I admire Robert Reich and Joseph Stiglitz for their commitment to identifying what just "rules of the game" would look life. Of course, globalization has exacerbated already deep systemic problems. The systems of law and taxation in every society differ by degree only in the extent to which monopoly privilege is secured and protected. Joseph Stiglitz has addressed this problem elsewhere, identifying the existence of laws that reward rent-seeking over the production of goods and services. It is true that the power of rentier elites around the globe accelerated once the programs of social democracy began to be dismantled or weakened in the early 1980s. However, it needs to be understood that rentier privilege has never been removed in any society, whether governments peacefully evolve or are brought into being by civil war. This was understood by the American political economist Henry George, elaborated on in his books beginning with the 1981 book "Our Land and Land Policy" and continuing on through his final book, "The Science of Political Economy," published in 1898 shortly after his death.
Brilliant convetsation and all points well placed with strict attention to what could benefit the masses as opposed to only benefiting those huge and already overly wealthy corporations! BTW this tax bill is horrendous. As is the administration allowing it to happen! The leaders of this country have shamed us all.
Thank's to this Fucking Ignorant dumb bell idiots American, and more the 1% make $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$, they are laughing their ASS off Bravo! America ! American seem have no concerned to be F.......D by the 1% . LOL
Corporations? The owners of them? Who says corporations are wealthy, most are struggling take Sears. Shareholders of corporations can be poor people. Hitler privatized corporations so he could hurt the people and have control over them. How is increasing the Standard deduction and allowing rich people to deduct local taxes shaming anyone? Professors salaries should be cut!
The liberty of man consists solely in this, that he obeys the laws of nature because he has himself recognized them as such, and not because they have been imposed upon him externally by any foreign will whatsoever, human or divine, collective or individual. Bakunin
Why is it that knowing what the acronym was, I said,” It will hurt American workers, it will hurt Mexican workers, I’m not sure about Canada, but I am AGAINST it on the first two counts!!”
Serious question though for you and Stiglitz. I am researching the comparative wealth of nations between economic sectors (households, corporations, government). Raymond Goldsmith done a book on comparative balance sheets back in the 80s. Do you know of any similar books that is up to date?
We speak of a community increasing its wealth. For instance, we say that England increased its wealth under Queen Victoria, or that California is wealthier than when it belonged to Mexico. By saying this, we do not mean there is more land or natural resources. We do not mean some people owe more debts to others. Nor do we mean there are more people. To express that idea, we speak of an increase in population - not wealth. What we really mean is there was an increase of certain tangible goods - things that have an actual, not merely a relative, value. We mean buildings, cattle, tools, machinery, agricultural and mineral products, manufactured goods, ships, wagons, furniture, and the like. More of such things is an increase in wealth; less of them is a decrease in wealth. We would say the community with the most of such things, in proportion to its population, is the wealthiest. What is the common characteristic of these things? They all consist of natural substances that have been adapted by human labor for human use. Wealth, then, may be defined as natural products that have been secured, moved, combined, separated, or in other ways modified by human exertion to fit them for the gratification of human desires. Their value depends on the amount of labor that, on average, would be required to produce things of like kind. In other words, it is labor impressed upon matter so as to store up the power of human labor to satisfy human desires, as the heat of the sun is stored in coal. Wealth is not the sole object of labor, for labor is also expended to directly satisfy human desires. Wealth is the result of what we may call productive labor - that is, labor that gives value to material things. Wealth does not include anything nature supplies without human labor. Yet the result of labor is not wealth unless it produces a tangible product that satisfies human desires. Capital is wealth devoted to a certain purpose. Therefore, nothing can be considered capital that does not fit within the definition of wealth.
I do not understand the economy. Can someone please explain to me? For example yesterday someone said the economy is doing good. I don't feel any change and I assume they mean the stock market. I guess I could be wrong. I know that inequality is here I understand that but don't understand the economy. Please educate me on this matter.
