A Conversation on the Economy with Joe Stiglitz and Paul Krugman
Economy | Information | History | Online | Facts | World | Global | Money
What do you get when you put two of the most well known and most widely cited economists in the world, both Nobel laureates, on stage together? A healthy dose of economic reality. That's what happened Tuesday night at the Fashion Institute of Technology's Haft Auditorium in New York City at an INET-sponsored event featuring Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz in a "Conversation on the State of the Economy," moderated by INET Executive Director Rob Johnson.
Comments
-
Culture is a key driver of American economic drag...a lack of belief in any role for the state; therefore no cooperation between the state and the private sector; the absence of a comprehensive safety net....these things are normal in countries like Sweden, Germany and even NZ...and while we are all suffering under the ongoing global stagnation, we are doing better than others...
-
Scholas
-
Scholas
-
We're indeed doing fairly well in Sweden! And Stockholm in summer is unparalleled! ;)
-
Thank you for making these sorts of lectures available to the uneducated hoi polloi.
-
Socialists
-
S & K are not the most cited economists right now, at least in the academic world, Schleifer and Barro are more cited...
-
I think the reason why the social safety net is so hated by the far right now is because the demographics have changed in the country. The reflection isn't there anymore it's a whole new picture they don't like. That's why most Western European countries don't have that problem a predominately homogeneous population! It sure seems that way!
-
this. this. notes to come.
-
To say the deficit is not a problem is making a double standard, I would put all of my money on a sure bet with anyone that a deficit means everything to those who say so. When the same people are owed money for their services and the debtor does not pay what is required.
Over spending and failing to balance their books for purely political reasons (as politicians do)s putting aside a principle that is insisted on by government for all others. Howevermany who make an exception for just for one organisation which is run by politicians (government ). That shows the double standard in their argument. Where is the fairness and equality in that?
Or are you OK with that ?
And I anticipate the same people saying that it is different for government. Just remember I put he question to those as to when it becomes different for one organisation to run wild with continued deficit shortfalls when the same organisation requires all others to balance their budget or go into bankruptcy. -
At 42:10 Paul Krugman mentions another economist, I couldn't hear, which one he said?
-
So, given the (hypothetical) mechanisms of our "democracy", how can the (MAJORITY) bottom 99.5% of the people impose some "limits" on the accumulation of wealth (money, property, etc.) by the (MINORITY) top .5% of the people?! You Economists make a fat living, spouting your 'theories, but What/Where ARE the Real Solutions?!!!....Perhaps some kind of "Death Tax" limits to the amount of accumulated "Wealth" that can be passed on to one's heirs. You also mentioned the tax loopholes that exist, that these wealthy (SCUM) can used to dodge the hurdles that other people cannot. The Entire Tax code seems to be a series of stumbling blocks, and loopholes that favor the existing "Wealthy Class"! There needs to be a SUPER SIMPLE, and UNAVOIDABLE system of Taxing, and "Limiting" the Accumulation of Wealth!.....You Economists need to come up with some SOLUTIONS THAT WILL ACTUALLY WORK to Make it EASY to Gain Wealth (for the poorer majority of workers), yet plateau the accumulation for those who achieve "excessive wealth"!
-
Government spending is not equal. Government should spend into the private economy, not increase spending by increasing the size of government. We need spending on infrastructure, not bureaucracies.
But the largest problem is the process by which fiscal policy is allocated, which Prof. Krugman mentions several times. There is a disconnect between determining a prudent method of stimulus, and actually achieving this politically. =/ -
Nice, balanced forum - Two Left-Wing Jews: Krugman & Stiglitz. BTW way, FIT is a TAXPAYER-FUNDED institution (should not exist at all, since education is NOT a legitimate function of government) should, at the very least, have a "balanced forum." But when government is in charge you're never going to hear from the POV that government IS the problem - because it is NOT in their interest to tell the truth! The reason most people don't get this is because most people are "educated" in government schools!
-
From reading the comments here, the typical person will never accept Keynesian economics. Keynes' insights are too counter-intuitive. People would rather hear the silly goldbuggery and apocalyptic deficit stories of snake oil salesmen like Peter Schiff, which comports with how people balance their monthly checkbook and value their jewelry. They'll always be tools of the right.
-
Krugman and Stiglitz may be are the most important economists in the world right now...
-
At 20.00 Stiglitz says the problem is "lack of demand" What a fool. He doesn't even realise that demand and supply are only names for a an entity requiring goods and services from another entity supplying other goods and services with currency as an intermediary.
Ask yourself who is demanding what from whom in any transaction? Answer: One and each person is demanding something from another and at the same time supplying something else. So Mr Stiglitz on which side is there a lack?
I would gues if he has an answer the answer is 'the other' no doubt or the one supplying money maybe. But if you think about it in that case they only want money because it repesents good or services in a liquid form (money).
As for his rubbish about people at the top saving 15% (which I personally doubt very much is correct) and those at the bottom spending all they get so it reduces aggregate demand is also ill thought out. It ignores the fact that those who save accrue stored wealth (unspent income) which is invested in business to produce more goods and services or make loans available to those who want to borrow for consumption or investment. It doen't go into neverland.!! In summary Stiglitz has a very introverted and incomplete view of the basic economic realities of any transaction. He is very much a 19 century 'Mercantalist' in his views. -
Children, listen to the two sages before you post.
-
paul pleaese overcome yr pride and willful ignorance.
0m 0sLenght
780Rating