People are saying Naomi Klein is a lightweight on this panel. No. Klein was has been one of the more insightful analysts of capitalism since her 20s. Her book No Logo which discusses the shift from material to immaterial production was a water-shed that has influenced many more academic approaches in radical economics. Similarly her Shock Doctrine thesis brings a new particular political power aspect into economic analysis. Put simply, Klein is a giant in the analysis of capitalism. With all that said, she likely hasn't had all the classical training of academic economists so might sometimes get a bit lost in some of their discussions. Although a lot of the academic training of economists can be misleading, which perhaps partially explains why so many of them will never reach Klein's level.
+Cesar P Um, no. de Soto sounds like an "Everything should be recorded in the county courthouse" broken record and the other two actually answered the questions asked.
De Soto is neglecting politics and power altogether. Just knowing and possessing perfect property information does not prevent power, elites, and rulers in general to act immorally.
1984levani says: "De Soto is neglecting politics and power altogether. Just knowing and possessing perfect property information does not prevent power, elites, and rulers in general to act immorally." == He's out of touch with the reality, in my opinion. He's talking about "the way it's supposed to be", moral talk and utopian idea. Pretty much in line with the neo-liberal economic idea. He's not seeing the result from it and the consequences that follow. In science, theory doean't rule the reality, the reality rules the theory. Everything else is religious belief.
@seppsters I think that one thing you are looking at is that Large businesses will *never* go bankrupt unless the power and influence they have over overall society is kept below a certain threshold. Correct me if I am wrong, but most free market proponents argue that you don't need to keep the power and influence of large companies below any sort of threshold.
I take your point that the Western powers had to moderate some aspects of wealth distribution due to the existence of the Soviet alternative, and threw off all restraints after its elimination. At the same time, "The great enemy" propaganda allowed the building of a massive weapons production reliant economy which is at the heart of present day problems. The backbone, fear. Eisenhower ; Military Industrial Complex. Creating more fear will always suit the right.
We're actually travelling back pre-1917 heading back to the Victorian age. There were always nice people in the chattering classes - who seemed to disappear when it came to election time. And there were always the great and the good. Capitalism only started improving once communism came on the scene. Its my guess things won't start improving again without a major region taking on communism - perhaps Latin America - and the reemergence of the hard Left in Southern and Eastern Europe.
You didn’t know how right you were. With the emergence of China as a global power to rival that of the United States, we may be lucky enough to finally get some labour rights back. This month workers all over the country have been striking for better pay. The labour shortage has made companies ignoring benefits extremely difficult as they’re forced to offer more pay. I’m hopeful that things will change. We just need a strong labour movement snd a strong politician who knows how to manipulate congress into forcing through our rights. I think we are years away from that unfortunately though. It will take something big to shock the country. It will take a larger fall of the middle class. But I see it nearing. We’re in the 21st century version of the roaring 20s.
Not only this is a debate between a libertarian and two socialists, moderated by another socialist, but them you erase him from the title of the video. Nice!
@sfjeff089 - DesSoto clearly described the mechanism: have well documt'd and properly executed property rights. He argues that when every thing is owned by the citizenry & everyone knows who that is & the courts keep it clear, trust is created. But the mechanism of trust prefigures property rights because it is instinctual & irrational. Read Weber; the rise of the Christian-right may be an effort to re-create trust. Klein rightly questioned this with two egs of power trumping those rights.
Derivatives - is like buying tickets for Elvis and instead getting an Elvis impersonator who in turn sends a sub on the gig . Then you find out Elvis was booked on 10000 gigs for the same night
I think you've oversimplified De Soto's argument. De Soto is saying that the system of law is essentially incomplete now. I think he's actually rather patronizing and smug. Stiglitz pointed out a flaw in this reasoning right at the beginning - the example of debtor's prison. This isn't an issue of law but of values, so saying the law is incomplete is wrong. If someone has the power to exploit, it is certain laws and rules in place that enable it. Goldman Sachs doesn't have thugs with guns.
@elgajd I would argue that "property rights" is a basket of concepts, some of which fit a narrow definition and some of which are more broad. For example, in mining, people often talk about property rights settling the issue of discovering that you have been drinking community water with traces of uranium or arsenic. There is some chance that property rights will settle that issue correctly eventually, but mining regulations and an active EPA will often be faster and more effective.
