START A PETITION 27,000,000 members: the world's largest community for good
START A PETITION
x

Charlie Rose Talks to Joseph Stiglitz (Nobel Economics Prize)


Business  (tags: corporate, business, consumers, debt, dishonesty, economy, finance, government, investing, investments, investors, law, money, politics, usa, humans, news, ethics, americans )

JL
- 871 days ago - businessweek.com
"In good times you want to run surpluses. In bad times ... deficits. These are bad times"



Select names from your address book   |   Help
   

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.

Comments

John B. (122)
Monday October 8, 2012, 7:55 pm
Thanks J.L. for the post. Just good a common sense approach which the GOP is very short on. Read and noted.
 

JL A. (275)
Monday October 8, 2012, 9:17 pm
You cannot currently send a star to John because you have done so within the last week.
 

Roger Garin-michaud (122)
Tuesday October 9, 2012, 12:27 pm
noted, thanks !
 

JL A. (275)
Tuesday October 9, 2012, 1:03 pm
You are welcome Roger!
 

Giana Peranio-Paz (402)
Tuesday October 9, 2012, 11:03 pm
Noted. Thanksw J.L. A.
 

Richard Pietrasz (1)
Tuesday October 9, 2012, 11:12 pm
There are parts of this interview that make me suspect that Stieglitz is losing it.

First: The good thing about the housing bubble bust is that new construction is so bad it needs to be rebuilt? Why not pay people to dig ditches, and others to fill them in? Is it because it is more impressive to see houses go up, and even more fun to see them knocked down?

Second, Stieglitz is correct to point out the financial sector's huge profits as a fraction of total corporate profits indicates a problem, that they are masters and not servants. But he doesn't go anywhere near far enough. How about the banks are crooks? A good bank is supposed to be incrementally better than its competitors, and entitled to a portion of the savings due to efficiency as profit. Banks behave, with the aid of the federal government, as if they did 40% of all work done in the US economy. Of course, they don't do anywhere near that, and don't employ that many people either, they just suck up other people's money.
 

heather g. (49)
Wednesday October 10, 2012, 2:16 am
This answered a question that has puzzled me for years - especially because I have never had a straight answer from Canadians - because the practice is similar here eg "The only good news is that the houses were shoddily constructed—and in maybe 5 or 10 years we’ll have to reconstruct them." In BC, it is most often in the 2nd year after construction that either new windows, new cladding or a new roof is replaced on a new development complex. To me, the entire practice appears unethical....
 

JL A. (275)
Wednesday October 10, 2012, 6:14 am
Planned obsolescence began with less expensive consumer goods (clothing, etc.) and then penetrated the markets of goods that were once expected to last a lifetime: furniture, then cars, then houses...but Richard is 100% on target with his second point.
 
Or, log in with your
Facebook account:
Please add your comment: (plain text only please. Allowable HTML: <a>)

Track Comments: Notify me with a personal message when other people comment on this story


Loading Noted By...Please Wait

 


butterfly credits on the news network

  • credits for vetting a newly submitted story
  • credits for vetting any other story
  • credits for leaving a comment
learn more

Most Active Today in Business

JL A.

JL A.
JL's contributions:
Stories noted recently: 653
Stories submitted: 4134
Front Page stories: 1929




 
Content and comments expressed here are the opinions of Care2 users and not necessarily that of Care2.com or its affiliates.