Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

The End of Neoliberalism and the Rebirth of History

Nov 4, 2019 JOSEPH E. STIGLITZ
For 40 years, elites in rich and poor countries alike promised that neoliberal policies would lead to faster economic growth, and that the benefits would trickle down so that everyone, including the poorest, would be better off. Now that the evidence is in, is it any wonder that trust in elites and confidence in democracy have plummeted?

Ivytalk wrote:I can see why Klam would lap this stuff up. But it’s typical Joe Stiglitz: lots of whining about the evils of unfettered market capitalism, but a very weak concluding paragraph. And any piece that cites George Soros with approval is automatically suspect.

Ivytalk wrote:I can see why Klam would lap this stuff up. But it’s typical Joe Stiglitz: lots of whining about the evils of unfettered market capitalism, but a very weak concluding paragraph. And any piece that cites George Soros with approval is automatically suspect.

93henfan wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:I can see why Klam would lap this stuff up. But it’s typical Joe Stiglitz: lots of whining about the evils of unfettered market capitalism, but a very weak concluding paragraph. And any piece that cites George Soros with approval is automatically suspect.

Did you happen to catch Jamie Dimon on 60 Minutes last night? He made a pretty good case for unfettered market capitalism, and while admitting some mistakes were made leading up to 2008, was unapologetic. He restored some of my faith.

CID1990 wrote:Ever notice how anti capitalists are long on complaints but short on alternatives?

Which is understandable, really


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

kalm wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:I can see why Klam would lap this stuff up. But it’s typical Joe Stiglitz: lots of whining about the evils of unfettered market capitalism, but a very weak concluding paragraph. And any piece that cites George Soros with approval is automatically suspect.

Agreed on the closing but Stiggs has been at ground zero and right for 40 years (which I suspect you begrudgingly know).

And what does Soros know about capitalism anyway!

Ivytalk wrote:

kalm wrote:
Agreed on the closing but Stiggs has been at ground zero and right for 40 years (which I suspect you begrudgingly know).

And what does Soros know about capitalism anyway!

Soros is the ultimate crony capitalist: made billions in currency trading and hedge funds. He’s a hypocrite of the highest order.

And I don’t begrudgingly, or otherwise, concede anything in Stiglitz’s narrative.

kalm wrote:

Ivytalk wrote: Soros is the ultimate crony capitalist: made billions in currency trading and hedge funds. He’s a hypocrite of the highest order.

And I don’t begrudgingly, or otherwise, concede anything in Stiglitz’s narrative.

Unlike those pure as the driven snow noble capitalists you side with?

Ivytalk wrote:

kalm wrote:
Unlike those pure as the driven snow noble capitalists you side with?

Quit the “witty” one-liners and give us some substance. You’re quick with the laugh emojis. Finish “Stiggy’s” article for him. Tell us why “regulated capitalism” is something more than a reallocation of resources to suit the objectives of left-wing special interests like environmentalists and big labor (public and private).

kalm wrote:

Ivytalk wrote: Quit the “witty” one-liners and give us some substance. You’re quick with the laugh emojis. Finish “Stiggy’s” article for him. Tell us why “regulated capitalism” is something more than a reallocation of resources to suit the objectives of left-wing special interests like environmentalists and big labor (public and private).

I was replying to CID's comment regarding anti-capitalism. The objective of regulated capitalism is to create fair competition. It's just an argument of degrees and application. Bad regulations and/or too much regulation can be harmful. But there are some instances where the "free market" also falls short and that's what Stiggs is pointing out.

Boiled down, do you idolize the strong man or the power and advancement of all the people? It's the classic liberal-conservative debate.

kalm wrote:

CID1990 wrote:Ever notice how anti capitalists are long on complaints but short on alternatives?

Which is understandable, really


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ever notice how neoliberals completely ignore the middle path of regulated capitalism?

It doesn’t exist apparently.

Chizzang wrote:Jefferson is who comes to mind here:
“I am increasingly persuaded that the earth belongs exclusively to the living and that one generation has no more right to bind another to it's laws and judgments than one independent nation has the right to command another.”

