WEBVTT - Joe Stiglitz Talks Global Economy Trends, Redefining Freedom 0:00:02.600 --> 0:00:06.960 Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news. 0:00:08.119 --> 0:00:10.280 Well, our next guest follows the US economy, really the 0:00:10.280 --> 0:00:13.560 global economy has for decades. Weigh in on the trends 0:00:13.560 --> 0:00:16.799 that describe us and divide us financially, economically, and so 0:00:16.960 --> 0:00:19.520 much more. Let's get to the interview this hour with 0:00:19.600 --> 0:00:23.400 us as Nobel Laureate economist and Columbia professor Joseph Stieglitz. 0:00:23.480 --> 0:00:26.160 He was an economic advisor to presidents, including chair of 0:00:26.200 --> 0:00:29.240 the Council of Economic Advisors that was during the Clinton administration. 0:00:29.640 --> 0:00:32.559 Former Chief economist at the World Bank, He's written numerous 0:00:32.560 --> 0:00:36.159 books and research papers. His latest book, The Road to Freedom, 0:00:36.240 --> 0:00:38.960 Economics and the Good Society. He joins us here in 0:00:39.000 --> 0:00:41.680 New York City. Professor Stieglitz, So great to be talking 0:00:41.720 --> 0:00:43.720 with you once again. It's been a while, but great 0:00:43.800 --> 0:00:46.320 to have you here, and we want to talk about 0:00:46.320 --> 0:00:48.440 the book. But we would be remiss not to ask 0:00:48.520 --> 0:00:52.240 you your take on today's economic environment and the stickiness 0:00:52.320 --> 0:00:55.959 of inflation. What is the smart conversation that you think 0:00:56.000 --> 0:00:58.280 we should all be having here at Bloomberg when it 0:00:58.320 --> 0:01:00.320 comes to today's US economic environs. 0:01:01.720 --> 0:01:03.640 From the point of view of economics. 0:01:05.760 --> 0:01:09.160 Having two and a half or even three percent inflation 0:01:09.480 --> 0:01:10.640 is not a big deal. 0:01:11.040 --> 0:01:11.959 You know, the two. 0:01:11.880 --> 0:01:14.560 Percent target was pulled out of thin air. It was 0:01:14.600 --> 0:01:17.480 not based on economic science. What we want to be 0:01:17.600 --> 0:01:20.760 sure of is that we don't have runaway inflation. And 0:01:20.840 --> 0:01:24.560 inflation has clearly been tamed, it's been brought down. It's stable. 0:01:24.640 --> 0:01:28.760 It fluctuates from month to month, but it is not 0:01:29.240 --> 0:01:33.160 a major problem. We should be focusing on other things, 0:01:33.760 --> 0:01:39.360 continuing economic growth, making sure that all Americans share in 0:01:39.440 --> 0:01:42.960 that growth. Those are the kinds of things that we 0:01:43.000 --> 0:01:44.959 ought to be thinking more about. 0:01:45.520 --> 0:01:49.240 So, Professor Stieglitz, should the Fed abandon the two percent 0:01:49.320 --> 0:01:52.520 inflation goal? Should they have a different inflation goal, a 0:01:52.560 --> 0:01:54.880 different metric that they should be held accountable to. 0:01:56.440 --> 0:01:57.360 Yes, I think they should. 0:01:57.440 --> 0:02:00.800 I think they should be talking about being within a 0:02:00.960 --> 0:02:04.440 range to maybe three, three and a half four percent. 0:02:05.160 --> 0:02:09.799 You know, there's actually some economic science that says, especially 0:02:09.800 --> 0:02:13.280 in a time of major structural change such as we're 0:02:13.360 --> 0:02:19.320 going through, having a little higher inflation actually is helpful 0:02:19.440 --> 0:02:25.120 in realocating resources in the presence of downward nominal rigidities 0:02:25.160 --> 0:02:30.440 of wages, because what guides the movement of resources from 0:02:30.440 --> 0:02:34.480 one place to another is relative wages, and if some 0:02:34.600 --> 0:02:38.680 wages are sticky downward, you want other wages to go 0:02:38.960 --> 0:02:42.519 up enough to move labor, and that means you're going 0:02:42.560 --> 0:02:45.960 to have to have more inflation. So actually a little 0:02:46.040 --> 0:02:49.200 higher inflation is actually good for the economy. 