty eradication worldwide/michael samuel - can be viewed on youtube.
I have read a lot of books about finance and economics. Stiglitz plays to an audience by using his origins to prove a point. He puts across a situation and promotes the idea that his experience in a situation is the basis for improvement. That is a motivation but he ignores the facts that improvement is not made by looking though an emotional lens. It is made by a factual and sometimes cold analysis of a situation. Not an isolated situation that may have occurred to what one has grown up with. That is a reactionist view which often impedes progross and understanding. The reality of the great recession as he calls it is that a ot of money has been cahnneled into the banking system since governments though the Fed did it that way. Government, in fact, destroyed people's wealth and reduced the size of the average persons wealth in the process. Government was the winner in comparison to individuals, most organisations and pension funds. The fact that some individuals gained is the result almost entirely of government actions and there is no incentive for governments to alter that. The so called "rich " are the benefactors of governments' actions in the marketplace. Yet he fails to point this out. He benefits his argument by ignoring this fact. He also concludes incorrectly that all of the gain has gone to the top 1%. How can this be so when the government figures show the increase in wealth. He does this to play on people's envy and divert their feelings away from the facts. He ignores the fact that 'trickle down' in effect is correct. But it does not necessarily work the way of the financial system. It works by technology trickling down. Who would want finance to trickle down instead of technology ? I doubt if there is one person in the audience who would give up their computer and their i pad or cell phone or their air travel for the money or even double the money if they had to go back to the 1960's technology to do so. It has trickled down from Microsolt or AT &T or IBM or AMD or Apple, or Oracle or Ericsson or Samsung or a dozen others. The other fallacy he puts across is Outcomes. The fact is outcomes alone are not proof of any particular policy or reason for it. Yet he promotes it. It is government that protects banks from bankruptcy but that is not an excuse for relieving others of the responsibility. It is a reason for making banks more responsible. He talks about his book a lot !! He is really just promoting his book.
Rob Mews How about supporting your arguments with some facts? Why wouldn't he start with an anecdote in a 15 min presentation? It's really just common sense that using an anecdote to start a presentation really just provokes people to listen to you. You just misunderstood his intent, no big deal. You could also read up on some actual research on inequality, there's a lot of literature out there that is easy to understand for academics and non academics alike (e.g. Capital in the 21st century or Stiglitz book as well). Hundreds of papers around as well that support the facts he stated. Oh and Atlas Shrugged by the way is not science.
I don't know which books you have been reading but I would consider changing the autors. This is simply ignoring all scientific economic knowledge from the last 15-20 years and even basic political theory.
You seem to have missed the pont. Stiglitz has not just quoted an anecdote for attention. He is someone who pushed inequality extensively to present himself as someone who has the formula for a cure. Yet his formula leads to great inequality and loss of wealth for the whole community. That is because he pushes government intervention which equates to political intervention at evry level of commerce. That has been a spectacular failure wherever it has been tried. The form of economics he pushes is not science. It is politico economics.
Rob Mews No its not. Look at Norway, Sweeden, Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands. All these countries have high government spending and far greater GDP per capita compared to the US. They are better educated with free education. Crime is very very low. Health is better and people are happier. You should read. There is no law against it. The US is a third world country.
You need to do your homework on the Scandinavian countries. Look at their history. Not just the face of it. Take a look at this article for instance -www.libertyandcommonsense.com/?p=429 The statement about "free" education is also a myth. There are no human created resources on earth that are truly free. They are paid for by someone in a direct or roundabout way. The situation that has occurred in those counties and others is overspending by government most of the time. That does not mean it is good as an economic or financial discipline. If it were then that would be good for every organisation or individual - But it is clearly not. Can you give me any reason why the principle of budgetary discipline over extended periods is not a good thing in an organisation or for any individual. Could you give me a reason why governments send businesses and individuals into bankrupt courts if they overspend continually? By the principle of your argument that should not happen.
HAHAHA. You don't need a PhD and a medal to realise that growing inequality is the issue. Question that most of these knob-jockeys don't bother to mention is that it's the financialisation of the economy that is the problem. I'm for looking at the root-cause of the problem, not a symptom of the cause.
Right on. Jesus stormed the temple for a reason. Usury, making money off of money, is banned in many world religions. It's time to return to the ancient wisdom of prohibiting rent-seeking.
