Joseph Stiglitz: ‘We know where fascism led last time’ | SpectatorTV 

This guy being an advisor for the Democrats and World Bank comes as no surprise. Two organisations that have been damaging to economic growth and promoters of authoritarian politics. Blaming Thatcher and Reagan for the damage done by his own anti-human ideologies is laughable.

Well done to Kate Andrews for picking up this 'New York Times' bs and calling out his nonsense.

25:00 Jesus, he sees Libertarianism as bad in the same way as Communism as in inhuman. Hes making out that Libertarianism is Authoritarian. Thats nuts.

Very good. Love Kate - she is very quick. As distinguished as Mr. Stiglitz is, I'm not sure he was quite expecting such a powerful and informed interlocutor. Thanks for doing this!

I can't believe what I'm hearing, this man is a joke.

She tore his shoddy evidence and arguments to pieces.

There’s no example of an advocate referring to “ Trickle down theory”, just detractors. This gentleman is an ideologue plain and simple.

Opening with childish strawmen isn't a good look. He doesn't come over as a grown up and Kate effortlessly made him look very silly here.

'Scandinavia' while being lumped together is very different as Kate pointed out rightly. Norwegian state-led, oil-fueled economy and Swedish market economy are really different, and you can't make a case across them.

We also known from history how Islamic invasions end, but everyone is afraid to mention this. Yet calling out fascism appears stigma free.

Admirors of social democracy in scandinavia never mention the fact that their poster boy Norway is really a better managed oil rich gulf economy.

So the problem is, there isn't enough government. That is what has changed the last, say, two decades: Government has shrunk.

Interesting that the first 4 comments, who disagree with him, have been shadow-banned.

He is so partisan that it prevents him from seeing (or expressing) the truth.

The whole premise that government has shrunk over the last 40 years is completely false and contrary to the reality that the state's share of national wealth has never been higher across the developed world

"We wouldn't be having this conversation if not for... [A certain intervention]" Not only is that unfalsifiable, it's ahistorical.

Very good interview. Kate spoke almost as much as Stiglitz!! Guess she has a book out too😅

Stiglitz is on Spectator TV. Coming soon: Diane Abbott on Mao Tse Tung ("he did more good than harm")

That was fantastic. Great job by Kate Andrews in offering some sorely needed counter-perspective to Stiglitz's regurgitation of cliche big government "inclusion and climate change" talking points, while he completely forgets to mention the massive death toll of communism, and the incredible successes of free market policies throughout the past century.

Great, Kate - and The Spectator - a new, our very own, Uncommon Knowledge -fabulous!

Interesting interview. I worry about what his "inclusive" society enforced by government action entails. It is divisive enough already with the Equality Act.

Congratulations to the Spectator for stepping out of their bubble and interviewing someone they disagree with. This was a truly fascinating conversation.

Cannot stand him. I came across through work about 35 years ago, as dreadful as he was then.

Love Stiglitz. Next Piketty. Spectator readers of the world unite!

He's right about some degree of coercion being required for a successful country/economy - I'm utterly sick of being able to do and say exactly what I want in the UK, we desperately need a few laws to reduce the almost anarchic freedom that we're currently cursed with.

This is infantile nonsense to suggest fascism mark 2 is on the horizon. Total left neurosis.

This is a very interesting interview, it it quite obvious that Kate largely disagrees with many of the points in the book and does exceptionally at controlling her desire to destroy it point by point, she doesn't do a bad job though at very subtly showing the endless contradictions of the historical/ economic comparisons held there-in. your doubt is convincingly argued Kate !.

Kate is absolutely brilliant!

Confusing pollution with climate change really tells all about how serious one can take this guy

The fact he calls America a democracy and not a Constitutional Republic with aleenable rights says it all in my opinion.

Interesting. Will watch later, thanks for sharing.

"It was Thomas Edison who brought us electricity, not the Sierra Club. It was the Wright brothers who got us off the ground, not the Federal Aviation Administration. It was Henry Ford who ended the isolation of millions of Americans by making the automobile affordable, not Ralph Nader. Those who have helped the poor the most have not been those who have gone around loudly expressing 'compassion' for the poor, but those who found ways to make industry more productive and distribution more efficient, so that the poor of today can afford things that the affluent of yesterday could only dream about." Thomas Sowell

I love the wood panelling in the Spectator office.

