Upcoming Events

Dublin | Summit Mobilisations

no events match your query!

New Events

Dublin

no events posted in last week

Blog Feeds

Anti-Empire

Anti-Empire

offsite link Big Tech Has No Power at All. Always and... Tue Jan 26, 2021 18:24 | Curtis Yarvin

offsite link Israelis Say They’ll Attack Iran If US... Tue Jan 26, 2021 17:25 | Dave DeCamp

offsite link Fauci Is the Highest Paid Employee in th... Tue Jan 26, 2021 16:25 | Adam Andrzejewski

offsite link The Jewish Orthodox Street Has Been Abla... Tue Jan 26, 2021 15:30 | Josh Breiner

offsite link WHO Finally Warns PCR Test Positives at ... Tue Jan 26, 2021 13:39 | Tyler Durden

Anti-Empire >>

The Saker
A bird's eye view of the vineyard

offsite link Moveable Feast Cafe 2021/01/26 ? Open Thread Tue Jan 26, 2021 20:30 | Herb Swanson
2021/01/26 20:30:02Welcome to the ‘Moveable Feast Cafe’. The ‘Moveable Feast’ is an open thread where readers can post wide ranging observations, articles, rants, off topic and have animate discussions of

offsite link Joe Biden-Administration may focus only on internal issues Tue Jan 26, 2021 18:37 | amarynth
by Zamir Awan for the Saker Blog Congratulations! Joe Biden has been taken oath as the 46th U.S. president, terminating one of the most intense political transitions in modern American

offsite link Xi reads the Multilateral Riot Act at Davos Tue Jan 26, 2021 15:55 | amarynth
by Pepe Escobar, posted with permission and first posted at Asia Times The virtual Davos Agenda is finally on, from Monday to Friday this week, promoted by the World Economic

offsite link The Vicious Cycle Of Middle Eastern ?Diplomacy? Tue Jan 26, 2021 15:32 | amarynth
South Front In the Middle East, the proxy war between Israel and Iran is unfolding with full speed. The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) targets various positions in Syria, allegedly damaging

offsite link Nasrallah: ?It was Iran?s Soleimani who convinced Putin to enter Syria war? Mon Jan 25, 2021 08:22 | amarynth
Original link: http://middleeastobse... Video link: https://www.youtube.c... Description: Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah recounts how assassinated Iranian General Qassim Soleimani held a two-hour long meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin and convinced

The Saker >>

Public Inquiry
Interested in maladministration. Estd. 2005

offsite link Mainstream media: Failing to speak truth to power

offsite link David Quinn’s selective tolerance Anthony

offsite link A Woulfe in judges clothing Anthony

offsite link Sarah McInerney and political impartiality Anthony

offsite link Did RTE journalists collude against Sinn Fein? Anthony

Public Inquiry >>

Spirit of Contradiction

offsite link The Party and the Ballot Box Sun Jul 14, 2019 22:24 | Gavin Mendel-Gleason

offsite link On The Decline and Fall of The American Empire and Socialism Sat Jan 26, 2019 01:52 | S. Duncan

offsite link What is Dogmatism and Why Does It Matter? Wed Mar 21, 2018 08:10 | Sylvia Smith

offsite link The Case of Comrade Dallas Mon Mar 19, 2018 19:44 | Sylvia Smith

offsite link Review: Do Religions Evolve? Mon Aug 14, 2017 19:54 | Dara McHugh

Spirit of Contradiction >>

Joe Stiglitz: Economics Rock Star hits the Burlo

category dublin | summit mobilisations | news report author Thursday August 31, 2006 00:32author by seedot Report this post to the editors

Attempting to make globalisation work.

A report on the Geary Lecture 2006, organised by the ESRI, presented by Professor Joseph Stiglitz in the Burlington hotel on the afternoon of 30th August

The Geary lecture is one of the heavywight gigs on the Irish economics circuit and this year they scored a bit of a coup by getting Joe Stiglitz to stop off on his tour to promote his new book - Making Globalisation Work. Entering the room early the sound system had good warm up music and the 750 seats filled fairly quickly with the economics groupies. At this point let me say I had considered myself a real fan - I even caught Professor Stiglitz when he was still doing lecture theatres and selling a paper instead of a book - back before he was v. famous. He told jokes that I laughed at then and probably wouldn't remember or understand why exactly they were funny now. This time around the jokes were more accessible, he was just as willing to tilt at some windmills and attack some icons but overall this wasn't a great show.

As he spoke, Professor Stiglitz told anecdotes from his illustrious career as adviser to presidents and participant in the economic and trade policy setting that passes for world governance these days. He was introduced by the chair who made mention of his nobel prize and work on assymetric information in markets and his bestselling books that have challenged the ideology of globalisation as implemented by the IMF and the World Bank where he was once famously chief economist. He seemed a nice enough guy and held back from too much name dropping of the other economics and political celebrities that he hangs out with - Professor Stiglitz is a fairly engaging speaker although his pauses at times could be a bit ponderous.