INEQUALITY IS GREAT! Inequality is a SIGN. ITS A SIGN there is freedom to do what you WANT. The only countries that had no inequality, everyone was poor. That is the base, all are poor and if there is freedom people will go and do. NOTE: not all people will go and do at the same rate=inequality. When people serve others(create a product or service,etc)--they will be rewarded (become wealthy) through these VOLUNTARY transactions. ECONOMIC WISDOM IS THE LOVE OF INEQUALITY.
And how does inequality benefit you in any way? Your comment sounds an awful lot like marginal productivity theory which has been a heterodox theory for decades...
@@coenijn It allows me to do as I please. NO GOVERNMENT interference. Central Governments can only (BY GUNPOINT ) rob people thus making everyone poor. If you run a race--do you want everyone to run at the same speed?
Extreme inequality and poverty is not great!.. obviously some form of inequality should exist.. and nobody in their right mind would disagree with that and want everyone to have the same amount of wealth.. duh
*fyi,* The top-earning 10 percent of Americans pay over half of the federal income taxes. The bottom 80 percent of Americans only pay around 15 percent of all federal income taxes. Yes, I see your point about inequality...
I disagree with those who say that he with a PhD and a medal should not give presentations at this basic level. I strongly disagree. What is the use of an economist or any other academician if he/she doesn't take action to change what he/she considers wrong? I think he is using his medal and reputation to make an influence, to get people to listen, and I think it is the correct, brave thing to do.
income inequality is good especially it is the result of free market capitalism.
+Internet Troll (Mr Kay) you're the second libertarian I've seen says that income inequality is good because of your imaginary free-market... I also have to ask why is that good?
@MrHalified well said, bravo
@@VeryProPlayerYesSir11220LL
Yes!!!!!
Stiglitz was one of the very few economists that sounded the alarms about the prospects of recession due to derivatives, and the faults within the economic models.
so what
@@tuckerbugeater It makes him pretty darn good
Always happy to hear Prof Stiglitz analyze economic issues in the United Steaks.
I read the superb book "The Price of Inequality" (read it twice and then loaned it out to friends). An articulate view of the economic problems in the USA. I'm very glad I'm Canadian.
I Read the Book and I am listening to the Audio Book for the Second time.Priceless Information.
I did the same Sir. Used a color marker to note important lines. Later, gifted it to many friends, few of whom are local politicians here @ INDIA.
All of its bs. Thomas Sowell would eat this guy alive
@@ThirumalavasanGDamodaran indian politicians dont work.
They really went all out on the stage props and overall setting. Isn’t this man a well respected, Noble Prize winning Economist?
So insightful. Go Professor Stiglitz!
thank god for people like Joe who aren't afraid to speak out, and who don't seek the cosy trappings of being an apologist for their rent seeking masters as is the norm with economists.
Like everything we read, hear, think, or see, this presentation cannot be explored in isolation. It is a primer to look into the entire issue of inequality. The presentation is only 16 minutes; as such, the most effective approach to encourage the audience to connect with the subject is to make it personal.
Guys who praise this video talk of Professor JE Stiglitz also take time to read his Nobel Lecture 2001. "Information and the Change in the Paradigm in the Economics" is the title. Freely available as PDF download. One of the best Nobel Lectures that we can come across.
The 5 myths discussed in the video.
1. That everyone benefits- trickle down economics
2. Those at the top desire the income- contributed more
3. Opportunity- American Dream,
4. This is inevitable, market forces,
5. We would have to pay a price to have change
Saint 😭
thx that's gonna help me for my homework
This video NEEDS the Hugo Stiglitz theme! For Ol Joseph is SLAYIN Economic theories, left right and centire!
This talk by Joseph is very insightful. It is really impressive the way he has explained the inequality in the United States. He explained well using his own experience.
The reason for him to study economy was the discrimination and economic challenges that citizens in Gary faced and how it did not improve. According to me, inequality is not just a moral issue but one that has consequences for the economy, society and politics. He claims that the United States has been paying high prices in all these mentioned areas. He has explained well how poverty and inequality have grown in the United States in several years.
He also mentions the various myths. Firstly, inequality is just a result of the market forces or the politics of envy. He disagrees and insists that inequality is largely a result of policy choices, not market forces alone. Secondly, that if the rich do well, others will benefit. He disagrees with this and states that the middle class has stagnated, many are worse off than they were decades ago and only the rich are benefited from the policies. Lastly, He challenges the notion that those who are at the top deserve their wealth. He states that the wealth is sometimes accumulated by exploiting the system and not by doing the hard work.