@kasraman It all comes down to which ingredient is missing. Sort of a Maslow's heirarchy of economic needs. It does little good to focus on our massive, but met need for air and water when we are starving. But if you come from a region where water is the major problem, then there is less point in focusing on food.
I am a socialist and find Klein and Stiglitz both useful exposers of the underlying contradictions and fatal flaws inherent in capitalism. Like everything else capitalism will outlive its usefulness. Id say that moment is now and over the next decade.
Actually, DeSoto puts the trust issue quite well. Economic activity is a trust-based system. He links the trust to property rights, but I think the creation of trust pre-dated that with the expansion of Christianity. The property rights came about because of that trust - trust in the law and even a movement towards that trust. Read Max Weber's The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Sadly, greed is more stupefying than sex, and is now being used to undermine that with pelf.
@LogicalFlawDetector OMG!!! I just realized I have been wrong all these years. I have assumed that monetary contraction occurred when an economic spending base that was already living past its means by mortgaging everything lost major portions of the asset sectors, deleveraged, and saw further erosion based on the multiplier effect on lost financial sectors. ... and here it turns out that it was just the fed contracting the money supply the whole time. How could I have been so blind?????
Like it or not, we are more than ever together in a rocking overfilled unstable boat, and intelligent solutions will be required.I don´t believe we have the elbow room any more for violent confrontation. Injustice must be confronted but the methods of Gandhi, and Mandela are more likely to avoid a world which is worse for everybody.Such methods are not hand wringing and require immense solidarity which is a much better start if thats the kind of world you want to build.People must be convinced
@sfjeff1089 (continued). So what relevance did De Soto's arguments have to that problem. Don't get me wrong. He did a great job of explaining what problems third world countries have, but these problems were tiny in comparison to the issue that the banks had so much freedom that they had the freedom to corrupt politicians with impunity.
No. Klein is not a socialist. Socialism is not simply the nationalisation of companies and democracy. (which is what Klein supports). She is not a socialist.
@LogicalFlawDetector Britain controlled the markets of its colonies like India by subjecting them to production of raw materials for the factories in Britain. United States had a protected market for the majority of 1800s because they could not compete with European products. The fact is every country (and rightly so) protects its markets for products that are weaker in quality. Toyota was heavily subsidized by Japan so was Samsung until both of these companies could compete internationally
not ust anyone! it's Hernando de Soto Hernando de Soto is a Spanish explorer and conquistador who led the first European expedition deep into the territory of the modern-day United States, and the first documented to have crossed the Mississippi River.
@elgajd He made a great case for the *need* for creating trust in an economic system, but I didn't see that he gave a complete picture on the best *mechanism* for creating trust.
The primarily reason this discussion is "still to much on the surface" is precisely because there is a lack of solid grounding, due to lack of education on economics, in what free market really means. Kline speaks critically of authoritarianism yet condones state sanction programs like public health care and education. Klein often speaks at cross purposes and speaks against authoritarianism when it suits her, ie against US military expenditure.
I assume you have attended public schools, used public highways, gone to public parks, enjoyed you weekends, enjoyed your forty hour work week or less, etc. You get the point i hope, And all brought to you by the left and socialist concepts. Capitalism is now in a death spiral brought on by its own characteristics. The most efficient way to allocate resources is a socialist society and not a system which makes a virtue out of greed. Our corporations behave like sociopaths.
@Crackxyx listen to DeSoto's ramble from 37:00 to 40:00 or so. He defines the property system as a legal system that makes the difference between possessing a piece of land and owning a deed that gives you liquidity and clarity on exactly what you own. Alright, that's fine. Then he rambles for 3 minutes on how knowing things is better than not and makes strange references to Chinese urbanization and airline cockpits that don't really have anything to do with a legal basis for liquidity.