He started by telling us that he was going to give a synopsis of his new book (on sale in the lobby in both hardback and paperback at a special price - I looked for a T-Shirt but couldn't find any) and a quick story about why he wrote it. He identifies three problems with globalisation as it is currently implemented:
1. economic globalisation is greater than political globalisation
2. the lack of ideological competition for the US which previously tempered its relations with other countries
3. the blind belief in the benefits of globalisation and the Washington consensus about economic policies within any country

While the book supposedly presents solutions for the problems that Stiglitz famously articulated in his previous hits, the lecture was a bit of a rehash of the criticisms of the institutions of globalisation, in particular the IMF, that created a true crossover star. He talked about the G1 and the veto that the US treasury imposes on the IMF. He proposed trade sanctions against the US for its refusal to ratify the Kyoto treaty on global warming and talked about real wage decline and growing inequality as systemic problems with globalisation. Of the three specific topics from his book that he dealt with, it was Intellectual Property that he was most radical on. Constantly referring to the Microsoft monopoly, he claimed to have been willing to write a foreword to a pirate edition of one of his text books in China. He gave a good version of the arguments against TRIPS, with a lot of focus on the issue of AIDS treatments and identified the necessity to seperate the entertainment companies from the drug companies in an overhaul of patent and copyright law. But it was here that it became hard to ignore the real flaw in Professor Stiglitz plans.

He proposed that patents should be replaced with prizes - that reseach which resulted in a cure for malaria or an AIDS vaccine should be awarded a prize based on their social worth and then licensed openly so that the drug could be produced at the sacredly optimal (for all his attacks on the axioms Professor Stiglitz is at his heart a neoclassist) marginal cost without any patent payments. Its not suprising that someone who has spent so much of his professional career studying the impact of information on markets should have a truly radical view of the ownership and control of information. What is surprising is that somebody who has spent so much time in the corridors of power should refuse to acknowledge the core problem with so many of his solutions - in the example above, who gets to pick the prize and decide whats socially good?

This was articulated most clearly by a question from the floor when Peadar Kirby from DCU pointed out that Professor Stiglitz had not dealt anywhere with the issue of power. He had accepted the gains by an elite but had not discussed that this elite would in any way resist change, that they may have the power to do this and that this will need to be challenged. His agenda, apart from on IP, was purely reformist despite his proclamations that the problems were systemic and critical. He proposed voting changes and alterations in the way the Bretton Woods institutions (world bank, IMF) would function, prehaps with a role for the UN. Dr. Kirby (prof, doc - it was that type of crowd) got a round of applause for his question and the rest of the contributions from the floor were suprisingly hostile.

Two things struck me duing the speech. Firstly, while Professor Stiglitz didn't drop peoples names, he would constantly refer to locations - meaning specific conferences or negotiations. Seattle, Cancun, Davros, Doha, Gleneagles. The thing that struck me was how his experience of these names was the experience that so many people have started to challenge as they turned conferences into convergences and negotiations into mobilisations. The other was his use of the plural pronoun was often confusing. When he talked about the ozone layer he spoke of how 'THEY' made a convention, 'THEY' imposed sanctions, all in a very positive light. He spoke of how 'We' don't have perfect transparency within the WTO mechanism yet and left me confused who 'WE' or 'THEY' were.

I thought of something I had read once, that it's not the maths that a horse does thats impressive but the fact that it does maths at all. With Professor Stiglitz his proposals are not that convincing and his criticisms are neither novel nor especially well presented. Given his background and identification, its just impressive that one of THEM does it at all. I would suggest that anybody interested in his work would be better starting with his Nobel speech and read his economics, or even his insider accounts of te World Bank but leave alter globalisation to others. Sometimes things just won't work, and you have to start again: the IMF / World Bank / WTO seem well beyond reform to me.

author by R. Isiblepublication date Thu Aug 31, 2006 02:13author address author phone Report this post to the editors

It's also worth noting that Stiglitz thinks that China is an example of globalisation done right and in his latest book "Fair Trade for All" argues for liberalising labour markets (e.g. promoting Bush's bracero model). There was a good NYT review in April which pointed out that although Free Trade /might/ increase wealth in a particular country it didn't promote distribution of that wealth within the country and the basic structures created during the New Deal are being rapidly eroded in the USA.

Related Link: http://www0.gsb.columbia.edu/ipd/
author by Observer 3publication date Thu Aug 31, 2006 13:42author address author phone Report this post to the editors

"What is surprising is that somebody who has spent so much time in the corridors of power should refuse to acknowledge the core problem with so many of his solutions - in the example above, who gets to pick the prize and decide whats socially good?"

Yeah, well, there are a lot of elites and cliques (big and small, left and right) who dont seem to be able to get their self-important brains around that problem, who lie about the privileges their situation confers on them because they so much want to keep the door onto their cosy little world well shut, to say nothing of victimising and abusing people who try to point their glaring hypocrisy out to them. WE and THEY are all the same in that context - usually men determined to make personal capital out the situation - whether its self-importance, power or wealth - or all three. I suspect the issue that truly bothers this reporter is not that there appear to be two mutually exclusive groups in the equation but rather that he is not a part of the privileged 'WE' group himself. After all he once rubbed shoulders with the man and even condescended to find his jokes amusing. What we see here is really an attempt to cut Stiglitz down to a size that the reporter's transparently envious ego is able to cope with.

An article by Stiglitz himself :

http://www2.gsb.columbia.edu/faculty/jstiglitz/download...e.pdf

 
© 2001-2021 Independent Media Centre Ireland. Unless otherwise stated by the author, all content is free for non-commercial reuse, reprint, and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere. Opinions are those of the contributors and are not necessarily endorsed by Independent Media Centre Ireland. Disclaimer | Privacy