0:02:49.520 --> 0:02:53.679 Do you think the FEDS management of the economy has 0:02:53.760 --> 0:02:55.840 been a good one in terms of policy? 0:02:58.160 --> 0:03:01.160 Quite? Frankly, no, put it bluntly. 0:03:03.000 --> 0:03:07.560 Let's go back to when inflation broke out after the 0:03:07.600 --> 0:03:12.280 pandemic and the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The question was 0:03:12.680 --> 0:03:16.359 what was the cause, the primary cause of the inflation. 0:03:16.480 --> 0:03:17.679 It was unambiguous. 0:03:18.000 --> 0:03:23.000 It was the pandemic and war related interruptions in supply 0:03:23.200 --> 0:03:27.959 chains and rising prices caused by shortages of oil and food. 0:03:29.000 --> 0:03:32.760 It was demand shifts. People wanted to live in different places, 0:03:33.480 --> 0:03:36.320 and that meant housing prices went up where there was 0:03:36.360 --> 0:03:39.160 a scarcity, but didn't go down as much where there 0:03:39.200 --> 0:03:43.280 was where people didn't want to live, like in. 0:03:43.240 --> 0:03:44.080 Parts of New York. 0:03:46.120 --> 0:03:50.600 Raising interest rates actually impedes the ability. 0:03:50.240 --> 0:03:52.920 To the economy to respond to that kind of. 0:03:54.440 --> 0:03:59.920 Structural To that that kind of challenge, we needed to 0:04:00.120 --> 0:04:03.840 build more houses in the places where there was a scarcity, 0:04:04.360 --> 0:04:12.080 and having higher interest rates actually works, makes it more difficult. 0:04:13.080 --> 0:04:15.840 They also have a modeled economy that's based on competition. 0:04:16.320 --> 0:04:18.840 That might have been true some time ago, but we 0:04:18.920 --> 0:04:23.320 have an economy with a lot of market power at 0:04:23.440 --> 0:04:27.720 firms are trading off. If they raise their prices, they 0:04:27.760 --> 0:04:31.000 get more profits today, they lose profits in the future, 0:04:31.760 --> 0:04:34.800 and in that trade off is when you raise the 0:04:34.839 --> 0:04:38.520 interest rate, they value those future losses less and they 0:04:38.560 --> 0:04:40.599 were induced to raise their prices more. 0:04:40.960 --> 0:04:42.360 So margins go up. 0:04:42.880 --> 0:04:47.279 And a marked aspect of the inflation that we've just 0:04:47.400 --> 0:04:51.080 been through is that markets have increased enormously. 0:04:51.520 --> 0:04:55.120 Hey, Professor Stieglitz, I just wanted to speaking of the FED, Carol, 0:04:55.160 --> 0:04:56.680 I know you would a well. 0:04:56.560 --> 0:04:58.800 One one thing before we have a bigger, broader question, 0:04:58.800 --> 0:05:00.920 and it's certainly been a bigger jump in on Well, 0:05:00.960 --> 0:05:03.239 what do you think then we should be cutting rates already, 0:05:03.240 --> 0:05:04.600 that we're behind the curve right now? 0:05:06.000 --> 0:05:09.400 Yes, I think I think the risks are asymmetric. I 0:05:09.440 --> 0:05:14.600 think with Europe already slowing down in recession, we don't 0:05:14.600 --> 0:05:15.200 know where. 0:05:15.040 --> 0:05:16.440 China is going to be going. 0:05:17.440 --> 0:05:22.919 I think proudents would have us going back to a 0:05:23.279 --> 0:05:28.440 more normal infrast rate. The higher interest rates are really 0:05:28.440 --> 0:05:30.000 not going to be taming inflation. 0:05:30.160 --> 0:05:31.400 That that model was wrong. 