The Trump Derangement on this elitist bully is amazing.

Kate is smart

As someone unfamiliar with Stiglitz' work, I think the interview would have been more meaningful if Kate and Joseph had first spent a bit more time covering the topics and thesis of the book, rather than immediately diving in to attack and test the boundaries of topics in the book. The lack of context and background just left me confused a lot of the time during their discussion.

' Freefall'was a great book, I'll read this too. However my initial thoughts are that the threats to freedom and democracy are coming from the Globalist Left Wing and it has been interesting these last days as many from all sides of the Overton Window have rightly pointed out the same reflections upon recent elections:The 'as 'Far-Right' as we have' political parties did absolutely dismally in the elections, none of them - and there were few - kept their deposits. Lots of recognition that 'Britain First' did terribly. The Tories have been absolutely trounced but Labour not doing as well as they might with many votes going to Green, Socialist Workers Party, and Independents. The Tory votes mostly didn't go Right.Some 40 of these local posts though were won on small turn outs with - take your pick - block/tribal/sectarian voting patters and 'IslamoLeftist' candidates winning local elections based upon international issues i.e. Zionists/Jew/Gaza/Ummah. There were no No 'Far-Right' won seats, the apparently 'fascist' (not my words) ReformUK haven't done well, half of what they imagined. Apparently ReformUK are Far-right but they aren't exactly taking off are they? No support because the reality seems clear, there is no Far-Right movement worthy of column inches in UK, there are always going to be proper loony extremists when you have near 70 million people and a crazy world and that means some Far-Right actual Nazis and types who want to blow things up, but there is no 'threat' to society from these few thousand people. We seem left to conclude that IF this country IS a nation of racists then they are too lazy/silent/apathetic/stupid enough to be motivated by their racism and hate to go and vote. So what to worry about? Meanwhile, there is clearly a set who are most very motivated to go out and vote and/Far-Right'? Maybe this nation could grow up and have a mature conversation about all this? All we people who believe in secular democracy are a very broad church and whatever our other differences are we can sort them out in debate, we have a long history of managing to do just that. Come on Britain please do better.

Think about the history of the 'Public/Private Partnership'!

I’ll wager Hayek’s ‘The Road to Serfdom’ will be still be in print, long after his has been pulped.

Oh for crying out loud! "Trickle Down Economics" is a straw man. It was a term invented by the fireside social commentator and vaudeville cowboy, Will Rogers. It was his homespun way of explaining away the motives of industrialists. But he was wrong - why wouldn't he be? He was an entertainer, not an economist. So why all these socialism apologists with letters after their names and economics Nobel prizes keep talking about it is beyond me. Only it isn't. I know why they use this cowboy's straw man: it is so their own controllist instincts and desires are never scrutinised. He wants to be the guy who operates the traffic lights, telling you when, where and on what you can spend your own money. I can tell you too: on taxes, now!

I cannot stand this guy.

Fascism isn't when there's populist outrage or authoritarianism. It's a response to the incompatibility between liberal democracy and the liberal economy: Voting people will want a say in how the economy is run, so in fascism, the "state" or "party" becomes the representative of the will of the people in order to control the economy. Neoliberalism is exactly the opposite of fascism, but it exacerbates this inherent contradiction between liberal democracy and the liberal economy making the rise of fascism more likely along with other resolutions to this incompatibility, such as oligopoly or social democracy.

I had never watched this show before. It represents views opposite to mine (although this wasn't why I hadn't seen it; I simply wasn't aware of it), but I believe it's important to engage in such debates, especially in these tumultuous times. I felt the interviewer really pressed Professor Stiglitz on some crucial issues, sometimes perhaps not allowing him to fully articulate his responses, although generally in a respectful manner, as is appropriate in a debate. However, I don't believe she ultimately succeeded. That being said, I do think that Prof. Stiglitz could have carried out a more profound philosophical critique of neoliberalism, but then he might have had to criticize capitalism itself, which is something he does not want to do. I think this enabled the interviewer to quasi-corner him on some issues that deserve a more nuanced and principled analysis (like the comparison with the Nordic countries). Still, I do not think she succeeded in making a compelling case here either. In general, I think that the interviewer's points are mostly ideology-based but necessary to deal with seriously because we are in times where ideology is obstructing the perception of facts, even the more obvious ones. This is why I welcome these sorts of debates more than ever. Democracy must prevail.

