All you have to do to see that Stiglitz is right is look at the countries in Europe that are doing better than all the others. Germany for example, is weathering the crisis far better than most European countries. Why? Their average wage is very high, even by our standards, they have adequate taxation to fund a central government that facilitates close cooperation between their education system and industry, and they have a vast welfare state far beyond the wildest dreams of American progressives. The same is true of Sweden and Holland. The 3 countries in with the lowest unemployment rates in Europe. The other argument Stiglitz has made in other discussions is that the assertion that excessive govt. spending caused the crisis is fundamentally wrong. Spain and Ireland, whose economies are in dire straights, with unemployment near 25% and youth unemployment over 50% both had budget surpluses before the crisis.
When Feldmen says that in 'poor schools' (38:17) the best thing would be to have the schools put the kids through apprenticeships he is saying that kids of a certain class will never get the opportunity to rise in society so why bother giving them an education that would prepare them for it. Its a very Elitist view, shouldn't the poor get to study english litereture,are the poor not interested in anything intellectual? It seems to me that Feldmen its openly expressing his view that 'the masses' should just get on on with what they are supoosed to do and that is be good workers and don't even think about equality
the problem is most of the "poor schools" (I think you mean technical education) provide higher returns relative to time spent in the short term, something needed by the poor more than the rich.
As a person who have studied economics quite a bit the difference that strikes me between the two men is that Stiglitz when talking uses a lot of precise technical jargon while Feldstein uses very vague words and concepts. I don't see how anyone can think Feldstein has better analytical skills than Stiglitz. At least not by looking at this video only.
The credit squeeze-freeze-crunch was a market reaction to the collapse of Lehman Bothers, the uncertainty of the CDO's banks were still holding (clearly the ratings were useless), the uncertainty over losses incurred with swaps (they had gotten to a 36:1 ratio) that were over-the-counter products, the the Libor rate went through the ceiling. There was no way to measure risk- so, credit froze. Google: "St. Louis Fed Credit Crunch 2008" for Mizen's detailed report.
The economy should not be engineered by the state whether left or right. It would be best to leave it alone and let charities take care of the safety net.
Stiglitz did not win the debate, but Feldstein talked like the only problem is poverty and everything is allright. I prefer the way that Stiglitz sees the US economy.
"[ideological] non-factual" simply means you disagree. He has published a number of well-received books (including a couple of textbooks used nationally to teach Macroeconomics), advised the president, headed the world bank, teaches at Columbia, and was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Hacks do not get that far in life. Most hacks don't get much further than berating economists on YT with "info" from Beck and Hannity. Where do you teach? What books have you written?
If you want to read another economist attack Stiglitz and Krugman on both a personal and professional level go to New Economic Perspectives- "Rajan Calls Krugman Paranoid..." article by William Black. While there is a real debate, few answers, one can't but help feel that these leading economists are a bit childish.
1 percent, 5 percent or 10 percent that supposedly represents this fictitious elite that does not exist in these numbers. Statistical measure used to promote well off part of population that is represented by upper class people or those on relatively high incomes vis a vis the rest. A rather crafty tactic to endorse high earners on upper end of social scale.
While I do agree with many of the points that Stiglitz makes; I wish he was a more focused and lucid speaker. Another thing, the format of these types of debates seems to be practically designed to be non-productive.