0:05:31.440 --> 0:05:34.360 In another way, they dramatically had said that we're going 0:05:34.400 --> 0:05:37.640 to need five percent of inflation for five percent unemployment 0:05:37.680 --> 0:05:40.360 for some time in order to get inflation down. 0:05:40.400 --> 0:05:43.600 They were absolutely wrong. We got inflation down. 0:05:43.520 --> 0:05:48.760 Where in a period where we kept unemployment relatively low. 0:05:49.360 --> 0:05:52.560 So their analysis of the economy was just off. 0:05:52.600 --> 0:05:58.040 And meanwhile, they have put at risk our banking system 0:05:58.080 --> 0:06:00.760 and we had a problem in sell Compalty Bank partly 0:06:00.800 --> 0:06:04.440 because of the enormous changes in terms structure which their 0:06:04.480 --> 0:06:09.080 policies led to. And we're facing a deck crisis in 0:06:09.120 --> 0:06:13.920 the developing countries and emerging markets. So there's enormous one 0:06:14.000 --> 0:06:14.720 sided risk. 0:06:14.920 --> 0:06:20.159 I believe in the policies that they've been pursuing well. 0:06:20.160 --> 0:06:22.000 On the FED, Professor Stieglitz, I got to ask you 0:06:22.040 --> 0:06:24.520 about this Wall Street Journal report that broke last night 0:06:24.839 --> 0:06:27.560 that said how former Trump administration officials are coming up 0:06:27.560 --> 0:06:30.400 with plans to take on the independence of the Federal 0:06:30.440 --> 0:06:34.440 Reserve essentially at one end of the spectrum, even allowing 0:06:34.680 --> 0:06:37.400 if President Trump gets re elected him to weigh in 0:06:37.600 --> 0:06:40.560 on FED policy when it comes to interest rates. Talk 0:06:40.600 --> 0:06:43.320 a little bit about your reaction to if this were 0:06:43.360 --> 0:06:46.359 to come to fruition, how important the independence of the 0:06:46.400 --> 0:06:49.120 FED is, and if that would really put at risk 0:06:49.440 --> 0:06:52.919 the model of the independence of the US financial system. 0:06:53.640 --> 0:06:58.800 Well, I think Trump is himself a major argument why 0:06:58.880 --> 0:07:01.280 you want to have de pendings. 0:07:02.400 --> 0:07:03.040 Of the FED. 0:07:03.680 --> 0:07:08.719 You don't want somebody who doesn't understand monetary policy, who would, 0:07:09.480 --> 0:07:12.640 uh put at risk the long run stability of the 0:07:12.640 --> 0:07:17.240 economy for the short term electoral advantage of having a 0:07:17.280 --> 0:07:22.760 hot economy right before an election. That's precisely why there 0:07:23.000 --> 0:07:28.320 is an argument for independence. So you know, I believe 0:07:28.320 --> 0:07:32.480 in the accountability of the FED. Uh, it is a 0:07:32.520 --> 0:07:34.520 public institution. Uh. 0:07:35.480 --> 0:07:41.400 We had previous chairmen of the FED. We're very cognizant 0:07:41.400 --> 0:07:41.600 of that. 0:07:41.760 --> 0:07:46.680 I remember Paul Voker saying Congress created us and Congress 0:07:46.680 --> 0:07:50.240 can uncreate us. So there is a kind of accountability 0:07:50.320 --> 0:07:54.760 that responsible heads of the FED understand. But we certainly 0:07:54.760 --> 0:07:59.360 don't want Donald Trump to be running monetary policy. All right. 0:07:59.400 --> 0:08:01.880 We do want to into your book because you've been 0:08:01.880 --> 0:08:04.240 thinking a lot about the meaning of freedom, and I 0:08:04.240 --> 0:08:06.320 think we throw the word abown a lot. 0:08:07.360 --> 0:08:08.080 I think. 0:08:09.720 --> 0:08:12.640 The folks who created the United States are founding fathers 0:08:12.720 --> 0:08:17.280 thought about freedom a lot and the difference though between 0:08:17.520 --> 0:08:20.240 what that really means, and maybe it comes down to, 0:08:20.320 --> 0:08:22.720 as you think about it, the values that we all 0:08:22.720 --> 0:08:25.120 have in society tell us about how we need to 0:08:25.200 --> 0:08:28.720 kind of maybe redefine freedom and what it means in 0:08:28.840 --> 0:08:34.400 terms of citizens more broadly and generally, as well as 0:08:34.440 --> 0:08:36.480 economically in terms of their success. 0:08:37.520 --> 0:08:42.679 Sure, you know, I approached the issue obviously as an economist, 0:08:43.160 --> 0:08:46.960 and as an economist we think of freedom is free 0:08:47.000 --> 0:08:48.040 to do what you can do. 0:08:48.360 --> 0:08:50.040 What are the choices that you can make. 0:08:50.520 --> 0:08:54.600 Somebody who is at the point of starvation doesn't really 0:08:54.640 --> 0:08:55.400 have any freedom. 