This guy being an advisor for the Democrats and World Bank comes as no surprise. Two organisations that have been damaging to economic growth and promoters of authoritarian politics. Blaming Thatcher and Reagan for the damage done by his own anti-human ideologies is laughable.
The promotion of a communist country that has active concentration camps is incredibly preposterous in the context of this discussion. when he started complementing China… yikes
@@GhostedTransmission Really? Do you remember the lockdowns? Nothing to do with airborne viral spread - everyone knows that - but everything to do with population control (effective concentration camps) promoted by unelected international bodies like C40 cities, the UN Agenda2030 and the WHO's attempted new health laws aiming to identify anything they like as a 'danger' and lock the world down. As you say, 'Yikes!'
Very good. Love Kate - she is very quick. As distinguished as Mr. Stiglitz is, I'm not sure he was quite expecting such a powerful and informed interlocutor. Thanks for doing this!
25:00 Jesus, he sees Libertarianism as bad in the same way as Communism as in inhuman. Hes making out that Libertarianism is Authoritarian. Thats nuts.
Well most people who claim they are Libertarians are just covering up their innate authoritarianism. So it's kinda halfway the case. Pure Libertarianism barely exists these days. People are too brainwashed to manage it.
Agreed. "Trickle Down Economics" is a straw man. It was a term invented by the fireside social commentator and vaudeville cowboy, Will Rogers. It was his homespun way of explaining away the motives of industrialists. But he was wrong - why wouldn't he be? He was an entertainer, not an economist. So why all these socialism apologists with letters after their names and economics Nobel prizes keep talking about it is beyond me. Only it isn't. I know why they use this cowboy's straw man: it is so their own controllist instincts and desires are never scrutinised. He wants to be the guy who operates the traffic lights, telling you when, where and on what you can spend your own money. I can tell you too: on taxes, now!
Indeed. Fascism is the v least of our troubles. It’s a distraction, whilst far, far more pressing aggressive beliefs are not only on the doorstep, they are in our house already.
There is no economic theory called "trickle down economics". That term was a satire created by American humorist, Will Rogers, in the 1930s based on statements and misguided beliefs of Herbert Hoover.
'Scandinavia' while being lumped together is very different as Kate pointed out rightly. Norwegian state-led, oil-fueled economy and Swedish market economy are really different, and you can't make a case across them.
Also the Scandi countries are now quite red in capitalist tooth and claw... They're not the warm socialist havens from the 1970s as remembered. They've learnt their lessons basically.
O man o man! Here is a comment from "Poster-boy-country": The management of the riches from oil and gas has been very good,we have put it in a fund for future generations. So mostly,seen from abroad, Norway has managed far better than most nation rich from natural resources . A warm hug from across the North Sea! 🇧🇻😎😎🇧🇻
@@larstveiten4164 and I applaud the way you did the managment, one of the best examples of not sucumbing to the Dutch disease. My point is Norway is not as statist as Stiglitz contends and other point is most other countries dont have massive oil reserves to create a welfare state.
@@DailyCorvid I dunno, you'd need to have some big cojones to so brazenly transfer that amount of public money into your swiss bank account... Million dollar houses for the homeless for San Fransisco; rooms at the Waldorf Hotel for illegal immigrants in NYC; £3 billion from the UK Parliament to big pharma for covid vaccines...
Congratulations to the Spectator for stepping out of their bubble and interviewing someone they disagree with. This was a truly fascinating conversation.
The whole premise that government has shrunk over the last 40 years is completely false and contrary to the reality that the state's share of national wealth has never been higher across the developed world
He's right about some degree of coercion being required for a successful country/economy - I'm utterly sick of being able to do and say exactly what I want in the UK, we desperately need a few laws to reduce the almost anarchic freedom that we're currently cursed with.
Interesting interview. I worry about what his "inclusive" society enforced by government action entails. It is divisive enough already with the Equality Act.
This is just the type of clown that would characterise your worry as some kind of hate speech & exactly the kind person we need to keep away from the levers of power.
