Stiglitz on globalization, why(,) globalization fails ?

Part 1 Why Globalisation Fails 1 • Stiglitz on globalizat...
Part 2 Why Globalisation Fails 2 • Stiglitz on globalizat...
Part 3 Trade Agreements 1 • Stiglitz on globalizat...
Part 4 Trade Agreements 2 • Video
Part 5 Trade Agreements 3 • Stiglitz on globalizat...
Part 6 Financial crisis 1 • Stiglitz on globalizat...
Part 7 Financial crisis 2 • Video
Part 8 Global Warming 1 • Stiglitz on globalizat...
Part 9 Terrorism 1 • Video
Part 10 Terrorism 2 • Stiglitz on globalizat...

[@CaminoAir]

I've read every one of Stiglitz's books published for the general reader and I recommend people read them. They are exchaustively researched, understandable without economics training, fairly and expertly argued and are essential reading. It's no wonder so many people admire Stiglitz both as an economist and a person. We should be grateful we have people like him.

[@JAMAICADOCK]

Never knew Richard Dreyfus was so well versed in economics.

[@edwardjones2202]

trev moffatt 😁

[@cathyschneider2126]

He founded The Dreyfuss Civics Initiative in order “to teach our kids how to run our country, before they are called upon to run our country…if we don't, someone else will run our country." Dreyfuss' life changed dramatically when he started taking medication for bipolar disorder. His acting career suffered due to the flattening of emotion that resulted, but he decided that the trade-off was worth it.

[@fabrutikara5799]

HAHAHA

[@frankellamtarra2026]

Globalization can cause the mega corporations to become more powerful than the state.The power of capital can result in the removal of governments by the ''democratic''process.The state MUST be the major player and must regulate these mega buisnesses.A few multi billionaires must not control the daily lives of so many

[@regalmedia9487]

YES SIR. we have to take control over our resources.

[@sgt7]

Firstly, I would agree with Stiglitz that globalisation per se is neither good or bad for society. It is how it is managed that will determine whether or not it is a good thing. I think this is pretty obvious. Secondly, I would also agree with Stiglitz that globalisation creates a democratic deficit. People now have less control over the destiny of their society because they have less control over big business policies (which have a significant influence on a society's destiny). Globalisation has created greater freedom for big business at the cost of ordinary people having less protection from these big businesses. It's obvious that some big business policies (for example, establishing monopolies, exploiting those in a weak position) benefit big business but harm society.

[@soapbxprod]

And who exactly manages it?

[@sgt7]

Governments and international political organisations manage globalisation by passing the laws that govern it. However, other groups lobby governments to manage globalisation to suit their interests. So some businesses lobby for open markets, some business lobby against open markets seeking protectionist policy. And than there are the myriad of other (non business) political organisations and economic and social experts that lobby governments to manage globalisation policy to suit their wishes/concerns. So governments manage it but their decisions, although heavily influenced by big business, are influenced by a myriad of other interests too. It is wrong I think to presume that big business is the only factor influencing governments' globalisation policy. This provides an oversimplified (and sometimes merely ideological) answer to a complex question. Every time governments decide to open markets it would be wrong to attribute this purely to the influence of big business a priori. Governments may open markets because economic experts may recommend this policy as being beneficial for all.

[@huiyichen6554]

How globalization fails? Production factors are globally incorporated and more efficiently utilized but, wealth generated is not evenly distributed among countries, and ineffective tax systems lead to less evenly distributed wealth inside countries.

[@nikhilthakker5441]

Huiyi Chen heyy you are great!! You have a great intellect

[@picovax]

difficult to see from highways what is going on in the dirt roads

[@mishrazz]

This is the info I found: Stiglitz Interview, 2009, DVD, Le Nouvel Observateur, Paris France, DVD included in the magazine: Le Nouvel Observateur. Authors: Bernard Bosse and Jean-Gabriel Fredet.

[@SikaMalik619]

great vid professor S

[@robertjiang2925]

Can anyone tell me why this video in the sport category?