0:08:55.440 --> 0:08:58.520 He has to do what he can to survive. 0:08:59.640 --> 0:09:03.120 And expanding the set of choices that an individual is 0:09:03.160 --> 0:09:07.480 available is a. 0:09:06.720 --> 0:09:08.800 Way of saying that he has more freedom. 0:09:09.559 --> 0:09:12.920 And here there are a couple of ideas I put 0:09:13.000 --> 0:09:13.920 forward in my book. 0:09:14.720 --> 0:09:15.600 The first is. 0:09:15.480 --> 0:09:23.880 That in our integrated urban twenty percentury economy, one person 0:09:24.120 --> 0:09:29.400 does the expansion of his freedom may lead to less 0:09:29.400 --> 0:09:34.800 freedom of others. Isaiah Berlin, the great Oxford philosopher, put 0:09:34.800 --> 0:09:38.440 it this way. He said, freedom for the wolfs has 0:09:38.559 --> 0:09:42.880 often meant death for the sheep, and in the context 0:09:42.880 --> 0:09:47.440 of the US, for instance, freedom to carry in AK 0:09:47.559 --> 0:09:54.080 forty seven means that people will die, and it means 0:09:54.080 --> 0:09:57.480 that our school children are not free from fear. 0:09:58.760 --> 0:09:59.280 They have to. 0:09:59.360 --> 0:10:02.319 Learn how to what to do if a gunman comes 0:10:02.360 --> 0:10:06.640 into the classroom and teachers have to go to school 0:10:06.720 --> 0:10:11.400 worried about whether they'll be attacked. Freedom not to wear 0:10:11.440 --> 0:10:15.920 a mask is exposed, taking away the freedom of others 0:10:15.960 --> 0:10:23.600 to live. So we have to balance these freedoms. There 0:10:23.600 --> 0:10:27.560 are trade offs. Many cases, those trade offs are easy. 0:10:28.280 --> 0:10:35.800 Freedom to pollute takes away the freedom to have somebody 0:10:35.800 --> 0:10:40.160 with asthma to even live, let alone the freedom of. 0:10:40.120 --> 0:10:41.800 All of us to live on our planet. 0:10:43.000 --> 0:10:47.960 So there, I think we have to constrain the freedom 0:10:48.000 --> 0:10:50.680 of the polluters and the freedom of exploiters. 0:10:51.200 --> 0:10:54.640 So we're talking with Joseph Stieglitz, Nobel Laurate economist, Professor 0:10:54.640 --> 0:10:57.400 of economics at Columbia University, and we're talking about his 0:10:57.480 --> 0:11:00.160 new book, The Road to Freedom, Economics and the Good Society. 0:11:00.280 --> 0:11:03.760 All Right, So if we think Professor Stieglitz the idea 0:11:03.880 --> 0:11:06.960 of freedom, so it's maybe more inclusive or it's a 0:11:06.960 --> 0:11:12.280 broader definition, how do we do that within society? With corporations, 0:11:12.760 --> 0:11:15.360 the need to be profitable for those we are in 0:11:15.480 --> 0:11:18.000 earning season. We look at companies and their reports, and 0:11:18.040 --> 0:11:21.640 that's how we kind of measure them grade them. What 0:11:21.679 --> 0:11:24.040 does government need to do? How can we maybe be 0:11:24.040 --> 0:11:25.640 better if you will for more? 0:11:27.120 --> 0:11:31.480 Well, first, let me emphasize that in the world I've 0:11:31.559 --> 0:11:38.199 just described, there's an important role for regulations. Corporations often 0:11:38.240 --> 0:11:41.559 don't like that, but we have to remember the purpose 0:11:41.600 --> 0:11:44.640 of our economy is to improve the lives and live 0:11:44.840 --> 0:11:47.400 goods of our citizens. 0:11:48.000 --> 0:11:51.400 It's not the other way around. 0:11:51.480 --> 0:11:54.360 That the economy is supposed to serve society, not the 0:11:54.440 --> 0:11:55.640 other way around. 0:11:56.920 --> 0:11:59.319 There's another aspect. 