Apart from these, he also highlights that there are fewer opportunities in the United States, particularly for those born in poverty. He uses the example of bankruptcy laws to show how rich people and corporations are often given priority in bankruptcy cases, while workers are left at a disadvantage. Despite all these challenges, he has a hope that in the United States, there could be some improvement. Like, if Americans understand the cost of inequality, then they will be able to take an action and will be able to move away from inequality as it happened in the past.
I agree with Joseph and could relate this ongoing issue in the United States with Canada. Canada, like the United States, faces issues of inequality, but the scale and causes of these disparities differ due to differing economic systems, policies, and historical contexts. However, Canada's social safety nets provide a buffer, and there is greater public consensus on the importance of social programs.
There is though hope for a change in Canada. There are some programs introduced by the Canadian government that are very persuasive. For instance, the Canada Child Benefit provides direct financial support to low and middle-income families. National Housing Strategy aimed to provide access to affordable housing.
According to me, more progressive policies could ensure that economic growth is more inclusive and shared across all levels of society. Much more could be done to address the major issues like wealth inequality, tax loopholes and the investment in education.
I love Joe and think he is a great speaker. He simplifies complex concepts.
(Inserts Billy Preston Slaughter guitar sound)
The reason for Joseph Stiglitz's celebrity among Economists is simple. From the day he received his college degree from the Amherst College, he disproved 13 economic theories (footage of Joseph Stiglitz disproving the theories with great prejudice). Instead of putting him up against a wall, the Powers that be decided to be sent him to Stockholm to receive the Nobel Prize to be made an example of. Needless to say, once he heard of this, he definitely got there.
I love ❤️ this guy. Great discussion.
What is really annoying, is as a high school drop out I figured this out back in the 90's, It is so obvious.
Or to put it another way: "If my neighbor prospers, I prosper. If my neighbor suffers, I suffer." Richard A. Gillespie.
Thanks Prof Stiglitz for speaking out. Capitalism, as it is, is unattainable where top 0.1% have more wealth than bottom 90%. Income inequality in this rate will destroy democracy where very few will have the power to pull strings behind the electoral process. In the long run, income inequality will lead to social unrest. Cut throat capitalism overall dis-serves 95% of the population and undermines democracy. Capitalism without a strong democracy is an autocracy of the elite. If we don't fix it soon, we are already heading that way.I will not be surprised if we have guillotine in Times Square in 20 years.
@Michael B....Joseph Stiglitz is a crony closet globalist lackey, cheering on for Main Street while secretly serving the corporate masters!!! Here's my evidence!!!! Go to Google and type, """World Economic Forum Joseph Stiglitz says get rid of cash, move to a digital currency!!!""" WHAT??? LOL, Paging Mr. Orwell, paging Mr. Orwell, you have a telephone call sir, it's Big Brother Mr. Orwell, he wants a cashless society and prefers a monitored centrally planned digital currency backed by IMF Special Drawing Rights Mr. Orwell!!!!! Need I say more??????
completely agree with you....
UE is already governed by banksters and lobbies,democracy is "managed and directed " by Spread .
Democracy is a lie - where’re all just serfs
It blows my mind that people as smart as Stiglitz can talk about how the top .1%'s share of income has tripled in the last 30 years, and they fail to draw the parallel between this and private sector credit growth, which directly translates to inflation of the value of financial assets. In fact, it is THE fundamental cause. The 0.1% are not making more. They are not producing more goods or services. They are simply getting paid higher rents on the financial assets they own.
For me this is the only red talk that has ever mattered. And a lot of pain and suffering would have been prevented If people with the power to do so, made the proper commitment to end inequality. I think the me mentality is that ending inequality doesn't produce profits, but that a grave mistake.
This book is an enlightening book
About half the population of any country still aren't capable of grasping this.
It's the same in the UK. It's beyond me how anybody can argue in favour of trickle-down economics when inequality is such a massive problem and getting worse by the day. I love listening to Stiglitz. He's so sane. And humane.
You bet Joseph get it out there, get the argument going, good for you!
To give all the money to a select few and hope it "trickles down" to you is the same as saying over lords were good in the Middle Ages. The United States has a greater income discrepancy then was recorded in the "Gilded Age" and we are now moving back to the "Middle Ages".
Correct. The term you're looking for is "economic fuedalism". The vast peasantry will be thoroughly dependent on the charity of unelected uber-rich. The uber-rich will control the narrative: "say nice things about me, do my bidding to get my charity". This is already common in academia where the uber-rich sponsor economics chairs.
