Stiglitz on globalization, why(,) globalization fails ? 03 1 - The trade agreements

[@Iranda_]

Thank you for posting the series - you saved it for posterity.

[@antiphones]

Joseph Stiglitz is a Nobel Prize winning economist who teaches at Cambridge, Harvard and Columbia universities. He's as heavy weight and knowledgeable as it gets.

[@masoodsattari2]

It’s very simple... there are rich people and poor people. The rich are protected by the system and the poor must fend for themselves under the banner or capitalism.

[@dr.janardanpaudelphd4749]

This is a very good analysis on globalization theory and practice.

[@beateundhermann9962]

Joseph Stiglitz weiß genau , wie man eine Krise meistert !

[@Felicidades-pw6dl]

Hello, I just think that the point is to go directly againt of multinational corporatios, that they give more surplus they earn to the national governmet they belong.

[@lynnwandering581]

this series basically predicted the rise of trump and the trade war with us Chinese，and looks like our policy maker is pretty sophisticated， get most out of this round of globalization without sacrifice too much national interest. Ofc we ordinarily Chinese worked damn hard for all the achievements. “losers” in US please don’t be frustrated with us, you should get your fair share from Wall Street the 0.1%.

[@boubsdiarra842]

so thoughtfull

[@olliemoore11]

please order these clips correctly.Thank you.

[@j.michaelblakely5277]

Mr. Stiglitz.....you are cracked. I hope you enjoy these video selfies.

[@Rob-fx2dw]

Mr Stiglitz -You confuse one idea with the rest. One minute you talk about macro economics and don't give examples but give some generalisations like saying "too often". The next sentence you talk about what a worker who lost his job is concerned about. Maro to micro in a second. Your statement "And this didn't help the country" (2.15 on). No mention of the country, just generalisation or perhaps exageration. Economic theroy you say is that "somehow the market will provide full employment" Just what theory is that ? only MMT theory maybe which in which almost every explanation to a problem raised is "it's different - some explanation !! And you then focus on high levels of unemployment in Europe. Where is a country with a system better than Europe? No illustration given. It is easy to pick holes in a system but where is the perfect system. Only a real fool would think a system is perfect but only someone very naive would thing centralised power would be since it has proved to be not so in almost every country it has been tried. And only a person devoid of facts would think that massive deficits and money expansion by central governments of the last 6 years would solve anything because it hasn't.

[@michaelheslop9040]

I am not sure why Rob Mews would even ask of Dr. Stiglitz which economic theory advances the view that the market i.e. the market economy will provide "full employment". I believe that Dr. Stiglitz is talking about "Free Market economic theory" i.e. Neoclassical economic theory that essentially argues that if governments do not intervene in markets and allow them to self-regulate then market economies will clear themselves and operate more efficiently in allocating resources. Full employment or FE in this context refers to an optimal situation where labor markets, capital markets etc will maximize these resources pushing economies to operate on their PPF curves. FE does not mean that all workers and all capital good etc will be fully utilized, it only means that markets will have an opportunity to produce the maximum output from each additional unit of labor, capital or land that is available for production. As to Stiglitz switching from micro to macro and vice versa. There is nothing unusual about this since there is no Chinese wall separating them as they are strongly intertwined one with the other. So for example the rate of inflation for an economy is a macro phenomenon. However, while it may not reflect the rate of inflation in each city, county, state or region in that country i.e. the micro analysis, it probably is related to the macro rate of inflation in the sense that on average all the micro rates added up and divided by the # of cities etc will have some relationship to it. That is just one example!

[@Rob-fx2dw]

+Michael Heslop You miss the fact that Mr Stiglitz often says he is a free market economist but the facts he argues are just the opposite. He is a centralist no matter what and pursues policies that involve more centralised regulation. You talk of PPF but that is a marginal issue about small percentages when compared with overall policies that affect everyone. I did not say there is a Chinese wall between macro and micro. Just the opposite but there is an absolute difference that divides centralist sovereign governments from all other institutions and that is their ability to issue more and more debt (currency expansion) which all other institutions and eventually individuals must pay for. Even the poor must pay for the debt that Sovereigns issue since they are at the bottom of the pile. Your theory that inflation is the result of micro based additions is also not supported by evidence. It ignores the historical facts that excessive printing (monetary expansion) was caused by the admitted policies in countries like Brazil, Chile, Argentina, Zimbabwe, Hungary, and a host of other countries. The old saying that a president of the USA (Harry Truman) had on his desk was "the buck stops here" but reality is just the opposite. The result of political decisions on currency expansion and many other policies in fact results in the buck stopping at the bottom of the pile with those least able to afford the cost or do anything about it..

[@gelsport01]

Rob..... I am really wondering if you are an economist or just one of those people that support what is happening. I find it extremely disrespectful and offensive to make such a condescending challenge to a NOBEL prize winner in the field of economics. I have been studying this discipline since 2008 and I am only now learning about the topic. Men like Stiglitz, Mischkin, Krugman, Bernanke, and many others, have been leaders in the field. Politicians, lobbyists, acclaimed and self proclaimed pundits have been thorns in the side of the discipline. Their postulations and influence have lead to economic disaster after economic disaster. Then economists are blamed. No one listens to those that study this thing, everyone is an expert till there is a disaster. The day you take your car to a barber for repairs is the day I will take back my word. These days I am listening to those men in order to benefit from their vantage points of view gleaned from their experience. In your rude critique you used no language I could use to assume you are an economist. In case you are, please do better. If you are not, show some respect.

[@bee-et1rw]

I believe you are DELIBERATELY trying to obscure Stiglitz' points about Wall Street, bond traders vs. the common people. Responsible policy economic policy-making, involving the Democratic processes of decision making Stiglitz talks about, and not those dictated by the IMF or Wall Street bankers are better for the greater good than the latter. Rob, you seem to be a champion of the elite, back-room financial plotting that has helped to get us into the troubles so many (probably not you) face. To attempt to divert the listener's attention from Stiglitz' points with shibboleths like "micro, then macro" is Your way of trying to debate whatever truths Stiglitz plainly states. It is exactly Stiglitz' plain-spokenness that disturbs the consuls of "high", abstract, rigid economic theory such as yourself.