Joseph Stiglitz

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: (455)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (1325)
Play WMV Play Quicktime

Can we get another stimulus package and ignore the Republicans and their tax cuts this time please? From This Week, Paul Krugman agrees with his fellow Nobel laureate, Joseph Stiglitz that there is a good chance that the economy is going to contract in the second half of 2010.

TAPPER: OK, we are getting close to short on time but I do want to ask you a question about the economy for 2010. Your fellow laureate, Joseph Stiglitz has said there's a significant chance the U.S. economy will contract in the second half of 2010. He's calling on the government to prepare a second stimulus. Do you think that's possible?

KRUGMAN: Yes, it's a reasonably high chance. I don't think it's more -- it's less than 50/50 odds, but you know, what we've got right now is a recovery that first of all is not showing up very much in jobs yet. It's being driven by fiscal stimulus which is going to fade out in the second half of next year and by inventory bounce. You know, production was low because companies were running on their inventories. They're stopping doing that so now you've got a bounce in the economy.

But that's also going to run out. So the things we know about are all going to be negative in the second half of next year. Now the financial markets, the last month, the financial markets have gotten really optimistic. You look at things like the term spread on bond rates. They suggest that the financial markets really think there is going to be a much more vigorous recovery. I don't see where it's supposed to come from, so the range is huge here. I would basically go with Joe Stiglitz. I'm really worried about the second half.

From Digby:

Boy I hope he's wrong about this.

[...]

Atrios agrees.

Tim Geithner, on the other hand, is confident that everything's coming up roses. Take your pick.



It's not as though I didn't already think this, but hearing someone like Joseph Stiglitz say it out loud is pretty chilling. And he's not the only one, either:

Sept. 13 (Bloomberg) -- Joseph Stiglitz, the Nobel Prize- winning economist, said the U.S. has failed to fix the underlying problems of its banking system after the credit crunch and the collapse of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.

“In the U.S. and many other countries, the too-big-to-fail banks have become even bigger,” Stiglitz said in an interview today in Paris. “The problems are worse than they were in 2007 before the crisis.”

Stiglitz’s views echo those of former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, who has advised President Barack Obama’s administration to curtail the size of banks, and Bank of Israel Governor Stanley Fischer, who suggested last month that governments may want to discourage financial institutions from growing “excessively.”

A year after the demise of Lehman forced the Treasury Department to spend billions to shore up the financial system, Bank of America Corp.’s assets have grown and Citigroup Inc. remains intact. In the U.K., Lloyds Banking Group Plc, 43 percent owned by the government, has taken over the activities of HBOS Plc, and in France BNP Paribas SA now owns the Belgian and Luxembourg banking assets of insurer Fortis.

While Obama wants to name some banks as “systemically important” and subject them to stricter oversight, his plan wouldn’t force them to shrink or simplify their structure.

Stiglitz said the U.S. government is wary of challenging the financial industry because it is politically difficult, and that he hopes the Group of 20 leaders will cajole the U.S. into tougher action.


Mike's Blog Roundup

Words of Power: While the econonomic royalists and their enforcers in politics and the media live the high life, will we he people fade into oblivion?

AMERICAblog News: Joseph Stiglitz predicted the global financial meltdown. So why can't he get any respect?

Calitics: In California, the Democrats caved. It's taken 31 years, but Howard Jarvis is finally going to get the wholesale destruction of public services he always wanted.

Intrepid Liberal Journal: The Death of Why: An interview with author Andrea Batista Schlesinger. It is Schlesinger’s contention that our culture promotes instant answers at the expense of inquiring.

The Satirical Political Report: In tribute to Cronkite, Fox changes its slogan

OFF THE BEATEN PATH: Pancake City, The Blue Horde, Maggie's Madness, Al's Ozone Repair Kit


GPS: Economists on the Fixing America's Financial Crisis

My friend John Amato has been asking where are the economists debating what's going on in this country on my television. Well, Fareed Zakaria had just that kind of discussion on his show GPS. This is a debate worth listening to with some actual economists on where we're at right now. The one thing that struck me with watching this clip is just how severe the problem of poverty is that is not being addressed by the media in the US and being ignored as part of our national dialog.

Full transcript to follow:

Continue reading »


Stiglitz: Bad Bank? Bad Idea

Another Nobel Prize-winning economist checks in! Joseph Stiglitz echoes Krugman on the idea of establishing a so-called bad bank, in which the federal government would subsidize toxic assets:

Feb. 1 (Bloomberg) -- Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz said any decision by President Barack Obama to establish a so-called bad bank to rid financial companies of toxic assets risks swelling the national debt.

Obama’s administration is moving closer to buying the illiquid assets currently clogging bank’s balance sheets and preventing them from boosting lending, people familiar with the matter said this week.

That amounts to swapping taxpayers’ “cash for trash,” Stiglitz said yesterday in a panel discussion at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. “You shouldn’t chase good money after bad. We’re talking about a national debt that’s very hard to manage.”

Stiglitz, a professor at Columbia University in New York and a former adviser to President Bill Clinton, says the plan would leave taxpayers paying for years of excess lending by banks. It would also deprive the government of money that would have been better spent shoring up Social Security, he said.