"It was Thomas Edison who brought us electricity, not the Sierra Club. It was the Wright brothers who got us off the ground, not the Federal Aviation Administration. It was Henry Ford who ended the isolation of millions of Americans by making the automobile affordable, not Ralph Nader. Those who have helped the poor the most have not been those who have gone around loudly expressing 'compassion' for the poor, but those who found ways to make industry more productive and distribution more efficient, so that the poor of today can afford things that the affluent of yesterday could only dream about." Thomas Sowell
This guy is criminal. Such like him want socialism for everyone exept themselves. All these profesors, journalists, intelectuals led socialist revolutions. And were destroyed first. Why doesn't he live in his dream country like Venesuela, N Korea, Cuba, China.
@@DailyCorvid I don’t think there was any Fascism before Mussolini. It was a new, historically contingent phenomenon. Umberto Eco claims there’s something called “ur-Fascism” which has always been with us. He does this so that he can claim that all forms of social conservatism are effectively Fascist and therefore bad. If you follow the logic of Eco’s argument, he’s claiming that the only non-Fascist right wing ideology is actually the neoliberal, anti-tradition, Ayn Rand sort that just believes in markets and personal autonomy - the very sort Stiglitz thinks leads to Fascism. But that argument has many problems. For one thing it really doesn’t help to describe every pre-modern traditionalist as a Fascist (Edmund Burke's "Reflections on the Revolution in France" is not remotely a Fascist text). For another, it strips out the revolutionary, modernist side of Fascism - the side which attracted the Italian Futurists. Friedrich Reck famously described the NSDAP as “revolutionaries in Gothic drag”, and it’s a plausible characterisation. For another, Fascist economics (which was basically Keynesian economics) was actually copied by the western left. Stiglitz supports a lot of it. For instance, Roosevelt’s New Deal public works programmes were copied directly from Mussolini’s programmes such as the reclamation of the Pontine Marshes. As soon as you try and decide which post-1945 governments have been Fascist, the argument is heavily corrupted by ideology. For instance, Peronism in Argentina was arguably Fascist. But it wasn’t palpably evil in the way mid 20th century Germany was. Many of those who argue it wasn’t Fascist are simply trying to avoid having an example of “good” Fascism. I think that Xi Jinping’s China is closer to Fascism than to Communism. There’s a tendency for Communist regimes which persist beyond their revolutionary moment to move in that direction. “Permanent World Revolution” gives way to “Socialism In One Country” or “Socialism With Chinese Characteristics”; in other words, a form of “National” Socialism.
' Freefall'was a great book, I'll read this too. However my initial thoughts are that the threats to freedom and democracy are coming from the Globalist Left Wing and it has been interesting these last days as many from all sides of the Overton Window have rightly pointed out the same reflections upon recent elections:The 'as 'Far-Right' as we have' political parties did absolutely dismally in the elections, none of them - and there were few - kept their deposits. Lots of recognition that 'Britain First' did terribly. The Tories have been absolutely trounced but Labour not doing as well as they might with many votes going to Green, Socialist Workers Party, and Independents. The Tory votes mostly didn't go Right.Some 40 of these local posts though were won on small turn outs with - take your pick - block/tribal/sectarian voting patters and 'IslamoLeftist' candidates winning local elections based upon international issues i.e. Zionists/Jew/Gaza/Ummah. There were no No 'Far-Right' won seats, the apparently 'fascist' (not my words) ReformUK haven't done well, half of what they imagined. Apparently ReformUK are Far-right but they aren't exactly taking off are they? No support because the reality seems clear, there is no Far-Right movement worthy of column inches in UK, there are always going to be proper loony extremists when you have near 70 million people and a crazy world and that means some Far-Right actual Nazis and types who want to blow things up, but there is no 'threat' to society from these few thousand people. We seem left to conclude that IF this country IS a nation of racists then they are too lazy/silent/apathetic/stupid enough to be motivated by their racism and hate to go and vote. So what to worry about? Meanwhile, there is clearly a set who are most very motivated to go out and vote and/Far-Right'? Maybe this nation could grow up and have a mature conversation about all this? All we people who believe in secular democracy are a very broad church and whatever our other differences are we can sort them out in debate, we have a long history of managing to do just that. Come on Britain please do better.