So which is worse? Dependence on a few uber-rich or dependence on government? I would argue that so long as government is dependent on support from the people it will be more responsive to the needs of the people. The uber-rich can just helicopter over the slums and crumbling roads and need never face a ballot box.
In this TEDx talk, Joseph Stiglitz discusses the pervasive issue of inequality and its detrimental effects on society and the economy. His analysis goes beyond inequality's moral and ethical dimensions, delving into the structural and economic consequences that exacerbate systemic issues and hinder long-term prosperity.
Stiglitz begins by emphasizing the unprecedented income and wealth inequality levels in many advanced economies, particularly the United States. He highlights how the top 1% of earners have captured a disproportionate share of economic gains over recent decades while wages for most workers have stagnated. He argues that this divergence is not a natural outcome of market forces but a result of policy decisions that favor the wealthy, such as tax cuts for high earners, deregulation, and weakened labor protections.
One of Stiglitz's most compelling points is about the economic inefficiency of inequality. He argues that inequality undermines economic growth by reducing aggregate demand. When wealth is concentrated at the top, it leads to lower consumption, as the wealthy spend a smaller proportion of their income than lower-income individuals. This lack of spending power among most of the population stifles economic activity, leading to slower growth and fewer opportunities for upward mobility.
Stiglitz also discusses the relationship between inequality and social mobility. He highlights how growing inequality creates barriers for individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds, limiting access to quality education, healthcare, and opportunities. This entrenched inequality perpetuates a cycle where the rich get richer, and the poor struggle to escape poverty. This lack of mobility undermines the fundamental promise of meritocracy and fairness, which underpin democratic societies.
Another critical point is the connection between inequality and political instability. Stiglitz argues that extreme inequality erodes trust in institutions and democracy. When people feel that the system is rigged in favor of the elite, it breeds resentment, disillusionment, and social unrest. He warns that inequality is not just an economic problem but a political and social one with far-reaching consequences for societal cohesion and stability.
Stiglitz also critiques the myth that inequality is necessary for innovation and growth. He dismantles the argument that rewarding the wealthy spurs innovation, pointing out that some of the most innovative periods in history-such as the post-war economic boom-occurred during relatively low inequality. He emphasizes that well-designed policies, such as investments in education and infrastructure, can promote innovation and growth without exacerbating inequality.
One of the most potent aspects of Stiglitz’s talk is his focus on solutions. He calls for progressive taxation, more substantial labor rights, and policies that expand access to education and healthcare. He emphasizes that addressing inequality is not just a matter of redistribution but of restructuring the rules of the economy to ensure fairness and opportunity for all.
This video provides a sobering yet hopeful perspective on inequality. Stiglitz’s analysis is data-driven and deeply human, highlighting the urgent need to tackle inequality for moral reasons, economic stability, social cohesion, and democratic integrity. His call to action resonates strongly in today’s world, where inequality remains a pressing global issue.
Myths
5:22 inequality is the politics of envy
5:53 trickle-down economics
8:49 opportunity (American dream)
13:47 a big price to pay to reduce inequality
thank you i gotta do an assignment for this and this saved me some time
Inequlity is a commnding of the Laws of God....is so evident..
It is good to raise the level of prosperity to where
you don't hear much about Joseph Stiglitz, because the billionaires refuse to debate him.
In 2009 Joseph stiglitz was praising the economic policies of Venezuela and today that country is in the verge of collapse ...people don't debate stiglitz because he's not worth it
I don't know if you noticed but the whole of South and Central America are on the verge of collapse capitalist and socialist countries both.
@@arm6915 are you suggesting that the situations in neighboring southern American countries are as dire situations as Venezuela.
@@Barca25644 have you been in Brazil's slums or looked at the crime statistics?
@@arm6915 Brazil is still a developing country and it is currently going through a period of economic contraction just like how the United States went through the 2008 housing crisis but Venezuela on the other hand which Dr Joseph stiglitz praised for years is on the verge of absolute collapse
How terrific that a well respected economist like Joseph Stiglitz is thinking like Norwegian, who considers the social stress of disparity of social structures and or the disparity of consequences. The fact that the our society has no way of determining such factors means that rather than fixing any reprocautions of social stress some companies, like the Churtoff Group, make millions off the selling of equipment for enforcing under duress, which some believe is the theft of the rights of others.
We should redistribute money equally worldwide! It’s insane not to do this!!
The escalation of inequality reveals the increasing failure of capitalism. The broken promise of a market system if left entirely on its own. This reveals a legitimate role of government in correcting such a failure.
It saddens me, that the slow growth and decreased mobility of the last decade have damaged the image of the free market as creator of properity for everyone.
