vendor finance Videos
Watching: Joseph stiglitz bail out homeowners, not banks
Video scenes shots:
Watch the video:
| URL: | |
| Embed: |
Display Video Comments | Hide Video Comments | Add Comment
Other videos by this author:
 |
Tim Schafer on Kickstarter and the Future of Crowdfunding Posted by: ForaTv
Video duration: 129 seconds Related: N/A Display Video Comments | Hide Video Comments | Add Comment |
Vendor finance videos :: Social Bookmarking 
:: Videos are copyright their respective owners :: Design by: Css
:: Videos are copyright their respective owners :: Design by: Css
Latest comments made on this video:
By: busby3141592. on 29 May 12, 16:37:32
I know you said this a year ago, but your statement is absurd - even if you don't agree with someone, you can't just lie and twist what he said to try and suit your own ideological assumptions. It's intellectually dishonest - which is one of the biggest academic crimes you can commit, and you basically rule yourself out of? further discussion. Sorry, but it's irritating, if people like you could stop doing this - we could have real discussion, get to real conclusions - and try fix things.
By: Tombuchaill. on 29 Apr 12, 20:02:56
What has any Autistic person done to you to use them as a general term? of insult? Its an extremely ignorant thing to say.
By: astro7894. on 20 Jan 12, 20:56:03
Stop bailing out anyone! If someone can't afford their house then they should lose it and get a? smaller one, just like the prudent have already done. Bailing people out with taxpayer money just steals from the prudent and gives to the imprudent and creates a longer term moral hazard which would push up house prices to even higher unaffordable levels.
By: baigandine. on 14 Sep 11, 23:11:11
Homes they can't afford? Unlike the situation in the United States right? In times of prosperity, people don't price the possibility of the economic APOCALYPSE into their assesment of whether they can afford a home. If they did that we'd all live? in shanty towns. And of course they'd have to bear the cost of that higher mortgage while they were still working, giving them less money for everything else. And homelessness due to sudden economic apocalypse is the greater evil.
By: madcowhunter. on 29 Jul 11, 14:56:22
"Nobody will say I want to be fired for you (governement) to pick up my morgage". Perhaps no but people will take morgages for homes they can't afford when they lose job will pay for them. That is how governent will promote more risky behavior. I don't know but this so called economist always picks up arguments that suit his ideas while when other opposing arguments are so close to his reasoning he somehow ommits them. I? don't think he is an honest person.
By: arzoyan. on 14 Mar 11, 11:46:42
The monetary serfdom of immnese? humanity shackled in? a politically manipulated market system of artificial scarcity is the template of our common? alienation,exploitation and suffering. Capitalism is historically outdated and? a tyrannical imposition for minority private gain. A democratic,conscious, majority movement for a world of cooperation for? our common needs and? well being? expressing our creative energies? in a MONEYLESS,CLASSSLESS,STATELESS COMMUNITIES OF? HUMNAITY
By: louiethegreater. on 14 Mar 11, 01:58:24
If Milt Friedman received the Nobel Prize, than Joseph Stiglitz? should recieve the prize with a gold cluster.
By: jimberkt. on 11 Dec 10, 14:56:11
Why dont we just buy everyone in the world a home? Wouldnt we all be better off? Why doesnt the government just print out a million dollars for everyone on the planet then we will all be millionaires? -I have actually had people ask me this so presumably there are huge numbers of people in the world who dont even understand basic things about how money works which is presumably why autistic twits like this guy get? awarded the nobel prize.
By: rainzoro. on 16 Oct 10, 21:24:48
"read books and be? a producer... rather consumer of information" i like that
By: arzoyan. on 31 Jul 10, 13:46:11
Capitalism is the wage slavery of immense humanity in a politically corrupt,manipulated MARKET SYSTEM OF ARTIFICIAL SCARCITY ,a tyrannical,destructive system to perpetuate poverty and exploitation in the interest? of the ruling class. Capitalism from its mercantile plundering and enslavement of African natives to its Millitaristic rise of European Powers to World wars and Financial serfdom of the world has been a DISASTEROUS imposition? .
