Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - Alan Greenspan: WTF is he babbling about?

smooth · 07-20-2003, 06:56 PM

No prob,

My understanding of Stiglitz is he is a leading expert in his own right and his book speaks to the errors the actions of the Brenton Woods orgs exacerbated--he isn't writing about bones he has with his ex-employer but rather about the consequences of the policies they implemented on foreign nations.

edit: I realize that doesn't quite answer the claim regarding his bias. As the chief economist and senior vice-president this scenario isn't analogous to a disgruntled employee. Without knowing the full details of his departure my understanding is he was pretty much the top guy who left--not dismissed.

Here are a few reviews of his text:
http://www-1.gsb.columbia.edu/facult...litz/press.cfm

I am a critical conflict socioligist (that means I believe social inequality is both unnecessary and can be eradicated or at least alleviated). I do not think that industries should be nationalized wholesale. Yet, I am also opposed to the idea that deregulation and privatization are the boons to economies they often are touted to be.

I think that one rationale for profit (as opposed to the Marxist claim that profit is extracted from the workers) is that investors provide the capital and risk of expansion and, therefore, they should reap the rewards. In our society, however, government subsidies and grants provide the impetus and bulk of investment ventures and provide a safety net for wayward investments.

Despite this, however, our taxpayers receive very little return on _their_ "investment." One example of this is the development of drugs. Taxpayers provide substantial economic aid to the development of new drugs yet still pay a hefty premium when they need those same drugs. Airline corporations' recent activiities illustrate this concept further. We have given them substantial economic boosts yet fail to realize any reduction in the price of the services we subsidize.

I think that if we are going to subsidize development that is fine, but we should implement mechanisms that provide a return for our investment (however slight it may be). I think government should regulate a minimum standard for essential services and allow the market to compete against that line.

I am not necessarily in favor of protectionist trade barriers. To be honest they are not within my field of expertise and I am only writing about my perception of what they entail. However, I feel that if we advocate the free movement of capital then we ought to allow for the free movement of labor as well. I'm not in favor of that scenario (because I'm not in favor of capitalism) but I understand it to be more consistent with the tenets of a free market than our current system.

07-20-2003, 06:56 PM	#28 (permalink)
smooth Junkie Location: Right here	No prob, My understanding of Stiglitz is he is a leading expert in his own right and his book speaks to the errors the actions of the Brenton Woods orgs exacerbated--he isn't writing about bones he has with his ex-employer but rather about the consequences of the policies they implemented on foreign nations. edit: I realize that doesn't quite answer the claim regarding his bias. As the chief economist and senior vice-president this scenario isn't analogous to a disgruntled employee. Without knowing the full details of his departure my understanding is he was pretty much the top guy who left--not dismissed. Here are a few reviews of his text: http://www-1.gsb.columbia.edu/facult...litz/press.cfm I am a critical conflict socioligist (that means I believe social inequality is both unnecessary and can be eradicated or at least alleviated). I do not think that industries should be nationalized wholesale. Yet, I am also opposed to the idea that deregulation and privatization are the boons to economies they often are touted to be. I think that one rationale for profit (as opposed to the Marxist claim that profit is extracted from the workers) is that investors provide the capital and risk of expansion and, therefore, they should reap the rewards. In our society, however, government subsidies and grants provide the impetus and bulk of investment ventures and provide a safety net for wayward investments. Despite this, however, our taxpayers receive very little return on _their_ "investment." One example of this is the development of drugs. Taxpayers provide substantial economic aid to the development of new drugs yet still pay a hefty premium when they need those same drugs. Airline corporations' recent activiities illustrate this concept further. We have given them substantial economic boosts yet fail to realize any reduction in the price of the services we subsidize. I think that if we are going to subsidize development that is fine, but we should implement mechanisms that provide a return for our investment (however slight it may be). I think government should regulate a minimum standard for essential services and allow the market to compete against that line. I am not necessarily in favor of protectionist trade barriers. To be honest they are not within my field of expertise and I am only writing about my perception of what they entail. However, I feel that if we advocate the free movement of capital then we ought to allow for the free movement of labor as well. I'm not in favor of that scenario (because I'm not in favor of capitalism) but I understand it to be more consistent with the tenets of a free market than our current system. __________________ "The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman Last edited by smooth; 07-20-2003 at 07:00 PM..