There has never been a free market.
Dependence and taking advantage is a great art and needs capability as great as raw scores in let's saw, maths tests.
East Tennessee has been in extreme poverty for 250 years so to say the last 30 years is way off the mark, the federal reserve and politics deserve the credit for a very large part of the downfall of the true country
As a huge fan of laissez-faire, gotta admit listening to this man is really worth my time just to hear different opinions.
I don't see where is the disagreement.
I specially agree that trickle down economic haven´t distributed the benefits for the 50% of the population, the profits of the 1% aren't going to be redistributed without a new taxation system
The rich own the poor, the have all the money, the power and the brains, and that's that. The only thing the rich don't have is a heart, so you can cry all you want.
Couldn't agree more.
When in many countries unjustice rules and the rest of the world invest in those countries what we could expect in globalization era. We aré supporting these economic systems.
Median income of a full-time male worker is lower than it was in 1968!
Is that correct or did I hear wrong? If that is true than I am shocked.
It's true but prices for so many things have decreased sine that time de to technological advances, so in many ways you are still better off.
Lmao!!!! I love Joseph Stiglitz and I've read and agree with his book "The Price of Inequality" but I can't stop laughing at how he pronounces "The Unitik Stakes."
Hahahha.
well in the usa people pronounce AIRak ( Iraq )
But, it's rare when he says it.
@Alex.....Joseph Stiglitz is a crony closet globalist lackey, cheering on for Main Street while secretly serving the corporate masters!!! Here's my evidence!!!! Go to Google and type, """World Economic Forum Joseph Stiglitz says get rid of cash, move to a digital currency!!!""" WHAT??? LOL, Paging Mr. Orwell, paging Mr. Orwell, you have a telephone call sir, it's Big Brother Mr. Orwell, he wants a cashless society and prefers a monitored centrally planned digital currency backed by IMF Special Drawing Rights Mr. Orwell!!!!! Need I say more??????
jhony401 I was born and raised in the US and I’ve never heard it pronounce “Alrak” I’ve always heard it as “eyerack”
Intersteing presentation however I found the claims to be quite vague and unexpectedly absent of supporting data.
Stiglitz ends his talk with "Will we pull back from the brink?" Right now, with Trump's Presidency (2017), we're falling over Niagara Falls. That's if we look at national politics and Congress. At a local scale, possibly we can pull ourselves back from the brink, one business at a time and one city at a time. A book by Gar Alperovitz "What Then Must We Do?," outlines what we can each do in our daily lives, for example, participate in consumer cooperatives like Credit Unions. If we own or work in a business, we can possibly turn it into a worker-owned business. Or we can urge our cities and counties to provide services such as electricity and internet. All these steps have the stats on their side in terms of efficiency, productiveness, and equality of income. They also help us to change our culture in the direction of equality, cooperation, and trust--a culture supportive of the political changes that we need.
Rent seekers and monopolists....How can he say all this without mentioning the loss of enforcement of the laws against such people.
Money in politics... gateway to regulatory capture.
It's a very good book. Highly recommended!
am I the only one hearing "united stakes"
Please elaborate?
i can't read his name without hearing Samuel L. Jackson saying 'Hugo Stiglitz' with a little guitar riff.
Societies have a difficult task ahead, capitalism and just the evolution of our mentality indicates that we have little interest in what is to happens in other places or to others, let alone our future. Those who are looking at these sort of videos and have an interest in changing or allowing for change, have the responsibility over the other 90% who dedicate their time to gossip or sports news.
What I really believe is that change comes when people find a reason to make life for everyone better, a reason to study or to access education that is not to increase their own wealth or status in society. When these changes are met, can we have a conscious community and one that is ready to face the challenges that threaten our current way of life.
Great mind.
Who gave him the Nobel?
Have you read his Nobel Lecture? It is available as PDF in net. Easily one of the best treatise we can read on the subject of 'Information Economics'
Intelligent people
You probably don't know enough then. Stieglitz is definitely a lower order scholar but he is not worthy of a nobel.
10:08
Time marker for essay , just ignore this :)
Inequality is the cost of a free society.
Stiglitz makes a lot of good points but he stumbles massively on one conclusion. He states that America has some of the worst equality of opportunity, and proceeds to state the statistic of the chances of a person rising from poverty to wealth in America, which conflates outcome and opportunity. This is a logical mistake. Just because America has the lowest actual percentage of upward mobility does not necessarily mean that America structurally has the lowest opportunity. Michael Jordan and I have very different outcomes when it comes to basketball skill, does that necessitate that we had different opportunity? Not at all, yet this is the exact point that Stiglitz makes. You would need more than a statistical outcome to say that opportunity in America sucks.