[@dusandragovic09srb]

Thanks for this video! And the 2nd part :)

[@Lobos222]

*Farm subsidies:* While some subsidies are negative for the nation. Allot of them are used to maintain food production in i-nations. Meaning if those high cost nations did NOT have those subsidies. They would lose that level of food production. Secondly, some farm subsidies are kept in place to protect smaller farms (Not the case in USA). Which is important in nations with less farmable land. Making farming possible in areas that dont have optimal areas to farm. Basically that nations population is using funds from other areas to make sure their national security of food production is met. You cant rely on everything to be imported. *Food safety Regulation:* Brazil was one of the biggest exporters of beef and maybe still are, but they did NOT enforce health standards. They were warned, didnt listen, volla, severe outbreaks and in turn sanctions followed. The same thing that happened to the UK when they had outbreaks, despite being EU members. Not every concern is economic or "just" economic and I find this guy is overlooking allot of rational counter arguments in hes explanations. Its not "corporate interests" that a nation wants to maintain a level of food production. As an example, what do people think would happen if all food was produced in Russia. Does people really think Russia wouldnt use access or price to that food as leverage in a political setting? Oh, you dont like our actions in Ukraine? Well, maybe you dont get any food then...

[@firstal3799]

Latin America is by an large middle income region. China is only now entering middle income category. India is still poor. The so called failure of globalisation in Latin America is due to inherent difficulty in transitioning from middle to high, as opposed to low to medium.

[@ipdavid1043]

can't even believe this dude..he was the most advocate for globalization in the first place!!!

[@juliegrimme]

I think we've been conned. 35 years flat wages in US, Africa misery, and Europe can't figure out how to allow countries in the EU to float interest rates and exchange rates. Dude, I think we've been conned.

[@juliegrimme]

My parents were farmers in Wisconsin, I so knew the corn farmers had to leave and run to the US to live cause the US dumped the corn on their markets.

[@amanpandey7427]

Closer integration led to independence.. Transportation to come down, etc.. But no overarching political process like the Westphalian

[@levanlolashvili8960]

well yeah globalization in it's current form doesn't work as well as it could, existence of separate states is the reason behind that, humanity and every single country should understand that we have more in common than different and a single world state or a union (with actual power not like un) should be created and than we will all benefit edit: i wrote this comment when i was about 6 minutes in didn't expect him to say this stuff

[@JIMtheBUM123]

Africa, China, India, other developing world markets are pretty open.

[@TheHarbinger82]

Good one on the Dreyfus remark. Now since we are on the subject of actors. Who plays a better Bernie Madoff? DeNiro or Dreyfus

[@ilsewhere]

“Worse off”

[@RockieRacoon]

Does he ever cite specific examples on which countries have been made worse? Free markets are not perfect and so destabilization is always present. But if markets are truly free, in the hands of the people, they will correct themselves much more quickly and ACCURATELY than in the hands of gov't controlled markets.

[@panatronicfreud6484]

He mentioned Latin America, which had higher growth in the decades before globalization efforts. Markets are never really "free" as you naively put it, the structures and rules of the game are important. If there is an overriding theme to this video, it is that powerful players skew the rules to benefit themself at the expense of others.

[@amanpandey7427]

Major failures of globalisation: didn't live up to the promise.. Poor gotten poorer.. Global Economic stability was a goal that's why the poor were made to open up the market

[@amanpandey7427]

WTO Uruguay rounds were dominated by the medicine companies.. Excessively stringent IPR

[@amanpandey7427]

This would've harm the r n d since no access to new innovations

[@amanpandey7427]

Social security, old age pension, a very efficiently run program in US. Very responsive.. Most highly rated institution. In a huge debate privatisation was kept out from social security

[@amanpandey7427]

Argentina paid the price is privatisation of social security pushed by the outsiders

[@amanpandey7427]

Need infrastructure.. To take use of less tariffs

[@JIMtheBUM123]

Open markets increase craziness. Look at what happened in SA. Workers being exterminated for wanting more than $lav€ wages.