No wonder Columbia University is in such a state!

I'm surprised he agreed to and sat through such a hostile interview.

:( I would have like to hear him talk his theory awhile before the cross examination. Maybe I will just go buy his book.

I found it very difficult to listen to this episode, the journalist should try to INTERVIEW the guest and not make it a debate! Obviously she has opposing views, not good journalism at all. Very rude, kept interrupting 🤮

Lectures ar Columbia. Ayuh.

more specials, thank you so much!

For brits it is not N but C … C is built in and part of Brits culture. You still have a party who distanced but cannot totally cut off from it. Hence the question is not N will lead you but C. But c and c.

This chap is fluent, verbally virtuosic and clearly has no idea of what he is talking about. The freedom tradition is oldest, clearest, strongest, most vigorous and most responsive to new exigencies in the conservative English tradition - not written down but informally understood as a conventional commitment to each other's freedom through voluntary submission to mutually agreed rules and norms of behaviour. Chaps like this who have the final big idea which they want to be expressed in state structures are going to be interested in one thing, having his class determine who can dow whatthe and when. Fluent effluent.

We invite Mr Stieglitz to go and live in China and see if he can write about such ludicrous theories so freely and, most importantly if he can live on an Economist Chinese remuneration, after tax which he so much promotes...The acid test, Mr Stieglitz.

Glaf that everyone else had already said what i came to say. What an airhead 🤦 great work from the interviewer. Grilled his balls off

She does not let him finish his points.

Polarization is depressing, she exposes his efforts to oversimplify and discount story well.

No vaccine for me but but I still talk to people

voluntary restraint including those one can revolt against via democracy is very different from arbitary constraint, which someone like Putin and Xia can use it for whatever purpose. Even success as in Soviet Union and now China does not meant great but meant a path to less freedom. the key is not to fight or with neoliberal but more about basic value of freedom. The utiltiy of freedom ... is important but is not a justification.

Weak interview, in a very polite manner, blabering about apearing to talk about economics and not letting the Nobel winner talk

Interesting as Freddy Gray interviewed a retired (and superannuated) political scientist, Norman Ornstein, who also trotted out the 'Trump is the end of democracy' line. Just a guess, but are the Democrats calling on these old guys to press this idea? Kate Andrews, I think surprised poor Mr. Stiglitz, with the depth of her questions.

The trouble with the left is that they have so many themes they can throw into an argument without evidence "inclusivity", "inequality", "all the gains have gone to the top" that it's so hard for the rational interviewer to keep on top of what is being said. Great interview though, and congrats to Mrs Andrews, to Mr Stiglitz for good humour although his jokes were old ones and to Penguin also for making Mr Stiglitz do the media round with people who disagree with him.

Fascists on the left warning about fascists on the right.

It's very sad to see him praise the mRNA vaccines and to say such silly things as “authoritarians like Donald Trump”. That said, he's a great economist and has made great contributions to knowledge. In this way he is a bit like Noam Chomsky who has also made great contributions to knowledge but has also recently said some rather silly things.

Take a shot every time he says "inclusion" as if that is the most important thing we need in the world, whatever he means by that.

The vaccine! Jesus

Kate doesn't look very happy here.

Fair to play Kate for pointing out the inaccuracies!

As the great David Bellamy talked about Treees take un co2 and create ocygen no wonder he was removved fromva tekevision screens.

Oh dear.

Muh fascism.

SCARY man!

you can always feel free when you can control ones spending thats not essential and just sit it out for 50 yrs till you have saved enough for the things in life you have always wanted like 10 wives

5:00 This dude is nothing but a sneering propagandist mouth organ, lol she's gonna shred his arguments in 5 mins I can already tell!

Very impressed by the interviewer - in command of the facts, polite but insistent in making her ( well founded) points.

Interesting and adult conversation. Serious questions and space to answer them, such a contrast to toxic American media

....to the foundation of Israel?

This guy is a clown

wooh, pretty much eviscerated his arguments, lol. kinda sad, really.

Childish bumbling:)

This guys sure likes the word inclusion. "Threats to democracy". This guys a joke

Shit.

Stiglitz is right about everything. What planet does Kate Andrews live on?