Globalisation destroyed the nation state democracy decades ago. All Liberal Democracies are heading in the same direction on all the big issues particularly with mass replacement migration. Liberal Democracy is just rule by international finance and the Merchant class. My part of London collapsed into Mogadishu in the 80s. Decades of open borders Globalisation has hollowed out the West. There will be no good ending and there are no solutions inside the post 1945 Liberal paradigm.
@@evolassunglasses4673absolutely agree. Especially the liberal paradigm, I've used that very phrase myself. I think we still had a chance when it was Satanic Verses and maybe even 9/11, but there are so many now there are mini riots when authorities try to deport. We are in Anarcho-Tyranny. Question is: do They want anarchy to impose their authoritarian solution?
This is a very interesting interview, it it quite obvious that Kate largely disagrees with many of the points in the book and does exceptionally at controlling her desire to destroy it point by point, she doesn't do a bad job though at very subtly showing the endless contradictions of the historical/ economic comparisons held there-in. your doubt is convincingly argued Kate !.
"We wouldn't be having this conversation today if we hadn't had the COVID-19 vaccine". Why would we listen to a guy who overhypes COVID to that extent?
I found it very difficult to listen to this episode, the journalist should try to INTERVIEW the guest and not make it a debate! Obviously she has opposing views, not good journalism at all. Very rude, kept interrupting 🤮
Fascism isn't when there's populist outrage or authoritarianism. It's a response to the incompatibility between liberal democracy and the liberal economy: Voting people will want a say in how the economy is run, so in fascism, the "state" or "party" becomes the representative of the will of the people in order to control the economy. Neoliberalism is exactly the opposite of fascism, but it exacerbates this inherent contradiction between liberal democracy and the liberal economy making the rise of fascism more likely along with other resolutions to this incompatibility, such as oligopoly or social democracy.
Oh for crying out loud! "Trickle Down Economics" is a straw man. It was a term invented by the fireside social commentator and vaudeville cowboy, Will Rogers. It was his homespun way of explaining away the motives of industrialists. But he was wrong - why wouldn't he be? He was an entertainer, not an economist. So why all these socialism apologists with letters after their names and economics Nobel prizes keep talking about it is beyond me. Only it isn't. I know why they use this cowboy's straw man: it is so their own controllist instincts and desires are never scrutinised. He wants to be the guy who operates the traffic lights, telling you when, where and on what you can spend your own money. I can tell you too: on taxes, now!
I had never watched this show before. It represents views opposite to mine (although this wasn't why I hadn't seen it; I simply wasn't aware of it), but I believe it's important to engage in such debates, especially in these tumultuous times. I felt the interviewer really pressed Professor Stiglitz on some crucial issues, sometimes perhaps not allowing him to fully articulate his responses, although generally in a respectful manner, as is appropriate in a debate. However, I don't believe she ultimately succeeded. That being said, I do think that Prof. Stiglitz could have carried out a more profound philosophical critique of neoliberalism, but then he might have had to criticize capitalism itself, which is something he does not want to do. I think this enabled the interviewer to quasi-corner him on some issues that deserve a more nuanced and principled analysis (like the comparison with the Nordic countries). Still, I do not think she succeeded in making a compelling case here either. In general, I think that the interviewer's points are mostly ideology-based but necessary to deal with seriously because we are in times where ideology is obstructing the perception of facts, even the more obvious ones. This is why I welcome these sorts of debates more than ever. Democracy must prevail.
It's very sad to see him praise the mRNA vaccines and to say such silly things as “authoritarians like Donald Trump”. That said, he's a great economist and has made great contributions to knowledge. In this way he is a bit like Noam Chomsky who has also made great contributions to knowledge but has also recently said some rather silly things.
you can always feel free when you can control ones spending thats not essential and just sit it out for 50 yrs till you have saved enough for the things in life you have always wanted like 10 wives
That was fantastic. Great job by Kate Andrews in offering some sorely needed counter-perspective to Stiglitz's regurgitation of cliche big government "inclusion and climate change" talking points, while he completely forgets to mention the massive death toll of communism, and the incredible successes of free market policies throughout the past century.