[@carolmckee8456]

Surprisingly artsy living space (assuming it 's his home or office).

[@amanpandey7427]

Fudged number.. Reckless loans.. Useless regulations or dysfunctional

[@amanpandey7427]

Governments in market today are partners and we are trying to get it work but there's a great imbalance in how the democracy is conducted on USA compared to the rest of the world.

[@bpuppin]

Brazil here, actually our public free health system has the obligation, by law, to provide such medicines, for free, and it does.

[@juliegrimme]

Were these policies also by good intention people?

[@Rob-fx2dw]

Stiglitz argues against intellectual property rights. But Stiglitz himself is the promoter of big government intervention in markets of which he promotes. Enforcement of intellectual property rights is government intervention with government laws being the instruments that are IP rights themselves. He argues against himself saying that important agreements defining trade may lower welfare and result in monopolisation. Yes, I can't find fault with that but then mixes this with other issues like the "access to health" concept. This belief of "access" is a misnomer since health care does not exist on its own and is the result of enterprise. It is not something that requires "access" since it does not exist as something which just requires 'access to'. It requires wealth to supply health services and a need for health resources is not just allowing "access". This is a basic misconception he pushes. He then argues for a big government monopoly for healthcare and deficit blowouts. His illustration for Argentina is simply short on information and therefore misleading. What happened is Argentina had lost overseas export markets from the late 1990's and a change in government policies resulted in increased taxes which the new government imposed to reduce the government's deficit instead of cutting government expenditure. That combined to push local prices and export prices up as well so more markets were lost. Additionally they failed to pay for debts they had incurred and went into sovereign default for 93 Billion dollars owed. The IMF had also refused to lend them more money. Along with this their banks were in financial trouble due to high numbers of defaulters which in some instances had been 60% of borrowings.

[@shanana569]

+Rob Mews With all do respect you first point is a little ridiculous just because he is in favor of government involvement in the economy in SOME areas doesn't mean you is in favor of government intervention of the economy in ALL areas.

[@Rob-fx2dw]

Try the part at 10.50 onwards where he pushes the idea that IP rights caused prices to rise. You have to realise he is a guy who wants things both ways. He sees the huge benefit and wants some other benefit without having a reasonable suggestion of how to improve things. He admits some countries have benefitted hugely from globalisation but criticizes it because some have in his opinion not. So he speaks out against it picking things that are wrong as justification for his rant. This is despite the two countries he mentions, China and India are the most populous in the world and dominate the numbers who benefit from globalisation. He is prepared to put aside any sense of proportionality in the facts to criticise the whole concept overall. Additionally in his ramble on IP he asserts that prices rose for generic medicines and puts this down to monopoly of excessive strong property rights. That ignores the fact that to increase income the best way to do so is to increase output and sell more products even if the price falls. No monopolist in their right minds is stupid enough to minimise sales since sales increase profits. It does NOT happen the opposite way around even for IP holders. What he says is in effect largely rubbish. Do you think Apple computers only sold a few computers because they had IP rights ? No ! - they sold as many as they could and the prices fell as they sold more to maximise profits. that was good since more benefitted as sellers and buyers. Do you think Ford only sold a few Mustang cars in the 1960's because they had IP rights - No. - the opposite. Do you thing LG Nexus Phones were only sold in small numbers because they have IP rights on them. No.

[@Rob-fx2dw]

Try the part at 10.50 onwards where he pushes the idea that IP rights caused prices to rise. You have to realise he is a guy who wants things both ways. He sees the huge benefit and wants some other benefit without having a reasonable suggestion of how to improve things. He admits some countries have benefitted hugely from globalisation but criticizes it because some have in his opinion not. So he speaks out against it picking things that are wrong as justification for his rant. This is despite the two countries he mentions, China and India are the most populous in the world and dominate the numbers who benefit from globalisation. He is prepared to put aside any sense of proportionality in the facts to criticise the whole concept overall. Additionally in his ramble on IP he asserts that prices rose for generic medicines and puts this down to monopoly of excessive strong property rights. That ignores the fact that to increase income the best way to do so is to increase output and sell more products even if the price falls. No monopolist in their right minds is stupid enough to minimise sales since sales increase profits. It does NOT happen the opposite way around even for IP holders. What he says is in effect largely rubbish. Do you think Apple computers only sold a few computers because they had IP rights ? No ! - they sold as many as they could and the prices fell as they sold more to maximise profits. that was good since more benefitted as sellers and buyers. Do you think Ford only sold a few Mustang cars in the 1960's because they had IP rights - No. - the opposite. Do you thing LG Nexus Phones were only sold in small numbers because they have IP rights on them. No.