Gotta love stiglitz, he's so razor sharp and to the point, and you'd find it hard to pick holes in any of his arguments. Feldstein is now just a senile old man who can be blamed for the predicament the US now finds itself in
I think there are problems in Feldstein's issues and solutions. Firstly, there is a lot of evidence that rent seeking and anti competitive and monopolistic practices exist in USA. Given the growing market share of certain companies, with less new startups and companies getting into Fortune 500 because of unfair practices, and, as Stiglitz said, that Microsoft (and many other companies) would be prosecuted under anti trust law speaks to issues with distorting the free market that many love. Secondly, as Stiglitz again said, by simply comparing data before the time the law was passed shows to what extent one can parse between the income personally and through a corporation. Next, the notion of using the Top Fortune 500 as a study to determine whether middle class folks can rise to the top is problematic, firstly because they have primarily come from finance, a profession that skews towards upper middle class, but also because many CEOs of such companies are quite old or at least over 45 (given the amount of experience needed for a big company to give you a position like that), the economic situation that would have put them in the kind of job with enough possibility of getting promotions more likely is of 25 -35 years ago. Remember, when the 80th percentile has a 7.5% chance of making it to the 20th percentile in their lifetime, surely one cannot use data of people who got jobs in a company or a high enough job in a company at best, 15 years ago (also, note, the top Fortune 500 companies aren't a representative sample always. A bigger sample is recommended). Also, his idea of education is problematic. The Common Core is a set of expectations, not a curriculum. Moreover, most teachers and education experts say it is fundamentally better than anything that was currently done. Moreover, his idea of vocational studies is interesting but also is incomplete. When one lives in a poor, segregated neighbourhood, is unable to get a job where unemployment opportunities are low, but crucially, when the skills he/she can acquire by age 18 only warrant a low paying job with little chance of promotion, one needs to do more than significantly revamp the education system. Stiglitz's ways, while perhaps not perfect, are much more comprehensive in dealing with issues from many angles. Finally, I must show my irritation with how Reagan gets credit for reviving an economy. There is evidence to say that the economy would slowly get better, especially helped with a good monetary policy. Coupled with how things got bad after Reagan left, it is still controversial whether he was great. I think his policies were good for the time (and I think he was a good president) but whether it is good now is different. Look, there's a reason both the most influential economists and the field as a whole tilt liberal. There's a reason the IMF releases reports questioning some underpinnings of neo liberalism. I think there are many advantages to free trade, globalization, and deregulation. But one needs to temper free market with sensible and structural govt interference to create a market that is freer for all kinds of innovation, and works for the poor, working and middle class. PS: A note on deregulation, which Feldman hinted at as an issue but didn't speak in clear detail always (Understandable, given the restriction of time and just how much Stiglitz talks). Deregulation is good, given what one tries to deregulate. I lament the polarization of politics in US simply because it means both sides are pushed further to extremes and avoid a more nuanced centrist stance. Progressives like regulation because of their anger at the right wing attempts to needlessly take down essential regulation on environment and energy, the financial sector and businesses with no substitute. republicans are angry since Democrats don't compromise too much to necessary, pointless regulation of businesses that has led to reduced investment that could have increased jobs and taking money abroad to avoid tax instead of reinvesting more back into R and D. We need more sensible thought by politicians on this front.
The economist is a very neo-liberal, pro free markets magazine. Stiglitz is a keynesian, which is in opposition to the economist's editorial stance and readership base. That explains why the dweeb in the middle is showing contempt for stiglitz and is favourable to feldstein. Stiglitz would have been well aware of this, though...
"Teachers want to teach English literature.. therefore they teach English literature, and that's not where the jobs are". Is wrong. Japan recently introduced Art into science curricula at all levels. Sci. students + sci-fi comix, playing with Leonardo etc. Significantly increases patents for all industries. Slurs against literature indicate denial & even the harm caused by failed paradigms. N. Europe is most equal, inclusive, populations, most unions too. watch?v=aVgU4RLQgkE
Okay, Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (also known as the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999) and the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 were both republican bills that created the problems. It doesn't matter to me which party was involved- one isn't better than the other. The rest of your stuff just seems to be rather useless 'bumber sticker' logos.
I am not sure what bumper sticker "tribalism" is nor why it is predictable. But, whatever. You seem to be more concerned with giving the finger to a political party than anything else. Something I don't care anything about. So, have at it...god's speed.
it's funny how you say that. I'd like to ask why you think you're qualified to say that? is there a reason you aren't an economist? perhaps he's not so stupid. maybe its the people judging him.
All you have to do to see that Stiglitz is right is look at the countries in Europe that are doing better than all the others. Germany for example, is weathering the crisis far better than most European countries. Why? Their average wage is very high, even by our standards, they have adequate taxation to fund a central government that facilitates close cooperation between their education system and industry, and they have a vast welfare state far beyond the wildest dreams of American progressives. The same is true of Sweden and Holland. The 3 countries in with the lowest unemployment rates in Europe. The other argument Stiglitz has made in other discussions is that the assertion that excessive govt. spending caused the crisis is fundamentally wrong. Spain and Ireland, whose economies are in dire straights, with unemployment near 25% and youth unemployment over 50% both had budget surpluses before the crisis.
