ZNet Articles
ZCommentaries
Blog PostsChallenging Stiglitz
By Kim Scipes at Dec 29, 2011 |
|
Joseph Stiglitz has just published a piece "The Book of Jobs" in the December 2011 issue of "Vanity Fair," and I've seen it published on a couple of web sites, including Z Net. Yes, I know Stiglitz has a Nobel Prize in Economics, that he's considered to be one of the top economists in the country, etc., etc., but I find this horribly insufficient as analysis.
He's correct to say our economy was in shambles before the Recession. But he doesn't really understand WHY it was this way.
The biggest problem is that he only looks at things (generally) in the United States, when this MUST be put into a global context: a national context, while necessary, is not sufficient.
He misses SO MUCH that must be included: he ignores the fact that the United States has an Empire, which must be militarily defended. Research I've done shows that between 1981-2011, the US Government has spent over $10 TRILLION for our military, and that doesn't include nuclear weapons and doesn't include veteran's benefits, etc.
He doesn't explain the rise of the "working middle class" (skilled tradespeople and unionized industrial workers), nor does he discuss what the cummulative attack on the labor movement has meant for unionization rates and political representation.
He doesn't discuss that the US is one of the most economically unequal countries in the world--the MOST unequal of all the so-called "developed countries" save the city-states of Singapore and Hong Kong, and more unequal than some of the poor nations on Earth, such as Uganda, Bangladesh, Vietnam.
He calls for a "massive investment" campaign to restore the US economy. He ignores the US is already over $14.5 TRILLION in debt, already. Further, he ignores the fact that the US was the only industrialized country to emerge out of World War II physically unscathed, and while our country was able to thrive during the 1947-73 period, it was because our economic competitors were generally prostrate--and nothing like that will ever happen again!
There's a lot more I could say, but I am very unimpressed with his analysis.
If you want to compare my analysis to his, go to my article, "Neo-liberal Economic Policies in the United States: The Impact of Globalization on a 'Northern' Country," which is on-line at www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/21584 . This article was published in 2009, and ends in the summer of 2007, right BEFORE the US entered the Recession, so none of the things reported was caused by the Recession. You will get a much more complete analysis in my piece.
Kim Scipes, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Sociology
Purdue University North Central
Westville, IN 46391
He's correct to say our economy was in shambles before the Recession. But he doesn't really understand WHY it was this way.
The biggest problem is that he only looks at things (generally) in the United States, when this MUST be put into a global context: a national context, while necessary, is not sufficient.
He misses SO MUCH that must be included: he ignores the fact that the United States has an Empire, which must be militarily defended. Research I've done shows that between 1981-2011, the US Government has spent over $10 TRILLION for our military, and that doesn't include nuclear weapons and doesn't include veteran's benefits, etc.
He doesn't explain the rise of the "working middle class" (skilled tradespeople and unionized industrial workers), nor does he discuss what the cummulative attack on the labor movement has meant for unionization rates and political representation.
He doesn't discuss that the US is one of the most economically unequal countries in the world--the MOST unequal of all the so-called "developed countries" save the city-states of Singapore and Hong Kong, and more unequal than some of the poor nations on Earth, such as Uganda, Bangladesh, Vietnam.
He calls for a "massive investment" campaign to restore the US economy. He ignores the US is already over $14.5 TRILLION in debt, already. Further, he ignores the fact that the US was the only industrialized country to emerge out of World War II physically unscathed, and while our country was able to thrive during the 1947-73 period, it was because our economic competitors were generally prostrate--and nothing like that will ever happen again!
There's a lot more I could say, but I am very unimpressed with his analysis.
If you want to compare my analysis to his, go to my article, "Neo-liberal Economic Policies in the United States: The Impact of Globalization on a 'Northern' Country," which is on-line at www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/21584 . This article was published in 2009, and ends in the summer of 2007, right BEFORE the US entered the Recession, so none of the things reported was caused by the Recession. You will get a much more complete analysis in my piece.
Kim Scipes, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Sociology
Purdue University North Central
Westville, IN 46391
You lose me a bit
By Emersberger, Joe at Jan 02, 2012 02:24 AM
I agree with most of what you say Kim but you kind of lose me here:
"He calls for a "massive investment" campaign to restore the US economy. He ignores the US is already over $14.5 TRILLION in debt, already. Further, he ignores the fact that the US was the only industrialized country to emerge out of World War II physically unscathed, and while our country was able to thrive during the 1947-73 period, it was because our economic competitors were generally prostrate--and nothing like that will ever happen again!"
First of all, citing US debt levels as a huge number is off putting. It is reminds me of the crude fear mongering of right wng deficit hawks though I know that isn't your intention. Public debt/to GDP ratios are far more rational starting point than absolute numbers but even they don't tell the full story. Japan, for example, has a gross debt-to GDP ratio of about 200% - roughly double the USA's I recall - and isn't facing a debt crisis while countries with far lower debt-to-GDP ratios (like Greece) are in crisis.
Second - the financial industry bailouts unmasked the US government's capacity for massive borrowing to protect the 1%. You don't have to believe the capacity is infinite to acknowledge that a huge amount of useful government spending is both very possible and desirable.
Third, it wasn't just the USA that posted impressive growth rates during the 1947-73 era because its major competitors were in ruins. Global growth rates were also far superior during this era. It has also been very well demonstrated by Mark Weisbrot and Dean Baker for the case of developing countries in their paper (available online) entitled "The score card on Globalization"). In fact, Weisbrot and Baker looked not only at GDP growth rates but also at progress in child mortality and life expectancy.
To sum up, you don't have to believe that the condition s of WWII need to be replicated in order to belive that massive governmnet stimulus is an excellent idea.
I agree with you that Stiglitz should have focussed much more intensely on the problem if inequality. He only mentioned it in passing and seems to suggest that government stimulus alone will deal with it. If the 1947-73 era was so great why did it unravel and lead to the neoliberal era? I think the simple answer is that even the lower level of inequality that existed btween 1947-73 was incredibly destructive - like a Trojan Horse that untimately ended the "Golden Age'. And I don't believe a simple emphasis on income inequality is enough to deal with the problem though it is certainly crucial. The emphasis should also be on democratizing worplaces and economic planning.
Reply this comment