[@allgoo1964]

Rob Mews: "Try the part at 10.50 onwards where he pushes the idea........." == His examples is limited to pharmaceutical industry. If you know how the industry works to keep their intellectual property, you'll understand what he's talking about. They buy the politicians to keep their rights to their maximum advantage. In a sense he's talking about the corruption of the industry instead of disregard for the intellectual property in other cases like Chinese counterfeit. Do you disagree to the point that drug prices are far too expensive in US?

[@Rob-fx2dw]

You are right that IP is a tool used to corner the market. But that is essentially government involvement in the free enterprise system. IP is government law that resulted in this situation. That needs to change since it stifles smaller research companies and small manufacturers by making entry onto the market more costly and a more prolonged process. Part of prices result from of costs of research but the research is cornered by the IP rights. The situation you refer to is because of the disparity between the situation in China and else where and the US.

[@fruitloops3718]

The US doesn't allow certain foods from many countries. The US does a lot of unethical activities. However I don't know of any country that doesn't act in an ethical manner.

[@ytfeverguy8367]

Cant this be boiled down to the fact that as major manufacturing became more concentrated (China), wage competition drops through the floor=slave labor? In other words Globalization is a misnomer. What we have now is a huge pool of slave labor supplying relatively inexpensive goods while also causing stagnant wages in all sectors. While the real costs of living, housing, insurances, healthcare and taxes become monopolized/socialized and continue to climb. My solution: Get as far away from mainstream economic systems as you can. Im talking off grid, mobile dwelling because this is not sustainable.

[@juliegrimme]

Why has globilization failed? good question.

[@chetanasin9150]

Thanks

[@dudsonduperier7121]

very good

[@amanpandey7427]

Reason why it failed.. Economic globalisation outpaced political globalisation

[@amanpandey7427]

Cow in Europe gets a subsidy of 2 dollars a day

[@ngatileprechaun]

"All countries with free open markets, democracy and good education/health for all have all got richer." Ok, name them all. Lets see how long your list is, and lets see if Stiglitz isjust "making things up".

[@amanpandey7427]

Fruit flies or Hoover's disease in Mexico and Brazil

[@amanpandey7427]

In avocado and cows

[@amanpandey7427]

Phytosanitary conditions used as non tariff barriers

[@reachforacreech]

wait wast greed the best thing in the world.lets all be super greedy people.its the path of the enlightened.

[@BigHenFor]

reachforacreech Greedy for what? More stuff? Or more harm to the environment? More profits for corporations? Or for the general welfare?

[@boris3866]

Unitek Steaks

[@MisterKorihor]

When I look at GDP per capita over the last 50 years, I see tremendous growth for most poor countries. I don't understand what Stiglitz is talking about.

[@sidsid5442]

@MisterKoriho GDP and the so called growth does not necessarily reflect in the lives of the people as we claim. Please take note.

[@amanpandey7427]

That's why NAFTA failed.. Mexico corn farmers got poorer

[@LaureanoLuna]

Let me see if I get it: the US should not subsidize farmers because it happens at the cost of taxpayers but Mexico should subsidize or protect farmers even if this makes food more expensive for urban workers. There is only one logic to this: racism against first world producers. This would explain as well why he seems so little cocerned by the fate of workers crushed in the West by immigration, relocation and social dumping imports.

[@ngatileprechaun]

Maybe you need to try debating him on it.. see how long you last. lol

[@juliegrimme]

Don't you ever get angry?