0:12:00.960 --> 0:12:04.600 Regulations can't actually expand the freedom of all of us. 0:12:04.880 --> 0:12:08.880 Think about stop likes. If we don't have stop likes, 0:12:09.080 --> 0:12:11.760 we have good luck. None of us have the freedom 0:12:11.800 --> 0:12:14.560 to move. Stop likes ors are a little bit of 0:12:14.559 --> 0:12:18.840 a coercion, mean that I have to take turns, but 0:12:18.920 --> 0:12:23.000 by taking turns, we all have more freedom. And that 0:12:23.160 --> 0:12:28.400 basic idea extends much more broadly. People don't like to 0:12:28.400 --> 0:12:33.320 pay taxes. That's they often feel kind of coercion. But 0:12:33.960 --> 0:12:37.480 when those tax revenues are used productively, like they were 0:12:37.640 --> 0:12:41.040 to invest in the Internet and invest in the m 0:12:41.240 --> 0:12:45.320 r any platform that led to the vaccine against COVID nineteen, 0:12:45.840 --> 0:12:51.320 that expands our freedom to do. And so we have 0:12:51.400 --> 0:12:53.360 to look at this and I would say, in a 0:12:53.360 --> 0:12:55.240 little bit more holistic way, Well. 0:12:55.120 --> 0:12:57.199 I want to go to your taxes point, because I'm 0:12:57.200 --> 0:13:00.600 curious if you could wave a magic wand fplement some 0:13:00.640 --> 0:13:03.680 sort of tax policy here in the US, what would 0:13:03.720 --> 0:13:06.760 it be. How could you reinvent it? Would you broaden 0:13:06.840 --> 0:13:09.000 the tax space, would you lean more on corporate taxes, 0:13:09.040 --> 0:13:12.160 would you tax wealth more? What, in your opinion would work? 0:13:13.360 --> 0:13:15.400 Well, I begin by. 0:13:16.920 --> 0:13:19.880 Analyzing what are some of the key problems on our 0:13:19.960 --> 0:13:23.319 society basis, And one of them is inequality and one 0:13:23.320 --> 0:13:26.680 of the reasons. And a second problem is the growth 0:13:26.679 --> 0:13:30.400 of market power, which has been enormous in the last 0:13:30.440 --> 0:13:31.240 few decades. 0:13:32.559 --> 0:13:34.880 And those two are obviously linked. 0:13:35.160 --> 0:13:38.280 When you have more market power, the fruits of that 0:13:38.360 --> 0:13:42.480 market power go to those at the top. We also 0:13:42.600 --> 0:13:48.559 have more economists called monopsity power. Firms have market power 0:13:48.640 --> 0:13:53.600 over workers and have driven down their wages significantly below 0:13:53.640 --> 0:13:58.439 a competitive level. So I want to have more anti 0:13:58.559 --> 0:14:03.439 trust policy, more competitive labor market policies, but. 0:14:05.120 --> 0:14:06.040 That can take time. 0:14:06.559 --> 0:14:10.920 Meanwhile, there's a lot of monopoly rents, and so part 0:14:10.960 --> 0:14:14.320 of what I would begin by doing is increasing corporate 0:14:15.600 --> 0:14:18.720 conflicts taxes, which are not a tax on return to capital, 0:14:19.400 --> 0:14:24.560 they are tax on this monopoly profits. I'd also like 0:14:24.720 --> 0:14:29.320 to have environmental taxes firms that are engaged, including the environment, 0:14:29.480 --> 0:14:37.920 on to pay for the damage that they're doing. Remarkably, America, 0:14:38.520 --> 0:14:42.440 those at the top pay a lower percentage of their 0:14:42.480 --> 0:14:49.800 taxes than those down below. Even some of our richest 0:14:49.840 --> 0:14:53.120 people have commented that they think that's right wrong. 0:14:53.560 --> 0:14:55.640 We can I ask you, like on a day when 0:14:55.640 --> 0:14:57.680 we're looking at a company, and forgive me, I'm just 0:14:57.720 --> 0:15:01.840 singling out because it popped. Shares of Alphabet are now 0:15:01.840 --> 0:15:05.680 a two trillion dollar market cap company this week, you 0:15:05.720 --> 0:15:06.760 know next week. 0:15:07.040 --> 0:15:07.480 Last week. 0:15:07.560 --> 0:15:10.120 We've been obsessed with, certainly what we call the Magnificent seven, 0:15:10.160 --> 0:15:11.840 the big megacap technic companies. 