Whatever the next generation of Americans think is the right move... should be their right to execute it
the idea that we've built something so sacred it can't be tinkered with is stupid
400 families probably shouldn't own 90% of America
when we've got 320 million people

Ivytalk wrote:

Chizzang wrote:Jefferson is who comes to mind here:
“I am increasingly persuaded that the earth belongs exclusively to the living and that one generation has no more right to bind another to it's laws and judgments than one independent nation has the right to command another.”

Whatever the next generation of Americans think is the right move... should be their right to execute it
the idea that we've built something so sacred it can't be tinkered with is stupid
400 families probably shouldn't own 90% of America
when we've got 320 million people

Thank you, Chizzomsky.

Chizzang wrote:Jefferson is who comes to mind here:
“I am increasingly persuaded that the earth belongs exclusively to the living and that one generation has no more right to bind another to it's laws and judgments than one independent nation has the right to command another.”

Whatever the next generation of Americans think is the right move... should be their right to execute it
the idea that we've built something so sacred it can't be tinkered with is stupid
400 families probably shouldn't own 90% of America
when we've got 320 million people

Chizzang wrote:Jefferson is who comes to mind here:
“I am increasingly persuaded that the earth belongs exclusively to the living and that one generation has no more right to bind another to it's laws and judgments than one independent nation has the right to command another.”

Whatever the next generation of Americans think is the right move... should be their right to execute it
the idea that we've built something so sacred it can't be tinkered with is stupid
400 families probably shouldn't own 90% of America
when we've got 320 million people

CID1990 wrote:Also ironic that you decry strongman politics and yet would hand the purse strings to the executive. That is precisely what happens with your “middle way” because that is where executives like Maduro draw their inexplicable power.

Congress has already abrogated its responsibility and has handed foreign policy and military action completely to the executive because those decisions are not popular when you are running for re-election in Peoria

Precisely the same thing would happen with economic regulation. You are literally arguing for someone like Trump having the eventual ability to dictate supply and production. Brilliant.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Chizzang wrote:Jefferson is who comes to mind here:
“I am increasingly persuaded that the earth belongs exclusively to the living and that one generation has no more right to bind another to it's laws and judgments than one independent nation has the right to command another.”

Whatever the next generation of Americans think is the right move... should be their right to execute it
the idea that we've built something so sacred it can't be tinkered with is stupid
400 families probably shouldn't own 90% of America
when we've got 320 million people

And lastly, let us provide in our constitution for its revision at stated periods. What these periods should be, nature herself indicates. By the European tables of mortality, of the adults living at any one moment of time, a majority will be dead in about nineteen years. At the end of that period, then, a new majority is come into place; or, in other words, a new generation. Each generation is as independent as the one preceding, as that was of all which had gone before. It has then, like them, a right to choose for itself the form of government it believes most promotive of its own happiness; consequently, to accommodate to the circumstances in which it finds itself, that received from its predecessors; and it is for the peace and good of mankind, that a solemn opportunity of doing this every nineteen or twenty years, should be provided by the constitution; so that it may be handed on, with periodical repairs, from generation to generation, to the end of time, if anything human can so long endure.

Ivytalk wrote:

kalm wrote:


I was replying to CID's comment regarding anti-capitalism. The objective of regulated capitalism is to create fair competition. It's just an argument of degrees and application. Bad regulations and/or too much regulation can be harmful. But there are some instances where the "free market" also falls short and that's what Stiggs is pointing out.

Boiled down, do you idolize the strong man or the power and advancement of all the people? It's the classic liberal-conservative debate.

Oversimplification, and a straw man argument at that. You posit a world in which the only alternatives are evil monopolists (your “strong man”) and a manipulated world of equal outcomes that doesn’t exist in the real economic sphere. “Fair competition” is in the eyes of the beholder and requires the interference of government actors that have objectives in opposition to the dynamic market forces that create jobs and growth. Really, Klam, you sound more like Liz Warren every day. If Stiglitz was intellectually honest, he would have provided a more satisfactory conclusion than a limp reference to the Enlightenment. Have a nice day.