[@gonza_2094]

steaks

[@williamusher]

So strange how people can sound so convincing yet be so wrong. I experience this a lot of life. When someone starts stating that social security is a good thing then you know it's time to switch off.

[@saneblane]

So social security is not good? Why would you say that?

[@williamusher]

K Mat Look up Thomas Sowell and welfare system on Google and watch some videos

[@cathyschneider2126]

K Mat: He's either a troll or gets his economic data from a fake news source. No point in debating him.

[@williamusher]

Cathy Schneider Fake news, aka reality. Why don't you actually look up the source that I gave you.... Thomas Sowell. Or Milton Friedman, plus many more respected economists. Some life experience would also be useful. I recommend living in some shitty ghetto areas in various countries, that way you can formulate an opinion based on something more than academia.

[@hansgeboers7932]

It is a good thing indeed. Except for the 1%

[@michaelstenford303]

This guy makes unfounded assertions like (1) trade barriers have caused poverty in the developing world. This is an arrogant and uninformed. He then uses this to support everything else he postulates. A primary root cause of developing world country poverty is population growth. Listen to him. He invents what he says. All economic theory relies on growth. But that is growth in demand that is driven as much by population growth as it is by the voodoo he calls economic growth. He says it's a bad idea to put 30% tariff on Chinese solar cells. But this is an idiotic comment. The price of solar cells has been collapsing for years as the technology improves. he is totally biased. He thinks China should supply the whole world's solar cells? What about the disadvantages of that strategy?

[@soapbxprod]

This guy is a Socialist. He's married to Anya Schiffrin, daughter of Andre Schiffrin, founder of Pantheon Books. Anya and I went to Fieldston and Reed College together. Both of them are well installed at Columbia University. He completely screwed up the IMF and the World Bank, then resigned and retreated back into academia. I so wish that Hayek and Friedman were alive to refute his assertions... Globalization has benefited a "few countries" in the world? India? China? That's billions of individuals. Remember what India and China were like under centrally planned economies? India wallowed in poverty, China starved to death in the tens of millions.

[@alliinkorea]

If you actually have read any of his books you wouldn't call him a socialist. He argues for a hybrid model, Asian model if you wish, of development that combines synergy of market with government intervention in essential sectors that cannot be left to the fate of free market, like education, banking, social security. This is more similar to Keynsian school of thinking where government's role is to compensate for market failres. Friedman's ideas on the other hand are not shared in development scholars community, because they are based on numerous misconceptions about development that have long been disproved and yet somehow these ideas dominate the mainstream discourse, for instance the hypothesis that mere access to technology and global markets would lead to growth, or trickle down theory. Regarding your China and India argument, Stiglitz presents extensive evidence on per capita growth rates before and after adopting liberal model in Africa and Latin America, and the data shows how growth rates slowed down, whereas China and India deviated in many ways from these widely recommended policies and lifted millions out of poverty.

[@soapbxprod]

Aliona Yermakova Absurd. Not worth a reply. Look at Chile. Look at the guy's record, even on Wikipedia. He has no clue how to run a business, let alone the World Bank. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stiglitz I don't buy the premise of the Shapiro-Stiglitz model one bit. He presided at the CEA under Clinton over NAFTA and the "Financial Services Modernization Act"... He was run out of the World Bank.

[@BaneTrogdor]

Are you that stupid ? Or you just playing stupid ?? Globalisation helped INDIVIDUALS in that countries , not the people ! Rich becomes richer , and poor becomes more poor , that is the real result of globalisation...

