The Costs of Inequality: Joseph Stiglitz at TEDxColumbiaSIPA
Economy | Information | History | Online | Facts | World | Global | Money
Joseph Stiglitz is University Professor at Columbia University, the winner of the 2001 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics, and a lead author of the 1995 IPCC report, which shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. He is also the co-chair of Columbia's Committee on Global Thought. He was chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Clinton and chief economist and senior vice president of the World Bank from 1997-2000. Stiglitz received the John Bates Clark Medal, awarded to the American economist under 40 who has made the most significant contribution in the field. He is the author most recently of The Price of Inequality. In 2011, Time named him one of the world's 100 most influential people. In the spirit of ideas worth spreading, TEDx is a program of local, self-organized events that bring people together to share a TED-like experience. At a TEDx event, TEDTalks video and live speakers combine to spark deep discussion and connection in a small group. These local, self-organized events are branded TEDx, where x = independently organized TED event. The TED Conference provides general guidance for the TEDx program, but individual TEDx events are self-organized.* (*Subject to certain rules and regulations)
Comments
-
Big government is why economy , isn't growing
-
Is that all ?
-
Gaaary Indiana Gary Iiindiana Gaaaary
-
TED is also to blame for these problems. For instance Larry Smith's video (with over 3M views) promotes the worship of rent-seeking plutocrats.
-
Societies have a difficult task ahead, capitalism and just the evolution of our mentality indicates that we have little interest in what is to happens in other places or to others, let alone our future. Those who are looking at these sort of videos and have an interest in changing or allowing for change, have the responsibility over the other 90% who dedicate their time to gossip or sports news.
What I really believe is that change comes when people find a reason to make life for everyone better, a reason to study or to access education that is not to increase their own wealth or status in society. When these changes are met, can we have a conscious community and one that is ready to face the challenges that threaten our current way of life. -
I love Joe, but he's not a very good speaker.
-
Who gives a fuck about your house Tai? You say you read books. Ok then read "To have or to be?" and "The Sane Society" by Erich Fromm. You will never see the world, and your place in it, the same way again. Because all that you've said and all that you are saying is of little or no significance to the harsh realities Fromm refers to.
-
Over 100% of the productivity has gone to the top 1%. I think we know where the leak is.
-
What is the word he is saying? "rent-seeking" is that the term he is using?
-
Lmao!!!! I love Joseph Stiglitz and I've read and agree with his book "The Price of Inequality" but I can't stop laughing at how he pronounces "The Unitik Stakes."
Hahahha. -
as long as he do not propose any strategies to reach his dream...
he can talk as loud as he wanted to -
as long as he does not propose any strategies to reach his dream,
he can talk loud as long as he wanted to .... -
It's a shame that this video in two years, it has only had 31620 visualizations!
-
The poor need to be richer.
Socialism makes the poor poorer and those in power richer. -
Thanks Prof Stiglitz for speaking out. Capitalism, as it is, is unattainable where top 0.1% have more wealth than bottom 90%. Income inequality in this rate will destroy democracy where very few will have the power to pull strings behind the electoral process. In the long run, income inequality will lead to social unrest. Cut throat capitalism overall dis-serves 95% of the population and undermines democracy. Capitalism without a strong democracy is an autocracy of the elite. If we don't fix it soon, we are already heading that way.I will not be surprised if we have guillotine in Times Square in 20 years.
-
thank god for people like Joe who aren't afraid to speak out, and who don't seek the cosy trappings of being an apologist for their rent seeking masters as is the norm with economists.
-
Warren Buffet 'earned' $1.4 million an hour ON INTEREST in 2013
Wake Up America
Working 5 days a week for 40 years to pay off a debt on a banks computer screen is not Freedom -
"More than 100% of the gain has gone to the top 1%" .. OK Mr. Stiglitz
-
Like everything we read, hear, think, or see, this presentation cannot be explored in isolation. It is a primer to look into the entire issue of inequality. The presentation is only 16 minutes; as such, the most effective approach to encourage the audience to connect with the subject is to make it personal.
-
I have read a lot of books about finance and economics. Stiglitz plays to an audience by using his origins to prove a point. He puts across a situation and promotes the idea that his experience in a situation is the basis for improvement. That is a motivation but he ignores the facts that improvement is not made by looking though an emotional lens.
It is made by a factual and sometimes cold analysis of a situation. Not an isolated situation that may have occurred to what one has grown up with. That is a reactionist view which often impedes progross and understanding.
The reality of the great recession as he calls it is that a ot of money has been cahnneled into the banking system since governments though the Fed did it that way.
Government, in fact, destroyed people's wealth and reduced the size of the average persons wealth in the process. Government was the winner in comparison to individuals, most organisations and pension funds. The fact that some individuals gained is the result almost entirely of government actions and there is no incentive for governments to alter that.
The so called "rich " are the benefactors of governments' actions in the marketplace.
Yet he fails to point this out. He benefits his argument by ignoring this fact.
He also concludes incorrectly that all of the gain has gone to the top 1%. How can this be so when the government figures show the increase in wealth. He does this to play on people's envy and divert their feelings away from the facts.
He ignores the fact that 'trickle down' in effect is correct. But it does not necessarily work the way of the financial system. It works by technology trickling down.
Who would want finance to trickle down instead of technology ? I doubt if there is one person in the audience who would give up their computer and their i pad or cell phone or their air travel for the money or even double the money if they had to go back to the 1960's technology to do so. It has trickled down from Microsolt or AT &T or IBM or AMD or Apple, or Oracle or Ericsson or Samsung or a dozen others.
The other fallacy he puts across is Outcomes. The fact is outcomes alone are not proof of any particular policy or reason for it. Yet he promotes it.
It is government that protects banks from bankruptcy but that is not an excuse for relieving others of the responsibility.
It is a reason for making banks more responsible.
He talks about his book a lot !! He is really just promoting his book.
16m 12sLenght
376Rating