Well, to start of, one that doesnt favour a market system dominated by private enterprises whoms only goal is to increase their profits. Secondly. A government that is representative of the needs of the majority of the people (the working class) instead of a minority of people. Thirdly, and most importantly, a government that makes its financial and economic decisions based on what is sustainable and what has a positive effect for most people, instead of what satisfies "the market" (the rich).
lol David Harvey is the moderator. He meant Stiglitz is the moderate. but yes David Harvey has been teaching Das Capital for years... maybe you can call him a Marxist but you should probably clarify for yourself what that means. A scale that would put Marxism on the opposite end of Capitalism is pretty stupid despite how often that is done. Marx was a commentator on capitalism during his time. Juxtaposing Marxism and Capitalism is a technique to used to prevent you from actually reading Marx.
@LogicalFlawDetector What free market proponents like you do is selectively pick instances where countries with great economic might opened up markets because they could compete globally. India is being pressured by the US at the WTO to open up its tech sector since Indian companies can't compete with US companies. At the same time US protects its agro-economy against cheap eastern grains in a hypocritical manner.
Naomi just said something which needs to be commented on...and the moderator turns to HdS to say..."how is your business doing...and you think we can learn from it?" The moderator looks intelligent but...make your own conclusions...
The British would have much preferred a violent uprising to the one Gandhi lead they knew how to deal with that. He put them in an impossible place in relation to their public ethics.
@seppsters It's more painful to see De Soto saying over and over that you need something that we already have except in one small area when the real issue is that the perpetrators of a massive scandal have too much power in Washington for us to do anything about it yet.
@seppsters Do you have any facts or data showing that smaller companies are more efficient? (or actually from your argument, do you have any facts or data showing that for any large company there are *always* smaller companies competing directly which are more efficient?) Also, any discussion of protectionism is meaningless without the context of what your trading partners are doing and what has been happening in currency markets, at least if you want to analyze in terms of cause and effect.
Does he not make a fair point about "documenting property" regardless of political-economic system? Even under say, state socialism, leaders/ representatives (whatever) would need some record of what a person owned (whether personal "property" or more) in order to fairly replace it in a natural disaster. From each according to need sure, but a better society would seek to replace all property if it were more just wouldn't it. Democracy requires transparent information.
not sure if one can speak of property rights and power without addressing human and perhaps nature rights. our continued genocidal policies and actions towards indigenous peoples is unacceptable, and in this day and age continued genocidal policies, given history is unforgivable. enlightening discussion, wish you folks would spend 2 weeks really breaking down these topics, couple hours is just too short for the importance of your topic
I like your comment. Klein is a socialist; Stiglitz isn't. I think they'd agree with you. I only disagree with your characterization of Stiglitz as moderate. What is moderate? Moderate is a relative description, relative to some supposed extreme. But to say something is extreme is to marginalize it. It's too judgmental. It's more helpful just to call people what they are, in their own words: Klein is socialist, Stiglitz is a social democrat, De Soto is a neoliberal. It's more objective that way
I think you may have missed a central point in Naomi Klein's work. The Capitalist system thrives on things like violent opposition. It reminds me of a Star Trek story of the 60s, Kirk, and co; encountered a malevolent being of energy in space, and the more aggressive energy they pumped into it, the stronger, and more potent it became. Only derision, and ridicule weakened it. Philosophical Star Trek :-) .
To understand the relative successes of Communist systems, Compared to the "evil empire versions" prevalent, you have to know some real history. Not many people do, and I do not have the time or energy to try to enlighten. I´m not sure anybody softens position when they feel their secure, privileged position threatened. Pointing out the greater threat of continuation of the present paradigm I see as more useful.
The fact is, within a globalized mortgage market, auditing is impossible. Restricting mortgages to domestic markets is the only solution - or, alternatively, just not allowing mortgages to be traded. Something De Soto would no doubt oppose, given he thinks the poor should get easy access to.credit. The poor are just better off in social housing - its plainly obvious.
She says capitalism but what she means is corporate capitalism whereas there is incessant intervention in the economy by the state (bailouts, tax breaks, contracts to private firms. This state intervention which preserves the economic and political power of the ruling elite is synonymous with authoritarianism. I agree with you that capitalism is by definition not authoritarian but the United States economy has no semblance of true capitalism (aka actual free markets).