We invite Mr Stieglitz to go and live in China and see if he can write about such ludicrous theories so freely and, most importantly if he can live on an Economist Chinese remuneration, after tax which he so much promotes...The acid test, Mr Stieglitz.
The trouble with the left is that they have so many themes they can throw into an argument without evidence "inclusivity", "inequality", "all the gains have gone to the top" that it's so hard for the rational interviewer to keep on top of what is being said. Great interview though, and congrats to Mrs Andrews, to Mr Stiglitz for good humour although his jokes were old ones and to Penguin also for making Mr Stiglitz do the media round with people who disagree with him.
Interesting as Freddy Gray interviewed a retired (and superannuated) political scientist, Norman Ornstein, who also trotted out the 'Trump is the end of democracy' line. Just a guess, but are the Democrats calling on these old guys to press this idea? Kate Andrews, I think surprised poor Mr. Stiglitz, with the depth of her questions.
As someone unfamiliar with Stiglitz' work, I think the interview would have been more meaningful if Kate and Joseph had first spent a bit more time covering the topics and thesis of the book, rather than immediately diving in to attack and test the boundaries of topics in the book. The lack of context and background just left me confused a lot of the time during their discussion.
![DDG & G Herbo - Nosey [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/I9Ra0Zc2NlQ/mqdefault.jpg)
This guy being an advisor for the Democrats and World Bank comes as no surprise. Two organisations that have been damaging to economic growth and promoters of authoritarian politics. Blaming Thatcher and Reagan for the damage done by his own anti-human ideologies is laughable.
Like what for instance? Or are you just parroting insults based on his associations?
Absolutely!
The promotion of a communist country that has active concentration camps is incredibly preposterous in the context of this discussion. when he started complementing China… yikes
@@GhostedTransmission Really? Do you remember the lockdowns? Nothing to do with airborne viral spread - everyone knows that - but everything to do with population control (effective concentration camps) promoted by unelected international bodies like C40 cities, the UN Agenda2030 and the WHO's attempted new health laws aiming to identify anything they like as a 'danger' and lock the world down. As you say, 'Yikes!'
Very good. Love Kate - she is very quick. As distinguished as Mr. Stiglitz is, I'm not sure he was quite expecting such a powerful and informed interlocutor. Thanks for doing this!
Well done to Kate Andrews for picking up this 'New York Times' bs and calling out his nonsense.
I have to say she was impressive
25:00 Jesus, he sees Libertarianism as bad in the same way as Communism as in inhuman.
Hes making out that Libertarianism is Authoritarian. Thats nuts.
Well most people who claim they are Libertarians are just covering up their innate authoritarianism. So it's kinda halfway the case. Pure Libertarianism barely exists these days. People are too brainwashed to manage it.
So you really don't understand the difference between "libertarians" and "liberals"?
@@padraigohooligan8363 yes, yes I do. That isn't the point I made.
Don't be ridiculous
There’s no example of an advocate referring to “ Trickle down theory”, just detractors. This gentleman is an ideologue plain and simple.
Agreed.
"Trickle Down Economics" is a straw man. It was a term invented by the fireside social commentator and vaudeville cowboy, Will Rogers. It was his homespun way of explaining away the motives of industrialists.
But he was wrong - why wouldn't he be? He was an entertainer, not an economist.
So why all these socialism apologists with letters after their names and economics Nobel prizes keep talking about it is beyond me.
Only it isn't. I know why they use this cowboy's straw man: it is so their own controllist instincts and desires are never scrutinised.
He wants to be the guy who operates the traffic lights, telling you when, where and on what you can spend your own money.
I can tell you too: on taxes, now!
Indeed. Fascism is the v least of our troubles. It’s a distraction, whilst far, far more pressing aggressive beliefs are not only on the doorstep, they are in our house already.
There is no economic theory called "trickle down economics". That term was a satire created by American humorist, Will Rogers, in the 1930s based on statements and misguided beliefs of Herbert Hoover.
I can't believe what I'm hearing, this man is a joke.
Opening with childish strawmen isn't a good look. He doesn't come over as a grown up and Kate effortlessly made him look very silly here.
