Even when people point out that BLM came from the Maoist Black Liberation Movement they ignore the truth. For several decades people have been warning about the growing political power of groups of international banks and multinational corporations. The mainstream media have dismissed these warnings as the work of "conspiracy theorists".
Well written and agreeable. But I would say that I've seeing Joseph Stiglitz's writing for decades and he's fake. There are many examples, but here is a quick set of how he operates from one of his book's, "Making Globalization Work", here:
on page 274 he writes: ". America's seeming brazenness in doubling its agricultural subsidies while preaching the rhetoric of free trade is an example. As a sop to those who insist on fairness, some effort is put into finding "legal" ways of providing these subsidies, such as devising concepts like "non-trade distorting subsidies," getting other countries to agree that such subsidies are allowed, and then claiming that one's subsidies are of that sort. The presumption seems to be that because something is legal, it is morally right.
I believe that this approach is both morally wrong and economically and politically unviable. America's standing in the world has long been based not just on its economic and military power but on its moral leadership, on doing what is right and fair. But for those who believe in realpolitik, this is of little concern. More to the point, this option is not really possible, given how far we already are down the path of globalization." See, its a *moral* imperative to do Globalization and its also impossible to change course on policy.
Or here on page 275 where he explains that Globalizations great "successes of the last three decades has been the creation of strong democracies in many parts of the developing world." But this is just plain false, Globalization has been extremely de-democratizing on so called developing nations, I say "so called" because the structures of Globalization are intentionally suppressing their economic development
Or here on page 271: "Standard economic theory, which underlies the call for trade liberalization, has a scenario for what should happen with full liberalization-a scenario that its advocates seldom mention, but which we noted briefly in chapter 3. With full global economic integration, the world will become like a single country, and the wages of unskilled workers will be the same everywhere in the world, no matter where they live. Whether in America or in India or in China, unskilled workers of comparable skills performing comparable work will be paid the same. In theory, the actual wage will be somewhere between that received today by the Indian or Chinese unskilled worker and that received by his American or European counterpart; in practice, given the relative size of the populations, the likelihood is that the single wage to which they will converge will be closer to that of China and India than to that of the United States or Europe." But even within its quite narrow field of view own context, this is a highly debatable assertion, but even just a slight amount of introducing of the real world soon makes it pretty dumb. But more importantly, he's pushing the line of an effective dictatorship, all peoples and all governments, from the tiniest village to the largest nation, will be subordinated to this economic program because he says so, and again, his own assertions, even when only taken within the context of his own logic, are kina dumb
And hat goes, at least generally, for his entire body of work up until today, he'll rails against lost of stuff over in the web pages of Project Syndicate but any time any body is going to do anything to challenge the status quo he explains why its crazy. Controlled Opposition.
Also, there is no such thing as a Nobel Prize in Economics, its actual name is "The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel", and its a fake Nobel that a bunch of Big Banks and MNCs, through the person of the Swiss central bank bribed the Nobel Committee to award on their behalf so that they could give charlatans like Milton Friedman an air of credibility
The only conspiracy theory that anyone should be worried about is the one that tells us "conspiracy theories" are dangerous.
Well written and agreeable. But I would say that I've seeing Joseph Stiglitz's writing for decades and he's fake. There are many examples, but here is a quick set of how he operates from one of his book's, "Making Globalization Work", here:
on page 274 he writes: ". America's seeming brazenness in doubling its agricultural subsidies while preaching the rhetoric of free trade is an example. As a sop to those who insist on fairness, some effort is put into finding "legal" ways of providing these subsidies, such as devising concepts like "non-trade distorting subsidies," getting other countries to agree that such subsidies are allowed, and then claiming that one's subsidies are of that sort. The presumption seems to be that because something is legal, it is morally right.
I believe that this approach is both morally wrong and economically and politically unviable. America's standing in the world has long been based not just on its economic and military power but on its moral leadership, on doing what is right and fair. But for those who believe in realpolitik, this is of little concern. More to the point, this option is not really possible, given how far we already are down the path of globalization." See, its a *moral* imperative to do Globalization and its also impossible to change course on policy.
Or here on page 275 where he explains that Globalizations great "successes of the last three decades has been the creation of strong democracies in many parts of the developing world." But this is just plain false, Globalization has been extremely de-democratizing on so called developing nations, I say "so called" because the structures of Globalization are intentionally suppressing their economic development
Or here on page 271: "Standard economic theory, which underlies the call for trade liberalization, has a scenario for what should happen with full liberalization-a scenario that its advocates seldom mention, but which we noted briefly in chapter 3. With full global economic integration, the world will become like a single country, and the wages of unskilled workers will be the same everywhere in the world, no matter where they live. Whether in America or in India or in China, unskilled workers of comparable skills performing comparable work will be paid the same. In theory, the actual wage will be somewhere between that received today by the Indian or Chinese unskilled worker and that received by his American or European counterpart; in practice, given the relative size of the populations, the likelihood is that the single wage to which they will converge will be closer to that of China and India than to that of the United States or Europe." But even within its quite narrow field of view own context, this is a highly debatable assertion, but even just a slight amount of introducing of the real world soon makes it pretty dumb. But more importantly, he's pushing the line of an effective dictatorship, all peoples and all governments, from the tiniest village to the largest nation, will be subordinated to this economic program because he says so, and again, his own assertions, even when only taken within the context of his own logic, are kina dumb
And hat goes, at least generally, for his entire body of work up until today, he'll rails against lost of stuff over in the web pages of Project Syndicate but any time any body is going to do anything to challenge the status quo he explains why its crazy. Controlled Opposition.
Also, there is no such thing as a Nobel Prize in Economics, its actual name is "The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel", and its a fake Nobel that a bunch of Big Banks and MNCs, through the person of the Swiss central bank bribed the Nobel Committee to award on their behalf so that they could give charlatans like Milton Friedman an air of credibility