What Naomi Klein said about India is totally untrue, maybe that might have been a special case, usually the poor lose their lands to the rich and politically powerful because of poor land rights and broken judiciary. I think though De Soto makes the same argument again and again to a point of annoyance,he makes an important point. Only people from third world can appreciate it fully.
Its a little like what Reagan said about a Latin American dictator - 'he might have been a son-of-a-bitch but he was our son-of-a-bitch'. Well the Soviet Union was our son-of-a-bitch.
Keynes seems to be far from radical according to William J. Novak in LAW AND THE SOCIAL CONTROL OF AMERICAN CAPITALISM It's a short summary, I recommend reading it.
I have lived in W. Berlin since 1980 so I know the good, and bad East and West.. The experience is; most do not want this clockwork two position world those the parties of pure solutions pedal. I am left pragmatic, and proud of it. Also human nature is such you could never create a peaceful society under communist or capitalist dictatorship. Both degenerate into the rule of elite groups. Both are arrogant, and at best paternalistic. We need intelligent pragmatic, and humane solutions.
@seppsters You're talking about disruptive market innovation. The problem is this can take a very long time to play out, and in the mean time you have actors that take on the ability of distorting markets due to their size and power. In a way you're right, b/c any sane actor in that situation would hijack government and use it to create barriers to entry. What I'm saying is you've got things backwards. The real answer is aggressively breaking up monopolies.
"What we need is a few revolutions to get the bourgeoisie sweating again." I would have agreed completely 30 years ago. It is my experience of life, and history that on most occasions it is fear among the elite classes which enables the worst reactionary outcomes. All threats are used to justify further oppression, and abuse. You may know Naomi Klein's books. eg; Rise of Disaster Capitalism. Cont,; ->
Why, because he is right? Please, this is serious and is better to give "good heart" advices than expose cheap perceptions. Our moms are annoying but they want the best for us.....and most of us did better with their advices.
Japan has been trying to tell the US that what is happening to them...has happened to Japan before...but US is to proud to listen and learn. HdS, a third world spokesman is not even given equitable time to expand his interesting observation to aid the crisis.
I dont like the ideas of people like Stiglitz or more famous moderates like Keynes. They start out by challenging an idea, but then end up with accepting the very thing they started out complaining about.
Naomi Klein at :34 is wrong that we have seen a true free market. We didn't because they knew with their buddies in the Fed and Treasury that they would be bailed out. What was the downside? If you let them fail, then we'd see more of a free market. Don't socialize the downside and privatize the upside.
@MiauZi69 Well, ole Martha Stewart did pretty well in prison. HA! I agree that folks shouldn't be in jail for drug offense or if mentally ill. I'd also remove the death penalty. Wonder if you saw Federal or state or county jail in that expose. What manner folks are kept will vary by prison. Some of the nicest prisons saw were in Sweden. Heck, that was nicer than my own house!
Corporations are now the new signifers of imperialism. And Advertizing, Hollywood, sport play the cultural imperial role far more effectively than monarchy could ever dream of. And what are UN celebrity ambassadors - if not modern aristocrats.When Angelina Jolie goes to India to help raise awareness for earthquake victims - how is that any different from Princess Dianna. And lets not forget there's still some good old fashioned missionary work happening in regions like Africa.
+Nate Blair right on! never enough georgism, not even in its heyday. Hernando de Soto comes close to looking at some of that. and how about defining the 'unit of account', where is the debate on that mammoth-in-the-room?
he lists it early on, and doesn't harvey mention rentier behaviour with stiglizt at the end? and de sota constantly emphasizes asset value over broken contract law; which includes un-extracted resources as accountable assets i.e. land rents, licenses, royalties, and sovereignty. de sota discusses those things elsewhere. but how about georgism are you a member of the society?
+CHANNEL ONE Thank you for reminding me about the content. I had forgotten over the last couple months. You know georgists are never satisfied... and yes, I am an active georgist. You?
@LogicalFlawDetector Alright. Free markets are anti-bail out. Let's assume that everybody in the discussion agrees either that the banks should not have been bailed out or the portion of the banks engaging in bets should not have been bailed out. How do you get from today's society to a society where that can be enforced? It does no good to argue against crime in a free society unless you also make provisions for hiring policemen.
