Joseph Stiglitz vs Friedrich von Hayek: One Nobel Prize Winning Economist Takes On Another

[@andyjblosser]

Great points made by Stiglitz. We need a broader conception of freedom--not just freedom from unnecessary government regulations, but also freedom from private monopolists and the negative externalities that arise from "free" markets. What kind of freedom do you really have if your environment is destroyed and you cannot afford housing?

[@CovidDigest]

What Joe has to say about Hayek is always dishonest and has nothing to do with Hayek's actual views abs what Hayek actually wrote. Stiglitz is just a disgrace.

[@kakistocracyusa]

Kpfa, like Mother Jones magazine, etc. etc., has gone the way of compromised, co-opted, controlled opposition. It bares no resemblance to its line-up just 20 years ago.

[@claytonwiley]

Neither Hayek nor Friedman claim there is no need for governmental intervention. They just point out the logic of having individual greed maximize economic productivity. The Grand Banks fishing is a great example of how poorly governments have been able to regulate sustainable fishing. You can have equality or freedom, if you want more equality it will come at the cost of freedom. There is no disagreement about that. We have seen free market and government both misregulate resources

[@totonow6955]

You are insisting on desublimation though. This grinds down leaving the populace contorted and weak. People don't just lie down and die.

[@sakarikaristo4976]

Individuals or groups acting in a manner that maximizes their expected utility, as economists say, is neither a sufficient condition for the welfare of the whole population nor a sufficient condition for maximum economic activity or gains in productivity. There is no proof that there is a trade-off between equality and freedom exists. Main tenet is that everywhere in the world, aggregated returns on capital are higher than real wage growth. Stocks in aggregate have provided returns almost several hundred basis points above growth rates in real wages. There are subcategories to that, but that’s the key point. My guess is that the average returns on capital (unlevered) are between 5-10%, while returns on equity (includes leverage) are higher than that. There is need for a mechanism that allows for labor to participate in the value creation (shareholder value right?) such that a) no need to change production and supply side as it is b) no need to change other laws regarding ownership or labor etc. c) no additional burdening government regulation is to be put in force. Corporations will resist progressive taxes on excess profits over say, 10-15% and therefore would be more fruitful for companies to hand money to employees rather than circle it through the government.

[@totonow6955]

****Elinor**** what she studied was far more than a suggestion. Her findings are an intricate offering of multiple working systems for varieties of people, places and things with means for expansion from micro to macro solutions and connections.

[@HT-zx8dn]

"Free market" requires regulations to protect it from the monopoly/oligopoly.

[@sherylbueno3371]

Hello! Thanks for this thought provoking interview. I found it ironic that there is a label on the video related to climate change. Misdirection by the powers in charge?

[@kakistocracyusa]

Nobel Prize in Economics remains as unimpressive as ever. I would expect more intellectual originality from a life insurance salesman. If you are going to talk about sophomoric and stale questions going back to antiquity (individual vs collective rights, etc) plus tired, stale historical anecdotes, at least anticipate that your audience made it through grade school. Used car salesman.

[@treefrog3349]

There has never been a "free market". It has always been a self-serving cadre of manipulators that have coerced the financial dynamics in non-ubiquitous ways. Those with power will feather their own nests. Always. The difference between what powerful people SAY and what powerful people DO is a universe apart.

[@Markdfadf]

Four minutes in. Hayek didn't adovocate for laissez capitalism. Here is a quote from the book Stiglitz obviously didn't read. "“Nothing has done so much harm to the liberal cause as the wooden insistence of some liberals on certain rough rules of thumb, above all the principle of laissez faire.” Milton Friedman wasn't against pollution rules. “There’s always a case for the government, to some extent, when what two people do affects a third party,” Friedman said. “There is a case, for example, for emission controls.” If you are going to write a book about your ideological opponents, it seems like at least having a passing familiarity of their positions would be a starting point. These are not obscure things they said either. Stiglitz does this constantly. He did this with Gary Becker and his views on discrimination. Stiglitz is one of the laziest, most dishonest debaters.

[@GlobalDrifter1000]

He’s talking like his lips don’t match