marijuana | Law | Economy | Investing | Marketing | Entrepreneurship | Economic Policy | Globalization | Emerging Markets

Naomi Klein and Joseph Stiglitz on Economic Power

More videos from this partner:


  • Info
  • Bio
  • Chapters
  • Preview
  • Download
  • Zoom In
There are 30 comments on this program

Please or register to post a comment.
Previous FORAtv comments:
heathen Avatar
Posted: 05.05.09, 12:08 AM
Right, I was thinking something around the same lines. Just as Creationists and Inteligent Designers can always point to some "gap" in the fossil records, and basically say "Aha, you haven't explained how this life form evolved from one phase to the next, therefore 'God' did it", Free Market Fundamentalists always look to something not yet deregulated or privitized to pin the economie's problems on. Of course, neither of these fundies make any sense.
rspawn Avatar
Posted: 01.25.09, 06:13 AM
Free Market Fundamentalism is to economics what Creationism is to science.
brushes9 Avatar
Posted: 01.18.09, 04:14 PM
Nicolas Taleb, author of Black Swan, says that the math on the derivatives is junk math. They are 100's of pages of complex math........with risk models that only look back fifteen years. Please, don't call it "so complicated." I've done math. It is junk and belongs in the trash, I don't care how pretty it is. This is where Soto is, again, eloquent, but useless. We don't need legal-surgeons to extract the cancer..we need garbage men and an incinerator. By the way, these derivatives only regain their value if our current home and asset deflation completely reverses towards new highs....yea! Stick that in your pipe of optimism and smoke it. No, Stiglitz is right, just have fun with Naomi and ignore the insecure, rocket-scientist-Soto.
blueatjustchill Avatar
Posted: 01.02.09, 01:09 PM
I agree with De Soto's view that there is a lack of information about derivatives markets and quite frankly they're so complicated that I think governments are scared to try and understand them. Stiglitz could of pushed De Soto more. Naomi seemed well out of depth and lacks any real philosphy, instead we get a stream of ancedotes that don't really address the issues.
brushes9 Avatar
Posted: 12.27.08, 04:47 PM
Naomi Klein has made an career out of pointing out something very interesting and obvious before anyone else. I can understand how she inspires jealousy in so many who wish they travel the country giving speaches.
Michael A. Thompson Avatar
Michael A. Thompson
Posted: 12.25.08, 08:07 AM
Brushes9: It is not a "theory of everything". In the context of the current crisis the problem lies in institutions not knowing what they own. When they find a "AAA" derivative on their books they have NO CLUE as to even what part of the country those loans cover. Much less which particular house or even tranche of that loan until someone spends months trying to find out.
7thDirection Avatar
Posted: 12.18.08, 04:18 PM
Ah, link was on the second page. But yeah! What I said.
7thDirection Avatar
Posted: 12.18.08, 12:49 AM
Sactownjudge, you failed to provide a link but I found the article anyway and somehow, I still escaped the conclusion you proposed without feeling anything about TNR or Chait. I also found Klein's response which does clarify some of the points Chait attempts to rebuke. The lengths that you and he go to defame her work as 'pseudo-intellectual' or 'perfect nonsense' are really quite dramatic... you may not agree with her views but she has certainly put forth a well-founded (or at least well-researched) argument in The Shock Doctrine. I think we can all agree that free-market policies have gone a bit awry since the advent of corporate personhood, opening a pandora's box of legally protected self-interested goals that intertwine into a fustercluck of less-than-ethical materialist pursuits. Her theory on some of the more recent exploits of corporate capitalism is just as solid as any other you can attach a bunch of facts to.
sactownjudge Avatar
Posted: 12.07.08, 08:29 PM
sactownjudge Avatar
Posted: 12.07.08, 07:43 PM
Here it is....