While I agree with you, Naomi Klein actually sees the world as it really is. I am an economist and I see the big smoke screen which is hiding reality. US capitalism is not the dernier cri as it is now. De Soto is in another league, as is Naomi Klein, only on another level. Both see reality from a different perspective.
I do believe long term socialist solutions, are much nearer what is required in our time, though the efforts of the past require much self critic. In a resource based economy the solutions will be communal, and international, or it will be war. I believe it is best to throw both dogmas out the window, and start from scratch. The words carry too much baggage not to impede.
By state run enterprises, it means essential services like electricity, water, some transports, etc. These services cant have profit as a leitmotiv, cause many people dont have the money to pay their absurd prices they charge, when they are not-state run. Is this socialism? Perhaps, but I think is good-sense.
@LogicalFlawDetector So, the effects of the Gold standard were absolutely a problem. No argument there. There is a right-wing myth that the Smoot-Hawley tariff was bad because it was protectionist. Actually, that's not the case. The Smoot-Hawley tariff was bad because it was *excessively* protectionist. Tariffs went from 25% to 50% overnight in the beginning of a world-wide depression. Not good, but saying this is problematic goes far short of proving the proper level is 0.
"Tony Hayward- you know the guy who 'wanted his life back" as you shurely know, Tony is now president of the board of directors from new merged Glencore Xstrata Megaplayer. One's could not say that he did'nt done it (got back his life). Even bether, because some kind of neutral touch in this dirty business. Someone knows more about the threads behind?????
Hernando De Soto says the truth but he is way too mono-directional. He is like a man with a hammer who treats every problem like a nail. He has stifled the potential variety of discourse that could be had by constantly harping on property rights.
Why does every discussion begin with a long opening speech that has nothing to do with the subject of the video? Can't this fluff be cut out? This ritual of chanting the complete resume of each participant could be shortened a lot.
And I think the past hundred years were a useful exposer of the underlying contradictions and fatal flaws inherent in socialism. Which outlived its usefulness the moment it began.
@LogicalFlawDetector Joe said its corporate welfare under the "guise" of free market economy. He maintains that free market philosophy is flawed in the sense that it is never implemented and what has been going on for the past 40 years is deregulation of financial markets promoted by free-market proponents however maintaining a corporate welfare system. So he's criticizing the behavior of the government. I find it amusing that you think Stiglitz doesn't know principles of economic systems.
My brand of socialism ensures that the state serves the population. What is necessary for the public good and not being done cost effectively for the public should be done by the state. A good example would be the provision of internet services where the private cannot or will not provide it.
Hernando de Soto Polar is an economic genius.... He takes more than his fair share but in return he uses his power and influence to not fist fuck the population. If we ever see a world dictatorshipn or technocracy hope that he or someone like him is in charge of economic policy.
+Michael Swain "Hernando de Soto Polar is an economic genius.... " Joke? He only has one answer that he tries to apply to every single situation. It's a good thing that the conversation didn't turn to the US civil war.
+Jeff Little you're right, he's obsessive. but maybe that's because the approach he proposes has been ignored for centuries, never been attempted, and so few can see the relevance
Neoliberalism is the sort of exploitation of politicians (and others) push through based on pseudo-economic arguments. Sato didn't have anything to do with that. He uses the term property rights not defensively, as do Tea-partiers, but is arguing we need a better tracking system for the property we do have. Neo-liberalism leads to deregulation - he is talking about the exact opposite.
Well Thats true when it comes to sentimentalised, narcissistic nationalism at home the US can run with the Victorian British. As long as the British Empire was to do with trade, and exploitation through puppets, things went well. When they started marching down the high streets, and declaring their monarch Emperor, it was the beginning of the end. The US enjoys its Imperial pomp mostly at home. There´s TV now so they can "impress" from a distance.
@LogicalFlawDetector Oh the irony. Your name is Logicalflawdetector and you're spending hours commenting on youtube about how you understand free markets better than a world renowned Nobel prize winner. The idea of anything being free is related to the question - how free? You suggest Britain championing free market economics. Would you consider something free when there are certain restrictions? What exactly is a free market? The answer to that question is there have NEVER been a free market.