[@soapbxprod]

Bane Trogdor "The People"? Show me "The People". Point "The People" out to me. You're a Communist, aren't you? A collectivist parasite living not by your own skills and talents and efforts, but by those of others. And you want to coerce those others to give you the fruits of their labor at the point of a gun. I grew up with Communists- my Great Uncle was Herbert Biberman- and I will tell you that he was a self-righteous collectivist, a Stalinist "useful idiot", as Lenin would have said. Here he is in front of HUAC in 1947: Herbert Biberman HUAC Testimony Excerpt, 1947

[@soapbxprod]

Aliona Yermakova "development that combines synergy of market with government intervention in essential sectors that cannot be left to the fate of free market, like education, banking, social security." Really? Look at public education in the US. A Government monopoly producing an inferior product at an inflated cost, that benefits only a select few- namely the bureaucracy. Banking? The FED is a PRIVATE bank. Social Security? Look at the Chilean model- private retirement accounts. Look at the results- tons of capital flowing into banks, available for loans to businesses, which then create products and jobs. China and India? Are you kidding? Watch this: COMMANDING HEIGHTS P1 THE BATTLE OF IDEAS COMMANDING HEIGHTS P2 THE AGONY OF REFORM COMMANDING HEIGHTS P3 NEW RULES OF THE GAME Stop drinking the collectivist Kool-Aid.

[@henk4165]

This person talks to much. Just say it the rich country became greedy.Greed .America is the problem.

[@EternalHorus]

Stiglitz has a really second-rate intellect, huh. There are so many obvious objections to every argument he makes and he shows no signs of having considered them. He's a court economist and his main function is to support the state in its interventions. Lame

[@BigHenFor]

Horus Lame? Not as much as your as hominem attack on an intellect that puts yours in the shade. If you can't detail your objections by citing counter-arguments, you are wasting your time here. Go back to the nursery.

[@Rob-fx2dw]

Stiglitz has demostrated his failed logic for all to see. His assertion that glogabization has failed is plain stupidity of reasoning which is not based on economic principles. The fact that when one speaks of countries one only is really speaking of groups of pepple located in diffrent parts of the world then why wouldn't his logic equally apply to regions within those countries. And furthermore why not between cities and suburbs. Of course even he would not argue against applying the reasoning between suburbs but that proves the fallacy of his reasoning. His assertion that hundreds of thousands are united aginst it is interesting. Does he think that is significant given the billions of of people who are involved in purchasing or supplying goods worldwide when they have on option of not doing so. The statement is a perfect illustralion of his twisted thinking.

[@Rob-fx2dw]

Malcolm Ewan I guess you are by judging a person's logic on a spelling caused by a keystroke error. Your comment seems to suggest you would be a person who argues more on the lookout's pronunciation of the word 'Iceberg' while you were steering the Titanic straight into a huge iceberg straight ahead.

[@waverunnerMN]

Rob Mews Sure worked for Greece...lmao therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=13914

[@adelatorremothelet]

Rob Mews Because countries have borders and are subjected to economic policy : tariffs, taxes, currency , currency control , exchange rates, none of these factors happen within states or municipalities.

[@Rob-fx2dw]

adelatorremothelet That means the logic he is using is a failed logic. One has to ask why he is concerned about globalization when it is only a bigger version of what happened between states many years ago. Yes, in most countries of Europe and elsewhere states used to have tariffs and taxes, and other restrictions at their borders and the same things Stiglitz says were said about them. Does anyone think that there was a failure caused by the break down of those borders? If so it can't be Stiglitz since he is advocating bigger centralist government but can't make the mental jump to include the breakdown of borders between countries. This fact is all part of his failed logic.

[@adelatorremothelet]

Rob Mews I am telling you "why wouldn't his logic equally apply to regions within those countries.". So no, Stiglitz is quite right and he has studied exactly what China did correctly and what Mexico did incorrectly ( basically follow the Washington concensus). And I am sory we have to pester US citizens with millions of immigrants, had the Washington Concensus worked this would not be an issue at all. Stiglitz is not telling globalization doesn't work, he is just asking the pertinent questions to discover what has to be done to make globalization work.

[@ilsewhere]

Recommend watching this at 1.25 speed, safes a LOT of time!

[@guillermomignini]

thank you

[@ramiroguerrero5919]

You'r the real MVP.

[@inesfaria7308]

Thank you!

[@Mirghanii]

Thank you.

[@itloads]

tbh 1.75 is even better.

[@picovax]

Hi. Years ago I ve bought a magazin Le Nouvel Observateur and this DVD was with the mag.