The extreme inequality we have now favors extreme monopolies, the wealthy billionaires absorb all the money from the lower classes, store it away in fiscal heavens and so the money is not reinvested. Middle class people on the other hand reinvest almost all the money and so the businnes cycle continues. So, unless you tax away the extreme inequality we have now, you wont have prosperity, this is just 1+1. You have either a middle class economy or you have a billionaires and poor people economy, you cant have both. The "free market"-mantra is just pure ideology, not factual in the real world
Capitalism is for sure the best form of government, but just like any other government it's abused. I'm still wondering why all classes aren't taxed the same percentage...to me it just makes the most sense.
capitalism is a form of economy, not government. They often go together, but they are different things. And, your tax idea does not fit with the reality we all share. The wealthy get more from the infrastructure, both physical and legal/social, then the workers. Remember, the basis of capitalism is to pay people less then their work is worth. That how profits are made.
Upward mobility is fine in America.
Wow, the degree of inequality is bad... Nice one Stiglitz, did you need a PhD in economics to work that out mate?
What a fucking genius, someone give him a medal, oh wait, they already have...
Give him another one!
Equality of outcome = Inequality of opportunity will almost always cause inequality of outcome, it is a failure of logic and reasoning to assume that anywhere one sees inequality, it must have been cause by inequality of opportunity. Wealth inequality = taking from producers and giving to non-producers.
America's growing wealth inequality is not the fault of capitalism, but of central bank market intervention, which goes against the very principles of capitalism, trade deals, decimation of unions, right to work laws, illegal immigration and outsourcing. One answer to growing
wealth inequality is to rein in or shut down the Fed and shore up the U.S. Dollar.
People controlling the fed won't let that happen
I would disagree pretty strongly. I think it is a far greater commentary on government interference. It is not the free markets fault that the government would encourage a practice of buying homes, taking on a high level of debt and lowering interest rates as the cherry on top. There have been two recent studies that are conflicted on the exact numbers but both have concluded that GDP growth is reduced as a nations debt to GDP level increases - again government detracting from the market.
The problem wasn't the housing bubble which in fact was caused by legislation to some degree as you say. The main problem in 2007/08 was the under-regulation of the banking sector. Because of that banks only had a minimal percentage of equity which lead to this immense entanglement between them and between them and foreign banks.
Bubbles will always occur from time to time but the finance sector has to have enough capital to absorb such shocks. Because of that most economists started to overthink the neoliberal ideology and tried to find better models.
Nowadays I can't imagine a serious economist arguing that you would not need the government to correct market failure, to redistribute income or to regulate the market to some degree. Not even Milton Friedman said that.
What is the word he is saying? "rent-seeking" is that the term he is using?
Thank you!
+Singingway no, he is not saying "rank seekers", he is in fact saying "rent-seeking"...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_rent :)
We Canadians call it sharing which isn't a bad thing. Americans call it socialism and in the U.S. this has a very bad connotation for some reason. How much of this is accident of birth?
TED is also to blame for these problems. For instance Larry Smith's video (with over 3M views) promotes the worship of rent-seeking plutocrats.
Jon theGreat which one? I searched and found a couple.
please, don't read this if you like your opinions over learning more about what is true. (i'd say -lying to yourself - but when we do i think we lie to ourselves about it). we don't see things the same. we could fight about that or shout each other down or my favorite try and belittle the person speaking especially without trying to understand the ideas. or, if you are secure in who you are and seek the truth or at least more understanding, we could learn from those who see the world differently. but we need to talk together and respect each other and respect views that differ from ours. it's hard but we need to make the effort to understand each other together. without that what other option is there? those who have must protect their holdings with violence. without dialogue the only conversation of those who are disenfranchised is violence. not my preference and i know it's really hard to control the rush of chemicals/hormones in our system and listen to the voices of those with whom we who disagree. difficult yes but i'd suggest let's try. imho a world where talk of change and new ideas is repressed with violence so the only way another view can be heard is responding with violence, will produce something much harder to live with than learning to master our own energy and work together intelligently. of course we're just talking.
Türkçe altyazı istiyoruum!
bu yorumu arıyordum bende yani neden alt yazılı değil
There is an aristocracy in the US. When Trump eliminates estate taxes this aristocracy will be permanent. Trump will be King because it will take over 10 billion to become president. Each one of you will be working for the aristocracy.