Don't be fooled by the political hacks. The left or right will always say the economy is doing good when they are in power, or bad when they are out of it. When these guy mean economy they usually mean GDP. Basically you mow your neighbors lawn and he mows your lawn and they are happy. The reality is the economy is good (for you) when you go to work and are happy with the pay and job. If there is a lot of unemployed they say it is a bad economy. But don't be fooled by statistics if you look at the labor force participation rate things don't look any different.
Thanks I love Bloomberg TV, but the magazine has great info but they always throw in a extreme left slant. I can't stand to watch CNN, MSNBC, more than 2 minutes before I get sick. I would rather watch RT.
The 'we didn't know', 'the text of the agreement was too long' (paraphrasing) arguments do not cut it for me. the consequences were too dire for too many.
Stiglitz The guy that said Trump doesnt understand market power. LOL Yea right. When Trump dont get the properties he wants he just uses rent seeking tactics and takes the properties by eminent domain. Stiglitz should know this. Since his work is mostly on rent seeking behavior. Hey Riech has Stiglitz read your book "Saving Inequality: For the Many Not the Few?"
Don't blame Canada for this, blame corporations and their henchmen. These rules went both ways. If Canada changed the laws for whatever reason, Canadian governments could be sued by US corporations too. Not sure either Canada or the US really benefited in any ways with NAFTA. Mexico...maybe.
One of the great economists of all time Henry George wrote a book on free trade, "Protection or Free Trade." Free trade only hurts the country that is oppressed by government (the democratic party).
I have had enough of free trade deals. Trade will continue without them. They only benefit corporations. Nations being able to put tariffs as needed is a good thing as far as I am concerned.
How is the tax payer the one that goes to work 10 hours a day without a union, the that pays the tax to these guys (works 4 hours a day at Berkeley for a 200K salary and a guy that hires protesters at Jackson Hole to keep low rates so students can take on cheap debt that is tax deductible (even if you take standard and even deductible towards Obamacare), the evil one. We don't need your help we need you working with the great employees at McDonalds. Detroit use to be the richest city in America before the unions came in. Mexico will be far better out without their help. 2008-2009 was caused by democrats, the lose lending policies and lowering if interest rates for political reasons by the fed. Please watchers don't be hurt and fooled by these charlatans. They write well and speak well as part of the con. Very simply end environmental and labors laws in the USA. We (every state) should have minimum wage free zones, so workers can become rich again.
This admits that Reich & Stiglitz were not intelligent enough to see the long term negative consequences. These 2 are 2nd rate thinkers.... but transparent enough to allow their naive shallowness to surface. Commend them for candor, but be skeptical of their pompous pontificating.
I'm sorry but I just see two guys justifying their own failures. Reich means well but is not rooted in reality. Stiglitz I don't trust at all. He certainly hasn't been any kind of voice for the downtrodden. He comes off as a pompous and disingenuous.
I admire Robert Reich and Joseph Stiglitz for their commitment to identifying what just "rules of the game" would look life. Of course, globalization has exacerbated already deep systemic problems. The systems of law and taxation in every society differ by degree only in the extent to which monopoly privilege is secured and protected.
Joseph Stiglitz has addressed this problem elsewhere, identifying the existence of laws that reward rent-seeking over the production of goods and services. It is true that the power of rentier elites around the globe accelerated once the programs of social democracy began to be dismantled or weakened in the early 1980s. However, it needs to be understood that rentier privilege has never been removed in any society, whether governments peacefully evolve or are brought into being by civil war.
This was understood by the American political economist Henry George, elaborated on in his books beginning with the 1981 book "Our Land and Land Policy" and continuing on through his final book, "The Science of Political Economy," published in 1898 shortly after his death.
Thanks Mr. Reich .... love hearing intelligent conversation.
300 million SHOULD be watching...
I would love to see this interview re-done after the pandemic with a bit of focus on supply chains.
Thank you both, I've added that book to my Amazon wish list...very informative!