0:15:12.200 --> 0:15:13.080 They're very big. 0:15:13.160 --> 0:15:16.840 Amazon, we talked with an author recently, so entrenched certainly 0:15:16.920 --> 0:15:19.560 in our world, and you think about their reach. Are 0:15:19.600 --> 0:15:23.520 these the companies the individuals, whether it's an Amazon, whether 0:15:23.560 --> 0:15:25.840 it's a Meta, whether it's an Alphabet that you think 0:15:26.760 --> 0:15:28.960 you talk about growth of market power? Is it too 0:15:29.080 --> 0:15:32.880 much at this point in your view that something needs 0:15:32.920 --> 0:15:35.280 to be done to rain them in or do the 0:15:35.360 --> 0:15:39.760 benefits outweigh the downside here, Well, they do. 0:15:39.680 --> 0:15:43.360 Give benefits, but they have a lot of downsides. They 0:15:43.400 --> 0:15:47.040 need to be better regulated. Europe has done a better 0:15:47.160 --> 0:15:52.320 job of regulating with them. The digital harms are quite 0:15:52.440 --> 0:15:57.520 obvious and have been by now well documented. But talking 0:15:58.000 --> 0:16:06.040 narrowly now about market I think they we ought to 0:16:06.040 --> 0:16:08.920 do what we can to limit their market power, but 0:16:09.920 --> 0:16:14.040 tax the fruits of that market power, the revenues that 0:16:14.120 --> 0:16:17.360 they get at a much higher rate. You know, if 0:16:17.400 --> 0:16:24.920 you ask the question, would Jeff Bezos or the founders 0:16:24.960 --> 0:16:31.080 of Google or Zuperbird stop working if we tax their 0:16:31.120 --> 0:16:35.480 wealth in a way, say a three percent you know, 0:16:35.920 --> 0:16:40.680 so any answer is obviously they would continue to work. 0:16:40.760 --> 0:16:43.120 Do you think that they would leave the United States? 0:16:44.280 --> 0:16:48.360 Well, we have imposed what we call an exit tax 0:16:48.920 --> 0:16:51.600 that those with a lot of wealth and don't feel 0:16:51.680 --> 0:16:54.160 who don't feel loyalty in the United States. 0:16:55.960 --> 0:16:56.600 Can leave. 0:16:56.640 --> 0:16:59.920 We allowed them to leave, but they have to pay 0:17:00.160 --> 0:17:04.159 tax that represents attacks on the groups of the wealth 0:17:04.200 --> 0:17:07.000 that they've accumulated while they've been in the United States. 0:17:07.840 --> 0:17:12.440 And that tax is significant, and it is a deterrent, 0:17:13.480 --> 0:17:16.640 and if it's not, it may be that we ought to. 0:17:16.600 --> 0:17:18.280 Consider raising that tax. 0:17:18.800 --> 0:17:23.080 But I don't think people like at Zuckerberg Musk are 0:17:23.119 --> 0:17:26.920 going to leave the United States. They realize the benefits 0:17:27.200 --> 0:17:28.720 of American citizenship. 0:17:29.320 --> 0:17:32.960 We're speaking right now with Professor Joseph Stieglitz, Nobel Laurate Economists. 0:17:32.960 --> 0:17:35.439 He's a professor of economics at Columbia University. He's got 0:17:35.480 --> 0:17:37.760 a new book out, The Road to Freedom, Economics and 0:17:37.800 --> 0:17:41.239 the Good Society. Professor, as I mentioned, you are up 0:17:41.240 --> 0:17:43.400 at Columbia. You've been there for a long time. We've 0:17:43.440 --> 0:17:46.320 been watching everything that's been happening on the campus there, 0:17:46.359 --> 0:17:50.280 as well as campuses including USC, Yale, MIT. The list 0:17:50.280 --> 0:17:52.560 continues to go on here in the United States, as 0:17:52.560 --> 0:17:55.800 we've seen pro Palestinian protests and encampments take over some 0:17:55.840 --> 0:18:00.320 of these campuses. Freedom in the academic context, how are 0:18:00.320 --> 0:18:02.679 you looking at the protest protests and the context of 0:18:02.840 --> 0:18:03.600 freedom of speech. 0:18:05.640 --> 0:18:06.480 That's a good question. 0:18:06.640 --> 0:18:09.800 I mean, person, let me comment that up where my 0:18:09.920 --> 0:18:12.680 office is, which is the Manhattanville campus. 