'Scandinavia' while being lumped together is very different as Kate pointed out rightly. Norwegian state-led, oil-fueled economy and Swedish market economy are really different, and you can't make a case across them.
She tore his shoddy evidence and arguments to pieces.
Admirors of social democracy in scandinavia never mention the fact that their poster boy Norway is really a better managed oil rich gulf economy.
Also the Scandi countries are now quite red in capitalist tooth and claw... They're not the warm socialist havens from the 1970s as remembered. They've learnt their lessons basically.
O man o man!
Here is a comment from
"Poster-boy-country":
The management of the riches from oil and gas has been very good,we have put it in a fund for future generations.
So mostly,seen from abroad, Norway has managed far better than most nation rich from natural resources .
A warm hug from across
the North Sea!
🇧🇻😎😎🇧🇻
@@FirstLast-rh9jwsocialism only works in the minds of the young 🥴
@@larstveiten4164 and I applaud the way you did the managment, one of the best examples of not sucumbing to the Dutch disease. My point is Norway is not as statist as Stiglitz contends and other point is most other countries dont have massive oil reserves to create a welfare state.
still, extremely highly taxed, extremely equal, extremely happy. Those are facts. You can say the more unequal a country is, the less happy it is.
So the problem is, there isn't enough government. That is what has changed the last, say, two decades: Government has shrunk.
🤦♀️
Government has enlarged but the Governments balls have shrunk to microscopic particles.
@@DailyCorvid I dunno, you'd need to have some big cojones to so brazenly transfer that amount of public money into your swiss bank account... Million dollar houses for the homeless for San Fransisco; rooms at the Waldorf Hotel for illegal immigrants in NYC; £3 billion from the UK Parliament to big pharma for covid vaccines...
Interesting that the first 4 comments, who disagree with him, have been shadow-banned.
Let's see how long mine lasts, I'm not on the side of the Authoritarian Globalist Left.
What were the comments?
@@mariea82 'Sort By' then 'Newest First'.
@@philiplindley7384how will that work when they are the oldest comments? i.e
the first four comments?
@@markredwood9049 Just do it and then scroll to the bottom, to get the oldest comments.
Congratulations to the Spectator for stepping out of their bubble and interviewing someone they disagree with. This was a truly fascinating conversation.
Yep! They should get some more lefties to mix things up. Can't wait to see Kate interview Diane Abbott. 🎉
The whole premise that government has shrunk over the last 40 years is completely false and contrary to the reality that the state's share of national wealth has never been higher across the developed world
most governments have enormous debt. The elites have enormous wealth. The rest have neither.
He is so partisan that it prevents him from seeing (or expressing) the truth.
He's right about some degree of coercion being required for a successful country/economy - I'm utterly sick of being able to do and say exactly what I want in the UK, we desperately need a few laws to reduce the almost anarchic freedom that we're currently cursed with.
Stiglitz is on Spectator TV. Coming soon: Diane Abbott on Mao Tse Tung ("he did more good than harm")
Interesting interview. I worry about what his "inclusive" society enforced by government action entails. It is divisive enough already with the Equality Act.
This is just the type of clown that would characterise your worry as some kind of hate speech & exactly the kind person we need to keep away from the levers of power.
Cannot stand him. I came across through work about 35 years ago, as dreadful as he was then.
Great, Kate - and The Spectator - a new, our very own, Uncommon Knowledge -fabulous!
I love the wood panelling in the Spectator office.
"It was Thomas Edison who brought us electricity, not the Sierra Club. It was the Wright brothers who got us off the ground, not the Federal Aviation Administration. It was Henry Ford who ended the isolation of millions of Americans by making the automobile affordable, not Ralph Nader. Those who have helped the poor the most have not been those who have gone around loudly expressing 'compassion' for the poor, but those who found ways to make industry more productive and distribution more efficient, so that the poor of today can afford things that the affluent of yesterday could only dream about."
Thomas Sowell
Love Stiglitz. Next Piketty. Spectator readers of the world unite!
This is infantile nonsense to suggest fascism mark 2 is on the horizon. Total left neurosis.