Not only is the conversation, an absolute delight... but the video also gave me my new reading list ;)
Thank you for providing clarity on the consequences of global corporate political influence in the global trade deals negotiated by/with the USA.
Ross Perot warned us about both the Corporate Parties & NAFTA back in 1992. , well we are here & now.
He is an idiot free trade helps the people.
If we are not prepared to accept the wise counsel of great minds such as these, we are lost.
Brilliant convetsation and all points well placed with strict attention to what could benefit the masses as opposed to only benefiting those huge and already overly wealthy corporations! BTW this tax bill is horrendous. As is the administration allowing it to happen! The leaders of this country have shamed us all.
Thank's to this Fucking Ignorant dumb bell idiots American, and more the 1% make $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$, they are laughing their ASS off Bravo! America ! American seem have no concerned to be F.......D by the 1% . LOL
Corporations? The owners of them? Who says corporations are wealthy, most are struggling take Sears. Shareholders of corporations can be poor people. Hitler privatized corporations so he could hurt the people and have control over them. How is increasing the Standard deduction and allowing rich people to deduct local taxes shaming anyone? Professors salaries should be cut!
The liberty of man consists solely in this, that he obeys the laws of nature because he has himself recognized them as such, and not because they have been imposed upon him externally by any foreign will whatsoever, human or divine, collective or individual.
Bakunin
Hope the country does not collapse under its own weight,because of corporate greed.
Why is it that knowing what the acronym was, I said,” It will hurt American workers, it will hurt Mexican workers, I’m not sure about Canada, but I am AGAINST it on the first two counts!!”
It takes all of us to govern ourselves.
Serious question though for you and Stiglitz. I am researching the comparative wealth of nations between economic sectors (households, corporations, government). Raymond Goldsmith done a book on comparative balance sheets back in the 80s. Do you know of any similar books that is up to date?
We speak of a community increasing its wealth. For instance, we say that England increased its wealth under Queen Victoria, or that California is wealthier than when it belonged to Mexico. By saying this, we do not mean there is more land or natural resources. We do not mean some people owe more debts to others. Nor do we mean there are more people. To express that idea, we speak of an increase in population - not wealth.
What we really mean is there was an increase of certain tangible goods - things that have an actual, not merely a relative, value. We mean buildings, cattle, tools, machinery, agricultural and mineral products, manufactured goods, ships, wagons, furniture, and the like. More of such things is an increase in wealth; less of them is a decrease in wealth. We would say the community with the most of such things, in proportion to its population, is the wealthiest.
What is the common characteristic of these things? They all consist of natural substances that have been adapted by human labor for human use. Wealth, then, may be defined as natural products that have been secured, moved, combined, separated, or in other ways modified by human exertion to fit them for the gratification of human desires. Their value depends on the amount of labor that, on average, would be required to produce things of like kind. In other words, it is labor impressed upon matter so as to store up the power of human labor to satisfy human desires, as the heat of the sun is stored in coal.
Wealth is not the sole object of labor, for labor is also expended to directly satisfy human desires. Wealth is the result of what we may call productive labor - that is, labor that gives value to material things. Wealth does not include anything nature supplies without human labor. Yet the result of labor is not wealth unless it produces a tangible product that satisfies human desires.
Capital is wealth devoted to a certain purpose. Therefore, nothing can be considered capital that does not fit within the definition of wealth.
Henrgy George Chap 2 Defining terms
I do not understand the economy. Can someone please explain to me? For example yesterday someone said the economy is doing good. I don't feel any change and I assume they mean the stock market. I guess I could be wrong. I know that inequality is here I understand that but don't understand the economy. Please educate me on this matter.
Don't be fooled by the political hacks. The left or right will always say the economy is doing good when they are in power, or bad when they are out of it. When these guy mean economy they usually mean GDP. Basically you mow your neighbors lawn and he mows your lawn and they are happy. The reality is the economy is good (for you) when you go to work and are happy with the pay and job. If there is a lot of unemployed they say it is a bad economy. But don't be fooled by statistics if you look at the labor force participation rate things don't look any different.