Enlightening video for my burgeoning interest in economics. Thank you.
When Feldmen says that in 'poor schools' (38:17) the best thing would be to have the schools put the kids through apprenticeships he is saying that kids of a certain class will never get the opportunity to rise in society so why bother giving them an education that would prepare them for it. Its a very Elitist view, shouldn't the poor get to study english litereture,are the poor not interested in anything intellectual? It seems to me that Feldmen its openly expressing his view that 'the masses' should just get on on with what they are supoosed to do and that is be good workers and don't even think about equality
the problem is most of the "poor schools" (I think you mean technical education) provide higher returns relative to time spent in the short term, something needed by the poor more than the rich.
As a person who have studied economics quite a bit the difference that strikes me between the two men is that Stiglitz when talking uses a lot of precise technical jargon while Feldstein uses very vague words and concepts. I don't see how anyone can think Feldstein has better analytical skills than Stiglitz. At least not by looking at this video only.
The credit squeeze-freeze-crunch was a market reaction to the collapse of Lehman Bothers, the uncertainty of the CDO's banks were still holding (clearly the ratings were useless), the uncertainty over losses incurred with swaps (they had gotten to a 36:1 ratio) that were over-the-counter products, the the Libor rate went through the ceiling. There was no way to measure risk- so, credit froze. Google: "St. Louis Fed Credit Crunch 2008" for Mizen's detailed report.
Martin Feldstein is very calm compared to Joseph Stiglitz
The economy should not be engineered by the state whether left or right. It would be best to leave it alone and let charities take care of the safety net.
Stiglitz did not win the debate, but Feldstein talked like the only problem is poverty and everything is allright. I prefer the way that Stiglitz sees the US economy.
"[ideological] non-factual" simply means you disagree. He has published a number of well-received books (including a couple of textbooks used nationally to teach Macroeconomics), advised the president, headed the world bank, teaches at Columbia, and was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Hacks do not get that far in life. Most hacks don't get much further than berating economists on YT with "info" from Beck and Hannity. Where do you teach? What books have you written?
If you seem to understand the specific problems, whoy would you change your stance?
And then afterwards commending Joseph Stieglitz to view it as a good test case. Holy fuck.
Am I the only one who thinks Stiglitz looks so cuddly and cute? :Sigh:
Right!!!
If you want to read another economist attack Stiglitz and Krugman on both a personal and professional level go to New Economic Perspectives- "Rajan Calls Krugman Paranoid..." article by William Black. While there is a real debate, few answers, one can't but help feel that these leading economists are a bit childish.
ITS NOT WHAT U KNOW ITS WHO U KNOW THE MIDDLE CLASS IS BEING ERASED
1 percent, 5 percent or 10 percent that supposedly represents this fictitious elite that does not exist in these numbers. Statistical measure used to promote well off part of population that is represented by upper class people or those on relatively high incomes vis a vis the rest. A rather crafty tactic to endorse high earners on upper end of social scale.
While I do agree with many of the points that Stiglitz makes; I wish he was a more focused and lucid speaker. Another thing, the format of these types of debates seems to be practically designed to be non-productive.
Gotta love stiglitz, he's so razor sharp and to the point, and you'd find it hard to pick holes in any of his arguments.