This guy is criminal. Such like him want socialism for everyone exept themselves. All these profesors, journalists, intelectuals led socialist revolutions. And were destroyed first. Why doesn't he live in his dream country like Venesuela, N Korea, Cuba, China.
If they were really interested in avoiding Fascism, they'd stop imitating Weimar.
No its still mark 1 there is no mark 2, its literally the same as it always has been. Read history.
@@DailyCorvid I don’t think there was any Fascism before Mussolini. It was a new, historically contingent phenomenon. Umberto Eco claims there’s something called “ur-Fascism” which has always been with us. He does this so that he can claim that all forms of social conservatism are effectively Fascist and therefore bad. If you follow the logic of Eco’s argument, he’s claiming that the only non-Fascist right wing ideology is actually the neoliberal, anti-tradition, Ayn Rand sort that just believes in markets and personal autonomy - the very sort Stiglitz thinks leads to Fascism.
But that argument has many problems. For one thing it really doesn’t help to describe every pre-modern traditionalist as a Fascist (Edmund Burke's "Reflections on the Revolution in France" is not remotely a Fascist text). For another, it strips out the revolutionary, modernist side of Fascism - the side which attracted the Italian Futurists. Friedrich Reck famously described the NSDAP as “revolutionaries in Gothic drag”, and it’s a plausible characterisation.
For another, Fascist economics (which was basically Keynesian economics) was actually copied by the western left. Stiglitz supports a lot of it. For instance, Roosevelt’s New Deal public works programmes were copied directly from Mussolini’s programmes such as the reclamation of the Pontine Marshes.
As soon as you try and decide which post-1945 governments have been Fascist, the argument is heavily corrupted by ideology. For instance, Peronism in Argentina was arguably Fascist. But it wasn’t palpably evil in the way mid 20th century Germany was. Many of those who argue it wasn’t Fascist are simply trying to avoid having an example of “good” Fascism.
I think that Xi Jinping’s China is closer to Fascism than to Communism. There’s a tendency for Communist regimes which persist beyond their revolutionary moment to move in that direction. “Permanent World Revolution” gives way to “Socialism In One Country” or “Socialism With Chinese Characteristics”; in other words, a form of “National” Socialism.
"Fascism, Nazism, Communism and Socialism are only superficial variations of the same monstrous theme-collectivism." Ayn Rand
' Freefall'was a great book, I'll read this too. However my initial thoughts are that the threats to freedom and democracy are coming from the Globalist Left Wing and it has been interesting these last days as many from all sides of the Overton Window have rightly pointed out the same reflections upon recent elections:The 'as 'Far-Right' as we have' political parties did absolutely dismally in the elections, none of them - and there were few - kept their deposits. Lots of recognition that 'Britain First' did terribly.
The Tories have been absolutely trounced but Labour not doing as well as they might with many votes going to Green, Socialist Workers Party, and Independents.
The Tory votes mostly didn't go Right.Some 40 of these local posts though were won on small turn outs with - take your pick - block/tribal/sectarian voting patters and 'IslamoLeftist' candidates winning local elections based upon international issues i.e. Zionists/Jew/Gaza/Ummah.
There were no No 'Far-Right' won seats, the apparently 'fascist' (not my words) ReformUK haven't done well, half of what they imagined. Apparently ReformUK are Far-right but they aren't exactly taking off are they? No support because the reality seems clear, there is no Far-Right movement worthy of column inches in UK, there are always going to be proper loony extremists when you have near 70 million people and a crazy world and that means some Far-Right actual Nazis and types who want to blow things up, but there is no 'threat' to society from these few thousand people.
We seem left to conclude that IF this country IS a nation of racists then they are too lazy/silent/apathetic/stupid enough to be motivated by their racism and hate to go and vote. So what to worry about?
Meanwhile, there is clearly a set who are most very motivated to go out and vote and/Far-Right'? Maybe this nation could grow up and have a mature conversation about all this? All we people who believe in secular democracy are a very broad church and whatever our other differences are we can sort them out in debate, we have a long history of managing to do just that.
Come on Britain please do better.
Globalisation destroyed the nation state democracy decades ago.
All Liberal Democracies are heading in the same direction on all the big issues particularly with mass replacement migration.