The aristocracy overthrew the existing government in a bankruptcy restructuring when they wrote the conjobstitution., The authors were a group of bankers and lawyers, who are the descendants of a long line of pirates. spies, thieves, slavers and merchants of war. You are already working for the aristocracy. If you think Trump is any different from any of his predecessors, you're far more than a day late and a dollar short.
And to think thing have gotten worse than 10 years ago
Guy advocates for the land value tax and sees it as a possible method of reinvesting in society by allowing it to take care of itself.... sign me up
Is that all ?
Abolish money as legal tender for goods and services.
@Rappa Kalja Depressions can only occur when we are using money for goods and services. Search Zeitgeist
Stiggy is smart guy..one thing on which he is ill informed .... THE DEBT...a criminal bank cartel prints the dollars..loans them to gvt for bonds..I have to try to pay off the bonds and their vig with tax payments...future tax payments !
What he says about median income is only true of households. Individual median incomes are higher than ever I think. The point is the average household size varies from year to year so are not comparable while an individual is only ever one person. Look up Thomas sowell for something better than this sophistry.
Stiglitz was maybe relevant over 20 years ago, when he was co-awarded the Nobel Prize in economics, but I think he is now lost in the woods.
Emma thinks you're cute
Are you getting your "fair" share?
Discovery of DNA is not superior to marketing well some company's soap or selling insurance to others.
For starters, we undeniably live in a global economy but he talks about inequality as if the US economy operates in a box. He doesn't mention that global inequality has been going down. Or that inequality in Europe has been on the rise too. He's painting a picture to sell books and get on TV, not present an honest debate.
global inequality decreasing doesn't justify US or European inequality increasing in any way....
That was then. Far worst now.
You make a great point. The guy just doesn't like capitalism.
United Steaks
"The United Steaks"
as long as he does not propose any strategies to reach his dream,
he can talk loud as long as he wanted to ....
.
What special strategy do you need? You implement higher taxes on higher earnings and redistribute that money to people with lower income and students. It is simple as that.
Taxes on wealth (on capital gains for example), not on income. Income tax raises would just worsen things both in a fiscal point of view and in term of the distribution of income by discouraging work and encouraging tax avoidance. A capital gains tax would however put a stop to the disproportionate growth of return on capital over the overall economy.
It was the government that made the low interest rate loans available to students. People got worthless degrees that wont even pay them enough to pay back the loans.
The do gooders have done enough.
STOP MEDDLING!
G'One! :)
Libra helps access to the 1.7 billion poor and Joseph disagrees this. Nobel prize in economics is for the rich lackey. Do not talk about inequality.
Gaaary Indiana Gary Iiindiana Gaaaary
Big government is why economy , isn't growing
Australia has a huge government , overpaid workers
@Kevin T rich were getting richer back in the 80s under Bob hawke Prime minister in Australia , Bob Hawke grew Government
as long as he do not propose any strategies to reach his dream...
he can talk as loud as he wanted to
Growing inequality and poverty can be curbed. Every citizen can be guaranteed nothing less than a middle-class standard of living. My video - poverty eradication worldwide/michael samuel - can be viewed on youtube.
It's Capitalism running amock! Learn MMT Modern Monetary Theory. We can have what we need with not more taxes!
I have read a lot of books about finance and economics. Stiglitz plays to an audience by using his origins to prove a point. He puts across a situation and promotes the idea that his experience in a situation is the basis for improvement. That is a motivation but he ignores the facts that improvement is not made by looking though an emotional lens.
It is made by a factual and sometimes cold analysis of a situation. Not an isolated situation that may have occurred to what one has grown up with. That is a reactionist view which often impedes progross and understanding.
The reality of the great recession as he calls it is that a ot of money has been cahnneled into the banking system since governments though the Fed did it that way.
Government, in fact, destroyed people's wealth and reduced the size of the average persons wealth in the process. Government was the winner in comparison to individuals, most organisations and pension funds. The fact that some individuals gained is the result almost entirely of government actions and there is no incentive for governments to alter that.
The so called "rich " are the benefactors of governments' actions in the marketplace.
Yet he fails to point this out. He benefits his argument by ignoring this fact.
He also concludes incorrectly that all of the gain has gone to the top 1%. How can this be so when the government figures show the increase in wealth. He does this to play on people's envy and divert their feelings away from the facts.
He ignores the fact that 'trickle down' in effect is correct. But it does not necessarily work the way of the financial system. It works by technology trickling down.