Feldstein is now just a senile old man who can be blamed for the predicament the US now finds itself in
I think there are problems in Feldstein's issues and solutions. Firstly, there is a lot of evidence that rent seeking and anti competitive and monopolistic practices exist in USA. Given the growing market share of certain companies, with less new startups and companies getting into Fortune 500 because of unfair practices, and, as Stiglitz said, that Microsoft (and many other companies) would be prosecuted under anti trust law speaks to issues with distorting the free market that many love. Secondly, as Stiglitz again said, by simply comparing data before the time the law was passed shows to what extent one can parse between the income personally and through a corporation. Next, the notion of using the Top Fortune 500 as a study to determine whether middle class folks can rise to the top is problematic, firstly because they have primarily come from finance, a profession that skews towards upper middle class, but also because many CEOs of such companies are quite old or at least over 45 (given the amount of experience needed for a big company to give you a position like that), the economic situation that would have put them in the kind of job with enough possibility of getting promotions more likely is of 25 -35 years ago. Remember, when the 80th percentile has a 7.5% chance of making it to the 20th percentile in their lifetime, surely one cannot use data of people who got jobs in a company or a high enough job in a company at best, 15 years ago (also, note, the top Fortune 500 companies aren't a representative sample always. A bigger sample is recommended). Also, his idea of education is problematic. The Common Core is a set of expectations, not a curriculum. Moreover, most teachers and education experts say it is fundamentally better than anything that was currently done. Moreover, his idea of vocational studies is interesting but also is incomplete. When one lives in a poor, segregated neighbourhood, is unable to get a job where unemployment opportunities are low, but crucially, when the skills he/she can acquire by age 18 only warrant a low paying job with little chance of promotion, one needs to do more than significantly revamp the education system. Stiglitz's ways, while perhaps not perfect, are much more comprehensive in dealing with issues from many angles. Finally, I must show my irritation with how Reagan gets credit for reviving an economy. There is evidence to say that the economy would slowly get better, especially helped with a good monetary policy. Coupled with how things got bad after Reagan left, it is still controversial whether he was great. I think his policies were good for the time (and I think he was a good president) but whether it is good now is different.
Look, there's a reason both the most influential economists and the field as a whole tilt liberal. There's a reason the IMF releases reports questioning some underpinnings of neo liberalism. I think there are many advantages to free trade, globalization, and deregulation. But one needs to temper free market with sensible and structural govt interference to create a market that is freer for all kinds of innovation, and works for the poor, working and middle class.
PS: A note on deregulation, which Feldman hinted at as an issue but didn't speak in clear detail always (Understandable, given the restriction of time and just how much Stiglitz talks). Deregulation is good, given what one tries to deregulate. I lament the polarization of politics in US simply because it means both sides are pushed further to extremes and avoid a more nuanced centrist stance. Progressives like regulation because of their anger at the right wing attempts to needlessly take down essential regulation on environment and energy, the financial sector and businesses with no substitute. republicans are angry since Democrats don't compromise too much to necessary, pointless regulation of businesses that has led to reduced investment that could have increased jobs and taking money abroad to avoid tax instead of reinvesting more back into R and D. We need more sensible thought by politicians on this front.
The economist is a very neo-liberal, pro free markets magazine. Stiglitz is a keynesian, which is in opposition to the economist's editorial stance and readership base. That explains why the dweeb in the middle is showing contempt for stiglitz and is favourable to feldstein.
Stiglitz would have been well aware of this, though...
Okay.
Stiglitz: Lets look at the causes for inequality and address those.
Feldstein: I want to look exclusively at the symptom of poverty and solve that.
Stiglitz does desreve the contempt he is getting given his ideaological non-factual pro-left stance.
I don't care much about his supposed high public standing, but about the nonsense that comes from his mouth!
"Teachers want to teach English literature.. therefore they teach English literature, and that's not where the jobs are".
Is wrong.
Japan recently introduced Art into science curricula at all levels.
Sci. students + sci-fi comix, playing with Leonardo etc.
Significantly increases patents for all industries.
Slurs against literature indicate denial & even the harm caused by failed paradigms.
N. Europe is most equal, inclusive, populations, most unions too.
watch?v=aVgU4RLQgkE
Listen to the difference in the introductions this guy does for each of them. He's just rude.
Okay, Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (also known as the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999) and the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 were both republican bills that created the problems. It doesn't matter to me which party was involved- one isn't better than the other. The rest of your stuff just seems to be rather useless 'bumber sticker' logos.
US THE NEW THIRD WORLD COUNTRY
I am not sure what bumper sticker "tribalism" is nor why it is predictable. But, whatever. You seem to be more concerned with giving the finger to a political party than anything else. Something I don't care anything about. So, have at it...god's speed.
¡haha! and let the biologist lead the monetary policy? and why not? maybe clowns can rule the financial system.
it's funny how you say that. I'd like to ask why you think you're qualified to say that? is there a reason you aren't an economist? perhaps he's not so stupid. maybe its the people judging him.