START A PETITION 25,136,189 members: the world's largest community for good

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 )

- 744 days ago -
"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.


JL A. (275)
Monday October 8, 2012, 7:31 am

Bloomberg Businessweek
Global Economics
Charlie Rose Talks to Joseph Stiglitz
By Charlie Rose on October 04, 2012

Is the economy finally on the mend?
It’s not really trending upward. There are two big gaps in our economy relative to, say, 2007. One is real estate. Real estate was the big sector. The bubble broke, and now real estate investment is half of what it was. No way that that’s going to recover soon. The only good news is that the houses were shoddily constructed—and in maybe 5 or 10 years we’ll have to reconstruct them. The second problem: consumption. Before the crisis, we were saving close to zero out of our disposable income. That wasn’t sustainable. Now, savings is between 4 and 5 percent. Hopefully, it won’t go lower. But with consumption weak and investment and real estate weak, it’s very hard to get a really robust economy.

You’ve written a book about rising inequality. Tell me why it pinpoints deregulation under Reagan as the turning point?
The Reagan administration did more than just deregulation. They lowered the taxes on the top. After World War II came decades in which the country grew much faster than it did after 1980. And the country grew together. Every group grew. After 1980, we grew apart. One of the things is, we lowered the tax rates on the top. That increased the divide. And the other one is, we deregulated, particularly in the financial sector, which continued under Clinton, under Bush.

You ran Clinton’s Council of Economic Advisers.
I opposed those deregulation movements. … Deregulation allowed the banks more scope for moving money from the bottom, all those kinds of predatory lending we saw. Move the money from the bottom to the top. And if you look, a disproportionately large number of people at the top, in that 1 percent, are from the financial sector.

How big has America’s financial-sector economy become?
One way of looking at it is, 40 percent of all corporate profits went to the financial sector. So that shows you, in a sense, that a set of institutions that are supposed to be servants … You don’t enjoy financial services directly. They’re supposed to facilitate. They’re supposed to enable the rest of the economy to do what it’s supposed to do. And yet this servant became the master.

How do you correct the income imbalance? With a Buffett Rule tax?
I think what Warren Buffett has argued is absolutely necessary. The consequence of that is that those at the top who are taking advantage of capital-gains rates would pay at least as much as those whose income is much lower.

What impact would that have on investing?
Negligible. Even if you were concerned about investment you could structure our tax code to encourage investment a lot better. Let me give you an example. Land speculation: If you get capital gains from land speculation, does it create more land? The banks that were speculating on credit-default swaps, when they won, they got the capital-gains rate. Does that make our economy grow? No. It makes our economy, in some sense, even more risky. Remember that AIG (AIG) got a $180 billion bailout out of that speculation. So if you wanted to encourage investment, I could see an argument saying corporations that invest in America will get tax preferences. Entrepreneurs that expand their investment and create new jobs will get a tax benefit. But it has to be linked to doing things that make our economy stronger, not to gambling, not to speculation, not to just being wealthy.

With the fiscal cliff ahead, what budget reforms would you focus on?
It turns out that Social Security is not a big problem. Change the age a little bit, change the contribution a little bit. That’s something we can solve fairly easily. The health-care programs are a significant concern. If we had a health-care system that was as efficient as some of the European systems, we’d have no deficit.

How do we put America back to work and make our economy grow?
Invest. The U.S. government can borrow at a negative real interest rate right now. And we have an ample supply of investment opportunities in infrastructure, technology, education.

So you think the deficit obsession is killing our economy?
That’s right. Over the long run we have to have fiscal responsibility. That’s why, during the Clinton administration, in good years, we had a surplus. But we opposed a balanced-budget amendment on the grounds that in good times you want to run surpluses. In bad times you want to run deficits. These are bad times.


John B. (175)
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 (68)
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 (385)
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


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