Liberal Democracy is just rule by international finance and the Merchant class.
My part of London collapsed into Mogadishu in the 80s. Decades of open borders Globalisation has hollowed out the West. There will be no good ending and there are no solutions inside the post 1945 Liberal paradigm.
@@evolassunglasses4673absolutely agree.
Especially the liberal paradigm, I've used that very phrase myself. I think we still had a chance when it was Satanic Verses and maybe even 9/11, but there are so many now there are mini riots when authorities try to deport.
We are in Anarcho-Tyranny.
Question is: do They want anarchy to impose their authoritarian solution?
Kate is absolutely brilliant!
This is the exact guy Hayek warned about.
The Trump Derangement on this elitist bully is amazing.
This is a very interesting interview, it it quite obvious that Kate largely disagrees with many of the points in the book and does exceptionally at controlling her desire to destroy it point by point, she doesn't do a bad job though at very subtly showing the endless contradictions of the historical/ economic comparisons held there-in. your doubt is convincingly argued Kate !.
"We wouldn't be having this conversation today if we hadn't had the COVID-19 vaccine".
Why would we listen to a guy who overhypes COVID to that extent?
The interviewer really needs to let the interviewee finish his answers before asking a next question or making a comment.
I'm surprised he agreed to and sat through such a hostile interview.
The fact he calls America a democracy and not a Constitutional Republic with aleenable rights says it all in my opinion.
I found it very difficult to listen to this episode, the journalist should try to INTERVIEW the guest and not make it a debate! Obviously she has opposing views, not good journalism at all. Very rude, kept interrupting 🤮
Kate is smart
Fascism isn't when there's populist outrage or authoritarianism. It's a response to the incompatibility between liberal democracy and the liberal economy: Voting people will want a say in how the economy is run, so in fascism, the "state" or "party" becomes the representative of the will of the people in order to control the economy. Neoliberalism is exactly the opposite of fascism, but it exacerbates this inherent contradiction between liberal democracy and the liberal economy making the rise of fascism more likely along with other resolutions to this incompatibility, such as oligopoly or social democracy.
I cannot stand this guy.
Oh for crying out loud! "Trickle Down Economics" is a straw man. It was a term invented by the fireside social commentator and vaudeville cowboy, Will Rogers. It was his homespun way of explaining away the motives of industrialists.
But he was wrong - why wouldn't he be? He was an entertainer, not an economist.
So why all these socialism apologists with letters after their names and economics Nobel prizes keep talking about it is beyond me.
Only it isn't. I know why they use this cowboy's straw man: it is so their own controllist instincts and desires are never scrutinised.
He wants to be the guy who operates the traffic lights, telling you when, where and on what you can spend your own money.
I can tell you too: on taxes, now!
Thomas Sowell on the “trickle Down” Myth: Workers Are Always Paid First and Then Profits Flow Upward Later - If at All.
No wonder Columbia University is in such a state!
Confusing pollution with climate change really tells all about how serious one can take this guy
Think about the history of the 'Public/Private Partnership'!
Lectures ar Columbia. Ayuh.
Interesting. Will watch later, thanks for sharing.
The vaccine!
Jesus
She does not let him finish his points.
She should also be a little more respectful, he’s a heavy weight 😅
@@laurynai Fully agree.
I had never watched this show before. It represents views opposite to mine (although this wasn't why I hadn't seen it; I simply wasn't aware of it), but I believe it's important to engage in such debates, especially in these tumultuous times.
I felt the interviewer really pressed Professor Stiglitz on some crucial issues, sometimes perhaps not allowing him to fully articulate his responses, although generally in a respectful manner, as is appropriate in a debate. However, I don't believe she ultimately succeeded. That being said, I do think that Prof. Stiglitz could have carried out a more profound philosophical critique of neoliberalism, but then he might have had to criticize capitalism itself, which is something he does not want to do. I think this enabled the interviewer to quasi-corner him on some issues that deserve a more nuanced and principled analysis (like the comparison with the Nordic countries). Still, I do not think she succeeded in making a compelling case here either.
