Thank you for this broad ranging discussion from two intellectual giants. We owe Malcolm Turnbull a great vote of thanks for his decision to try and help us. The current Liberal Party is a disgrace and we are much poorer as a result.
Although academic, Stiglitz is correct: "opportunity set" is a prerequisite for individual freedom. But this is true for any agent in a resource-constrained environment, even microorganisms! It does not advance economic theory for modern society. Modern economies should be founded on the safety-net to mitigate the cruelty of misfortune. And to sustain this safety-net there needs to be the freedom for individuals to pursue new economic surpluses. The conflict is whether the rewards of the surplus be kept privately vs. the reinvestment of the surplus into progressing the safety-net to enable the next frontier. Neo-liberalism prescribes resolving this conflict in favor of the individual. And the impact of Reagan's neo-liberal economics is clear: the safety-net has receded. The middle-class is shrinking. Wealth and power are concentrated in the hands of elite individuals and families. The next-generation will be worse off than their parents. America's post-war leadership lifted not only the welfare of its people but all of humankind. Will you recapture your courage or shrink into the cowardice of individual profit?
More like protection money, where bad things might happen if it isn't paid, like what's happened to former Australian prime ministers and other US "allies."
Mountain of money in A trough, snouts in there already (Costeloes fees) with delivery date questionable but no end date. When will such A bad deal ever end?
Was Hayek wrong? Or did his warnings prevent their eventuating? It is the curse of the economist: that the thing worse than being wrong, is actually being proven right.
Sailboats can be very high tech, and competitive for Sports. Submarines of whatever propulsion type are only a bit more advanced, but not sporting... Time to teach old Seadogs new tricks.
This is an Australian podcast in front of an Australian studio audience. When you are learning from another culture, it’s best to either do a bit of homework to try to understand the context or just let the things you don’t understand go.
@@darrenkoch1718 There are plenty of Australians who don't understand or recognise the references made. Not sure your assumption is founded at this point?
@@space.youtube Really!? That Turnbull was a corporate lawyer and he was mocking lawyers? That Turnbull was “Sacked” by his own parliamentary colleagues? Ok… If you’re an Australian who doesn’t know this, a quick wiki search can fill you in. The op claimed that because he didn’t understand the humour, it was reasonable to discount the information presented. A person’s ignorance does not invalidate the information presented to them.
@@darrenkoch1718You understand there are plenty of normies who'd consider the humour a bit niche or "inside politics", right?. I don't profess to know what others know, especially when they're telling me they don't. And when in doubt I'll ask instead of assuming their unfamiliarity with a topic is the consequence of being a foreigner. I suggest OP's enthusiasm for throwing out the baby with the bath water is more indicative of a lack of intellectual curiosity than foreign nationality. Not every Australian pays attention to australian politics, and there are plenty of people who do that are not australian.
Thank you for this broad ranging discussion from two intellectual giants. We owe Malcolm Turnbull a great vote of thanks for his decision to try and help us. The current Liberal Party is a disgrace and we are much poorer as a result.
Great discussion. Thank you
Although academic, Stiglitz is correct: "opportunity set" is a prerequisite for individual freedom. But this is true for any agent in a resource-constrained environment, even microorganisms! It does not advance economic theory for modern society. Modern economies should be founded on the safety-net to mitigate the cruelty of misfortune. And to sustain this safety-net there needs to be the freedom for individuals to pursue new economic surpluses. The conflict is whether the rewards of the surplus be kept privately vs. the reinvestment of the surplus into progressing the safety-net to enable the next frontier. Neo-liberalism prescribes resolving this conflict in favor of the individual.
And the impact of Reagan's neo-liberal economics is clear: the safety-net has receded. The middle-class is shrinking. Wealth and power are concentrated in the hands of elite individuals and families. The next-generation will be worse off than their parents.
America's post-war leadership lifted not only the welfare of its people but all of humankind. Will you recapture your courage or shrink into the cowardice of individual profit?
Australia is paying tribute to USA now. $368M tribute.
More like protection money, where bad things might happen if it isn't paid, like what's happened to former Australian prime ministers and other US "allies."
And the rest.
Mountain of money in A trough, snouts in there already (Costeloes fees) with delivery date questionable but no end date. When will such A bad deal ever end?
Was Hayek wrong? Or did his warnings prevent their eventuating? It is the curse of the economist: that the thing worse than being wrong, is actually being proven right.
Gallows on the White House forecourt is A historical event
Sailboats can be very high tech, and competitive for Sports.
Submarines of whatever propulsion type are only a bit more advanced, but not sporting...
Time to teach old Seadogs new tricks.
Malcolm was wrong on one point. When Julia was PM sovereignty was also eroded.
What are all the giggles about? Confusing implication of insider jokes, can't take the talk at all seriously.
This is an Australian podcast in front of an Australian studio audience. When you are learning from another culture, it’s best to either do a bit of homework to try to understand the context or just let the things you don’t understand go.
@@darrenkoch1718 There are plenty of Australians who don't understand or recognise the references made. Not sure your assumption is founded at this point?
"...can't take the talk at all seriously." ???
Why, because you didn't understand a few quips? What a strange reaction.
@@space.youtube Really!? That Turnbull was a corporate lawyer and he was mocking lawyers? That Turnbull was “Sacked” by his own parliamentary colleagues? Ok… If you’re an Australian who doesn’t know this, a quick wiki search can fill you in. The op claimed that because he didn’t understand the humour, it was reasonable to discount the information presented. A person’s ignorance does not invalidate the information presented to them.
@@darrenkoch1718You understand there are plenty of normies who'd consider the humour a bit niche or "inside politics", right?.
I don't profess to know what others know, especially when they're telling me they don't. And when in doubt I'll ask instead of assuming their unfamiliarity with a topic is the consequence of being a foreigner.
I suggest OP's enthusiasm for throwing out the baby with the bath water is more indicative of a lack of intellectual curiosity than foreign nationality. Not every Australian pays attention to australian politics, and there are plenty of people who do that are not australian.