[@paulvandijck6476]

I am a blue collar worker, but when I listen to this learned Noble Prize winner for economics, I wonder what is taught at universities, what all those "brainy" people have learnt at the highest educational institutions? Either the educational system is failing, or man is just a violent, greedy predator. So, how beautiful and how rational a theory may be, man is per definition an irrational animal!

[@GEMINICT]

or rather man is just naturally a greedy animal.

[@paulvandijck6476]

Richard Knight - I think you are right!

[@krusebanan270]

Very interesting perspective on globalization. It is not so much the free market that creates problems but the lack of control over the international free market. World policies can not be conducted on the terms of MNC's and national interests. I would think we are in need of new int. laws and int. institutiosn to promote the interest of the people in the world, in order to disperse wealth and create more equality for everyone.

[@johnnyderboii]

Herr Sczekalla hat mal wieder hart reingeschissen

[@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.

[@MatthewRivers-Davis]

It's no surprise that firms will exploit the opportunities of globalisation faster than governments or the democratic process can regulate them for a wider societal advantage. Firms will allocate resources more efficiently - the effects of government control as seen with planned economies react far slower to the invisible hand of market forces - and now that monopoly transnationals can lobby and own political parties via funding, the problem is compounded. Market forces are instinctual and proactive while government control is reactive - same reason that a go slow marker on the road is only put there by the highways agencies after speeding accidents.

[@MrMauro113]

''it is better to be a cow in Europe than to be an average person in the developing world''

[@petonovy]

Sorry, I have to say that: people like Stiglitz (well educated in using tax payers money) just can't get it otherwise, only by the planning plus restrictions governments can do by using tax money they use to protect their ideas and punish anybody who disagree. Well paid from the same source he uses taxes for the game he plays. If you leave it on people alone, they will protect their interests much better then you artificial view from the top, only they need to use empathy which is missing here.

[@argenturatbek7874]

"It is better to be a cow in Europe than to be an average person in the developing world."

[@KadiNamamato]

It is better to be a cow in India

[@robpritchard2105]

so thought provoking , interesting and causing one to question

[@clarestucki5151]

Mostly nonsense. A high percentage of what I eat during the winter comes from Mexico and Central America. That benefits both me an them, right?

[@rodrigomartins9692]

Yes but how your country pay for it? What you sells to others? This is an important question.

[@alphaomega1089]

It is easier to tax large conglomerates than the poor soul toiling the land! That poor soul needs to toil for himself! There is no point in entering the global economic market! Cheap and plenty is how the consumer wants it! We the buyer don't owe you a living. Keep yourself safe and fed!

[@michm3640]

What have anti-environmentalists promoted?

[@lukagabrielhaeberle3202]

Buena pregunta amix

[@HyperIndian]

DOES ANYONE KNOW WHAT'S THE SOURCE OF THIS VIDEO?! what interview? when was it? etc etc

[@davidschlessinger9945]

very few people in poverty? I see poverty all around us. Homeless people, very poor urban and rural communities, wealth gap at an all time high. Some figures say around half of Americans are at or near poverty. So I don't understand how these economists are so blind

[@BigHenFor]

David Schlessinger Go to India or Bangladesh and then see real poverty. People living in sewage, no healthcare, no help, unless it's through charity. No labour laws, no unions. You don't work, you don't eat. Poverty in the USA is unnecessary but, your politics is so toxic and, the social classes are so alienated from one another, it is increasing. The USA needs meaningful change but your corporations are running the show and screw you and everybody else in the world. They love profit, not people. But it takes people to stop them.

[@rajeevgopinath6010]

Being Socialist is not a crime.Everybody is entitled to hold their views.But intolerance to views should be condemned.

[@ivandate9972]

.. any idea about live saving drugs availability in poor country , if let say globalization never happen ??

[@deborah3863]

ivan date They still wouldn't be able to afford them

[@Josie5100]

We need more equality for everyone

[@yonekuraryoko8274]

He is one of the best..

