Joseph Stiglitz Sees Terrifying Future for America If We Don't Reverse Inequality
By Lynn Parramore, AlterNet
Posted on June 24, 2012, Printed on July 1, 2012
Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, one of America's most prescient voices, wrote an article for
Vanity Fair
several months before Occupy Wall Street was born. "Of the 1%, by the
1%, for the 1%" called attention to the widening gap between rich and
poor and its deadly impact on our society and its democratic
institutions. In his newly released book,
The Price of Inequality,
Stiglitz returns to this theme of a divided society, delving into the
origins and consequences of economic unfairness. I caught up with
Professor Stiglitz and talked to him about how the persistent myths and
beliefs associated with our capitalist system help to drive this trend,
turning America from a land of opportunity to a land of broken dreams.
Lynn Parramore: An argument has been made, particularly since
the end of the Cold War, that capitalism is great at producing things
that can improve our lives, and so we ought to therefore tolerate some
unfairness. What's wrong with that narrative?
Joseph Stiglitz: Well, capitalism does have a lot of strengths,
including producing things that are very innovative. But what drives
capitalism is the profit motive. You can profit not only by making good
things, but also by exploiting people, by exploiting the environment, by
doing things that are not so good. The narrative that you describe
ignores the extent to which a lot of the inequalities in the United
States are not the result of creative activity but of exploitive
activity. And if you look at the people at the top, what is so striking
is that the people who've made the most important creative contributions
are not there.
By that I mean the really foundational things like the computer, the
transistor, the laser. And how many people at the top are people who
made their money out of monopoly -- exercising monopoly power? Like
bankers who exploited through predatory lending practices and abusive
credit card practices. Or CEOs who took advantage of deficiencies in
corporate governance to get a larger share of the corporate revenues for
themselves without any regard to the extent to which they have actually
contributed to increasing the the sustainable well-being of the firm.