In general, I think that the interviewer's points are mostly ideology-based but necessary to deal with seriously because we are in times where ideology is obstructing the perception of facts, even the more obvious ones. This is why I welcome these sorts of debates more than ever. Democracy must prevail.
Weak interview, in a very polite manner, blabering about apearing to talk about economics and not letting the Nobel winner talk
Take a shot every time he says "inclusion" as if that is the most important thing we need in the world, whatever he means by that.
Kate doesn't look very happy here.
Fascists on the left warning about fascists on the right.
Glaf that everyone else had already said what i came to say. What an airhead 🤦 great work from the interviewer. Grilled his balls off
It's very sad to see him praise the mRNA vaccines and to say such silly things as “authoritarians like Donald Trump”.
That said, he's a great economist and has made great contributions to knowledge. In this way he is a bit like Noam Chomsky who has also made great contributions to knowledge but has also recently said some rather silly things.
:( I would have like to hear him talk his theory awhile before the cross examination. Maybe I will just go buy his book.
Very impressed by the interviewer - in command of the facts, polite but insistent in making her ( well founded) points.
Muh fascism.
Interesting and adult conversation. Serious questions and space to answer them, such a contrast to toxic American media
you can always feel free when you can control ones spending thats not essential and just sit it out for 50 yrs till you have saved enough for the things in life you have always wanted like 10 wives
SCARY man!
5:00 This dude is nothing but a sneering propagandist mouth organ, lol she's gonna shred his arguments in 5 mins I can already tell!
This guys sure likes the word inclusion. "Threats to democracy". This guys a joke
wooh, pretty much eviscerated his arguments, lol. kinda sad, really.
Stiglitz is right about everything. What planet does Kate Andrews live on?
Nothing Stiglitz said was right.
@Historia.Magistra.Vitae. hes a CCP mouth piece of course he is full of crap, Kate mauled him no sweat.
This guy is a clown
Childish bumbling:)
Shit.
We also known from history how Islamic invasions end, but everyone is afraid to mention this. Yet calling out fascism appears stigma free.
"We wouldn't be having this conversation if not for... [A certain intervention]"
Not only is that unfalsifiable, it's ahistorical.
Very good interview. Kate spoke almost as much as Stiglitz!! Guess she has a book out too😅
As the great David Bellamy talked about Treees take un co2 and create ocygen no wonder he was removved fromva tekevision screens.
That was fantastic. Great job by Kate Andrews in offering some sorely needed counter-perspective to Stiglitz's regurgitation of cliche big government "inclusion and climate change" talking points, while he completely forgets to mention the massive death toll of communism, and the incredible successes of free market policies throughout the past century.
We invite Mr Stieglitz to go and live in China and see if he can write about such ludicrous theories so freely and, most importantly if he can live on an Economist Chinese remuneration, after tax which he so much promotes...The acid test, Mr Stieglitz.
The trouble with the left is that they have so many themes they can throw into an argument without evidence "inclusivity", "inequality", "all the gains have gone to the top" that it's so hard for the rational interviewer to keep on top of what is being said. Great interview though, and congrats to Mrs Andrews, to Mr Stiglitz for good humour although his jokes were old ones and to Penguin also for making Mr Stiglitz do the media round with people who disagree with him.
Polarization is depressing, she exposes his efforts to oversimplify and discount story well.
....to the foundation of Israel?
No vaccine for me but but I still talk to people
I’ll wager Hayek’s ‘The Road to Serfdom’ will be still be in print, long after his has been pulped.
One of the greatest books every written
Interesting as Freddy Gray interviewed a retired (and superannuated) political scientist, Norman Ornstein, who also trotted out the 'Trump is the end of democracy' line. Just a guess, but are the Democrats calling on these old guys to press this idea? Kate Andrews, I think surprised poor Mr. Stiglitz, with the depth of her questions.
As someone unfamiliar with Stiglitz' work, I think the interview would have been more meaningful if Kate and Joseph had first spent a bit more time covering the topics and thesis of the book, rather than immediately diving in to attack and test the boundaries of topics in the book. The lack of context and background just left me confused a lot of the time during their discussion.
more specials, thank you so much!
Fair to play Kate for pointing out the inaccuracies!