The best channel I watch to understand the full scope of the economy, Bloomberg Television and they're radio stations do the best
Thanks I love Bloomberg TV, but the magazine has great info but they always throw in a extreme left slant. I can't stand to watch CNN, MSNBC, more than 2 minutes before I get sick. I would rather watch RT.
what about the problem , consumers buying overseas because local business costs a high duh
dude....globalisation means exactly that....
The 'we didn't know', 'the text of the agreement was too long' (paraphrasing) arguments do not cut it for me. the consequences were too dire for too many.
Stiglitz The guy that said Trump doesnt understand market power. LOL Yea right. When Trump dont get the properties he wants he just uses rent seeking tactics and takes the properties by eminent domain. Stiglitz should know this. Since his work is mostly on rent seeking behavior. Hey Riech has Stiglitz read your book "Saving Inequality: For the Many Not the Few?"
Don't blame Canada for this, blame corporations and their henchmen. These rules went both ways. If Canada changed the laws for whatever reason, Canadian governments could be sued by US corporations too. Not sure either Canada or the US really benefited in any ways with NAFTA. Mexico...maybe.
One of the great economists of all time Henry George wrote a book on free trade, "Protection or Free Trade." Free trade only hurts the country that is oppressed by government (the democratic party).
Thanks Inequality Media Civic Action.:) "...Big big big question of power...Who has the power to make the rules?":D
I see Stiglitz mostly on Democracy now and in academic forums. His message may not fit the mainstream media discourse.
shareholders putting more ,money in a company , why profits up . But I know small business profits are down
trade deals are toxic --you tube this--What is an Investor-State Dispute Settlement clause?
Global Agenda?!?
Global Agenda?!?...
WE DON'T NEED NO STINKIN GLOBAL AGENDA!!!
Global Governance?!?
Global Governance!?!
I have had enough of free trade deals. Trade will continue without them. They only benefit corporations. Nations being able to put tariffs as needed is a good thing as far as I am concerned.
Trade helps the people, and the poorest people the most.
Tariffs were the original source of revenue, before the income tax. It is not a bad way to collect revenues.
Tax the things you hate and you will have less of them.
I am not against trade...just free trade deals.
Robert Reich for president. Imagine the new generation of Fireside Chats.
How is the tax payer the one that goes to work 10 hours a day without a union, the that pays the tax to these guys (works 4 hours a day at Berkeley for a 200K salary and a guy that hires protesters at Jackson Hole to keep low rates so students can take on cheap debt that is tax deductible (even if you take standard and even deductible towards Obamacare), the evil one. We don't need your help we need you working with the great employees at McDonalds. Detroit use to be the richest city in America before the unions came in. Mexico will be far better out without their help. 2008-2009 was caused by democrats, the lose lending policies and lowering if interest rates for political reasons by the fed. Please watchers don't be hurt and fooled by these charlatans. They write well and speak well as part of the con. Very simply end environmental and labors laws in the USA. We (every state) should have minimum wage free zones, so workers can become rich again.
pirucreek minimum wage free zones so workers can become rich again? R U serious?
global governance!?!
global governance!?!
WE DON'T NEED NO STINKIN
GLOBAL GOVERNANCE!!!!!
subed
This admits that Reich & Stiglitz were not intelligent enough to see the long term negative consequences. These 2 are 2nd rate thinkers.... but transparent enough to allow their naive shallowness to surface. Commend them for candor, but be skeptical of their pompous pontificating.
Dimwits playing Monday Morning Quarterback! At our expense!!
I'm sorry but I just see two guys justifying their own failures. Reich means well but is not rooted in reality. Stiglitz I don't trust at all. He certainly hasn't been any kind of voice for the downtrodden. He comes off as a pompous and disingenuous.
you obviously got no clue.....sad....
Obama was GW Bush 2.0