[@michaelstenford303]

He wants to promote consumption of Brazilian beef? The rain forest destruction and growth in beef production as the same problem. Globalisation allows this to happen. So he defends removing protectionist tariffs on importing the beef to the US without considering the devastating impact of this kind of global trade. He's an idiot.

[@jeanf6295]

Those 2% of farmers that benefit the most from subsidies are probably responsible for a similarly disproportionate share of the corn production of the USA for food and agro-fuel production, I'm not so sure this is a bad thing when it comes to productivity, though it does have some pretty bad social downsides as it messes up the way work is shared and thus the income distribution.

[@RUPESH161]

"It is better to be a cow in Europe than an average person in the developing countries." More than 40% of the world lives below $1.90 (WB poverty line).

[@michaelstenford303]

He characterizes the whole issue as corporate greed against humanity when there are other more fundamental issues at the root of the problem. If tariffs and protectionism existed the counterargument is that this would force all countries to adopt more holistically sustainable solutions. Since unsustainable development is causing the developing word's ecological devastation (due to population growth), there is room for this argument in the analysis of the problems he is talking about. But he never goes there.

[@jamesboulger8705]

Hrm, interesting. So Mexico and the USA both decided to agree out of mutual interest that the invisible fruit flies did not exist. Excellent compromise.

[@amanpandey7427]

Inflation growth and employment all necessary but the IMF forced the central banks to focus on just the inflation

[@rthc69]

Hits the nail on the head with the remarks on the disappointing growth of Latin American countries due to the Washington consensus policies

[@richardouvrier3078]

Asymmetric globalisation, Prof Stieglitz. I think it's the OctopusSquid class.

[@amanpandey7427]

Big farmers takeaway all the subsidy in the developed world and the sub Saharan farmers suffered

[@juliegrimme]

Well I know this. It's 2017 and Cheeto is President, time for answers. Analysis is kinda old.

[@richardouvrier3078]

Brilliant observation, Professor Joe, if you don't have ports, lowering tarrifs won't help.

[@bbohmfalk]

Can you tell me where to find the original source of this video? We'd like to use it for an online course in international economics, but I'd like to link to the original source to make sure the link is stable. Thanks!

[@AufBerghofNAM]

I REALLY DONT UNDERSTAND HOW IT IS NOT CLEAR THAT THERE WILL BE EXTERNALITIES FELT IN THE DEVELOPING WORLD...WTF?

[@olliemoore11]

great uploads but can you please please order these correctly in the title caption. Thanks.

[@juliegrimme]

All these words to say "a democratic deficit?" I must not need to be educated anymore.

[@alicescrochetcorner]

A lot of what Stiglitz is arguing is so one sided and is also incredibly repetitive.

[@coopsnz1]

Socialist & communist globally liars

[@amanpandey7427]

Tariff barriers reduced but non tariff barriers increased

[@amanpandey7427]

Trips led to high medicine generic disallowed

[@909jtscofield]

This is a segment from Where Is the World Going Mr. Stiglitz?

[@amanpandey7427]

How do we make globalisation work?

[@picovax]

By mistake

[@amanpandey7427]

Environmental crisis

[@tizian3548]

United Steaks

[@gwayne919]

Thank you, Joseph Stiglitz for the truth about what is apparently going on that is affecting so much in a bad way and why. Globalization and treaties such as the TPP would have decreased wages in America and lowered levels of living severely while transferring, even more, wealth upstairs as it has been commonly moved for quite a while.

[@manukawijesinghe9267]

Brilliant

[@nikitaduggal7844]

globalization

[@skreed101]

i feel like this is a really stupid question.. but what is the difference between FDI and capital flow? like isn't FDI a form of capital flow? :/

[@ChannelClosedDown]

sarah reed Capital flows can be from domestic firms. Whereas, FDI is only foreign investment by a firm outside the domestic market.

[@adelatorremothelet]

sarah reed FDI = Foreign Direct Investment. Investment made by a foreign company into another company based in another country. Very different from indirect investment like portfolio flows where the investment is made in equities listed in the stock exchange.