Who would want finance to trickle down instead of technology ? I doubt if there is one person in the audience who would give up their computer and their i pad or cell phone or their air travel for the money or even double the money if they had to go back to the 1960's technology to do so. It has trickled down from Microsolt or AT &T or IBM or AMD or Apple, or Oracle or Ericsson or Samsung or a dozen others.
The other fallacy he puts across is Outcomes. The fact is outcomes alone are not proof of any particular policy or reason for it. Yet he promotes it.
It is government that protects banks from bankruptcy but that is not an excuse for relieving others of the responsibility.
It is a reason for making banks more responsible.
He talks about his book a lot !! He is really just promoting his book.
Rob Mews How about supporting your arguments with some facts? Why wouldn't he start with an anecdote in a 15 min presentation? It's really just common sense that using an anecdote to start a presentation really just provokes people to listen to you. You just misunderstood his intent, no big deal. You could also read up on some actual research on inequality, there's a lot of literature out there that is easy to understand for academics and non academics alike (e.g. Capital in the 21st century or Stiglitz book as well). Hundreds of papers around as well that support the facts he stated. Oh and Atlas Shrugged by the way is not science.
I don't know which books you have been reading but I would consider changing the autors. This is simply ignoring all scientific economic knowledge from the last 15-20 years and even basic political theory.
You seem to have missed the pont. Stiglitz has not just quoted an anecdote for attention. He is someone who pushed inequality extensively to present himself as someone who has the formula for a cure. Yet his formula leads to great inequality and loss of wealth for the whole community. That is because he pushes government intervention which equates to political intervention at evry level of commerce. That has been a spectacular failure wherever it has been tried. The form of economics he pushes is not science. It is politico economics.
Rob Mews No its not. Look at Norway, Sweeden, Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands. All these countries have high government spending and far greater GDP per capita compared to the US. They are better educated with free education. Crime is very very low. Health is better and people are happier. You should read. There is no law against it. The US is a third world country.
You need to do your homework on the Scandinavian countries. Look at their history. Not just the face of it.
Take a look at this article for instance -www.libertyandcommonsense.com/?p=429
The statement about "free" education is also a myth. There are no human created resources on earth that are truly free. They are paid for by someone in a direct or roundabout way.
The situation that has occurred in those counties and others is overspending by government most of the time. That does not mean it is good as an economic or financial discipline. If it were then that would be good for every organisation or individual - But it is clearly not.
Can you give me any reason why the principle of budgetary discipline over extended periods is not a good thing in an organisation or for any individual.
Could you give me a reason why governments send businesses and individuals into bankrupt courts if they overspend continually?
By the principle of your argument that should not happen.
#wolfpac
HAHAHA. You don't need a PhD and a medal to realise that growing inequality is the issue. Question that most of these knob-jockeys don't bother to mention is that it's the financialisation of the economy that is the problem.
I'm for looking at the root-cause of the problem, not a symptom of the cause.
Right on. Jesus stormed the temple for a reason. Usury, making money off of money, is banned in many world religions. It's time to return to the ancient wisdom of prohibiting rent-seeking.
income inequality is good especially it is the result of free market capitalism.
United Stakes? lol
United Steaks*
disagree
INEQUALITY IS GREAT! Inequality is a SIGN. ITS A SIGN there is freedom to do what you WANT. The only countries that had no inequality, everyone was poor. That is the base, all are poor and if there is freedom people will go and do. NOTE: not all people will go and do at the same rate=inequality. When people serve others(create a product or service,etc)--they will be rewarded (become wealthy) through these VOLUNTARY transactions. ECONOMIC WISDOM IS THE LOVE OF INEQUALITY.
socialism equally poor
And how does inequality benefit you in any way? Your comment sounds an awful lot like marginal productivity theory which has been a heterodox theory for decades...
@@coenijn It allows me to do as I please. NO GOVERNMENT interference. Central Governments can only (BY GUNPOINT ) rob people thus making everyone poor.
If you run a race--do you want everyone to run at the same speed?
Extreme inequality and poverty is not great!.. obviously some form of inequality should exist.. and nobody in their right mind would disagree with that and want everyone to have the same amount of wealth.. duh
I disagree with his reasons behind inequality. It starts with decisions people make and the consequences behind those decisions.
*fyi,*
The top-earning 10 percent of Americans pay over half of the federal income taxes.
The bottom 80 percent of Americans only pay around 15 percent of all federal income taxes.
Yes, I see your point about inequality...