0:18:13.480 --> 0:18:15.040 Uh, things are. 0:18:15.040 --> 0:18:19.120 Very quiet at the Business school at the Business School, 0:18:20.520 --> 0:18:21.159 but you've been. 0:18:21.040 --> 0:18:24.000 That campus a long time and you've seen different protests 0:18:24.080 --> 0:18:25.840 over the years, and it seemed to be I was 0:18:25.840 --> 0:18:28.840 there when there were protests, and it seems like that's 0:18:28.880 --> 0:18:31.920 what students are should be doing, exploring and pushing back 0:18:31.960 --> 0:18:34.520 when they don't feel like things are right. But what 0:18:34.600 --> 0:18:36.920 is what is the what is it does protests and 0:18:36.960 --> 0:18:38.200 the context of freedom of speech. 0:18:39.080 --> 0:18:40.920 So I agree with you very strongly. 0:18:41.520 --> 0:18:44.960 I'm actually happy the students are engaged in the world, 0:18:46.119 --> 0:18:48.520 you know, That's that's one of the things I probably 0:18:48.560 --> 0:18:52.480 kept them to be interested in the world, and also 0:18:52.520 --> 0:18:56.840 to reason about the world, to come to understand it, 0:18:56.960 --> 0:19:02.560 and to debate how how could should things be changed? 0:19:03.240 --> 0:19:05.200 So that's a good thing. 0:19:05.320 --> 0:19:09.800 And in my own life, protests have played a very 0:19:09.800 --> 0:19:11.080 important role. 0:19:12.640 --> 0:19:15.000 Back in nineteen. 0:19:14.680 --> 0:19:17.480 Sixty three, I was down there in the march in 0:19:17.640 --> 0:19:22.400 Washington with Martin Luther King, and you know that speech 0:19:22.440 --> 0:19:26.480 he gave about I have a dream has been a 0:19:26.560 --> 0:19:33.639 lifelong inspiration to me. So even civil disobedience in certain 0:19:33.640 --> 0:19:40.719 circumstances can be an important mechanism for social change. We 0:19:40.760 --> 0:19:44.920 have a special responsibility, of course, to make sure on 0:19:44.960 --> 0:19:47.960 our campus that all views get heard, that we can 0:19:48.000 --> 0:19:56.679 have civil debates, and so on the one hand, academic 0:19:56.760 --> 0:20:02.119 freedom is really important, and I'm really took offense to 0:20:02.480 --> 0:20:06.040 Speaker Johnson coming up to our campus and calling for 0:20:06.080 --> 0:20:08.639 the resignation of our presidents. 0:20:09.280 --> 0:20:10.720 I hadn't seen anything. 0:20:12.240 --> 0:20:15.960 Like that, maybe since the HUAC hearings the House on 0:20:16.000 --> 0:20:19.720 American Activities Committee back with McCarthy in the fifties. 0:20:19.800 --> 0:20:20.840 I mean, that kind of. 0:20:21.240 --> 0:20:28.040 Direct interference in academia is just unheard of. And we 0:20:28.119 --> 0:20:31.159 know some of the Republicans have been trying to undermine 0:20:31.280 --> 0:20:37.200 universities because universities teach children how to our young our youngsters, 0:20:37.880 --> 0:20:40.919 our young men and women how to think, and a 0:20:40.960 --> 0:20:44.040 lot of people don't like that idea that they should 0:20:44.040 --> 0:20:50.800 be thinking for themselves. But at the same time, we 0:20:50.840 --> 0:20:56.520 have to create on campus a community where all voices 0:20:56.560 --> 0:20:59.879 are heard, and I think we're actually working very much 0:21:00.080 --> 0:21:00.639 towards that. 0:21:01.640 --> 0:21:05.400 There were only a few people. 0:21:07.640 --> 0:21:15.560 Raising problems, and I think having outside a takers like 0:21:15.640 --> 0:21:18.159 the speaker is not hopeful. 0:21:19.240 --> 0:21:21.480 We're going to leave it on that note. We always 0:21:21.560 --> 0:21:24.359 appreciate hearing you talk about hearing from voices. We always 0:21:24.359 --> 0:21:27.360 appreciate hearing from you. Professor Stieglitz, Thank you so much, 0:21:27.600 --> 0:21:31.000 Nobel lorid Economist Columbia professor Joseph Stieglitz. 0:21:30.920 --> 0:21:32.040 Here in New York City. 0:21:32.840 --> 0:21:35.280 Check out his book his latest book, The Road to Freedom, 0:21:35.359 --> 0:21:39.040 Economics and the Good Society. Really appreciate us spending some 0:21:39.119 --> 0:21:39.840 time with you.