Joseph E. Stiglitz on Globalization And Its Discontents Revisited

Joseph E. Stiglitz, the Nobel laureate economist, discusses his latest book, "Globalization And Its Discontents Revisited," which explores the Trump presidency and the Brexit vote as symptoms of a global economic order whose spoils have been monopolized by the wealthy. Stiglitz is interviewed by NYT reporter Peter S. Goodman.

[@danielscheinhaus5210]

After having read the comments below, it seems clear to me that these listeners, at least the ones who wrote in here, seem to nurse their own views of our trade agreements. One created his own term "hyperglobalization", another seems to attribute all the problems to the growing world population, another talks of "good" jobs sent elsewhere. What Professor Stiglitz is saying here and likely in his book seems too subtly expressed by him. He says that since the trade agreement's representatives from the US were all actually representing the corporations, they wanted arrangements that would advantage them, not American workers. So therefore, if US trade representatives represented American workers as well as corporations, the trade agreements would have avoided being unfair to workers. Not recognized by these writers who are pushing their own notions of what's wrong is the fact that our corporations wanted to move their factories to China so that they could pay less in salaries, they could weaken US worker's unions and they could nurture a much larger customer base in China than there is in the US. They wouldn't be deterred. Stiglitz is suggesting that a US President who was concerned about the US working people as well as the corporations should have representatives of the American people involved in those discussions as well. Then there could be a fairer globalization taking place. That says a lot about the Presidents the American people so wisely chose through their nomination and election process. There seems to be something wrong here.

[@hectorkyson6625]

Instablaster

[@johnmarano5430]

Old dictum: Cut the pie too much and the pie shrinks. Because you reduce incentives New dictum: When you don't share the pie most of the pie goes to waste. Because a few rich people can eat only so much

[@user-zq9ed8wr7g]

We are sitting in one boat and this boat is getting smaller and smaller with more and more people

[@pacus1970]

Are we willing to "change" hyperglobalization? Trade -off confort and excessive consumption for a fairer trade ?

[@justgivemethetruth]

I find it almost funny that at a little after 24:00 Stiglitz talks about how the enlightened people understand the system when it is so unequal is not sustainable, but that is exactly what has been happening since the dawn of civilization, and civilization has sustained itself for 20,000 or more by all the ways it knows to do so. Why enlightened people could just as well be pandered to as those who have lots of money and manage the system which pays them off well, and has developed all kinds of ways to protect itself. The fact that it is going to eventually break down in some unpredictable way someday is like worrying about the sun burning out. I'm sure Stiglitz makes a ton of money helping to sustain the system, and writing books thumbing his nose at everyone else caught up in this.