By: arzoyan. on 11 Jul 10, 06:23:49
Capitalism, Corporate or State dominated or In It together is the wage slavery of immense humanity? for abstract process of Capital accumulation and concentration for the elite, 250 top corporations control over 1/3 of the world GDP. More than 3 billion workers are on 2 dollars a day. Capitalism is? template of perpetual war,oppression,enviornmental destructions,animal cruelty and suffering, A dehumanising distorting minority imposition in thier inatiable drive for ever more Profit no matter what
By: centurion180ad. on 24 Jun 10, 15:54:02
There is no MONEY. Irredeemable debt currency sieved through a fractional reserve system is not money. The problem with this issue of mortgages or any other financial concern, is that the Federal Reserve System must be ELIMINATED with prejudice. It is a principle part of a mass murdering Debt Syndicate.? These criminals must be fully prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
By: imre1000. on 06 Apr 10, 12:00:15
- I can see why the TV networks would be interested but I don't think it's about profits? anymore for him. He can see that the US is headed for a serious crisis in the near future. Thousands of people encouraged him to run for senate without him showing any interest at all initially. For years he sat through humiliating interviews, warning everyone that the mortgage crisis is coming. So, no I don't think he's a 'hack'.
By: marsig11. on 06 Apr 10, 11:22:35
Look at the incentives the TV network and Schiff have. Like it or not, the network wants people who are entertaining, which raises their ratings. Wild predictions (see his prediction we would see $2000 oil in 2009) and frivolous debates are entertaining. Schiff wants to? be on TV, which raises his profile and allows him to attract clients. Either he stoops to this level and gets on TV, or provides sound advice, which is too boring for TV.
By: marsig11. on 06 Apr 10, 11:21:05
Look at the incentives the TV network and Schiff have. Like it or not, the network wants people who are entertaining, which raises their ratings. Wild predictions (see his prediction we would see $2000 oil in 2009) and frivolous debates are entertaining. Schiff wants to be on TV, which raises his profile and allows him to attract clients. Either he stoops to this level and gets on TV, or provides sound advice, which is too boring? for TV.
By: marsig11. on 06 Apr 10, 11:20:21
Look at the incentives the TV network and Schiff have. Like it or not, the? network wants people who are entertaining, which raises their ratings. Wild predictions (see his prediction we would see $2000 oil in 2009) and frivolous debates are entertaining. Schiff wants to be on TV, which raises his profile and allows him to attract clients. Either he stoops to this level and gets on TV, or provides sound advice, which is too boring for TV.
By: imre1000. on 05 Apr 10, 01:09:36
- were just going around in circles here. I'm not going to comment anymore, you can have? the last word.
By: jnhernandez30. on 05 Apr 10, 01:06:03
- no that is not what he is saying in this video. He is saying bailout the homeowners not the banks. And there? are many parties to blame, the belief in free markets is one of them.
By: imre1000. on 04 Apr 10, 23:56:58
- I'm not in favour of scraping all regulations, but more is worse. You're promoting a video of Stiglitz where he is criticizing anyone who suggests that free markets work well on their own, blaming the free market for the whole problem. That's quite obviously not the case? here, so I am not sure why you're doing it.
By: jnhernandez30. on 04 Apr 10, 23:47:31
- I am not for regulation just for the sake of it. I believe there are both good and bad regulations. The tariffs on imported cars and the agricultural subsidies by the first Bush were terrible in my mind. However the creation of the FDIC in 1934 was good in my eyes. I believe we can pick and choose the best of both worlds. The problem? with sticking strictly to one ideology is that you take on the negatives as well as the positives.
By: jnhernandez30. on 04 Apr 10, 23:44:42
- I am glad to see that you used an actual economist as evidence and not a political pundit. However, even in the case of? Friedman, I believe his ideological views, much like Greenspan, distorts his perception. But even if we assume all of what he says to be true, there were still examples he gave of natural monopolies.
By: imre1000. on 04 Apr 10, 23:08:04
- yeah, sorry I read that wrong :) Most monopolies are a product of excessive Government regulations, e.g. big pharmaceuticals, Monsanto etc. It's almost impossible in a free market to create monopolies. Free markets and coercive monopolies are actually opposites if you think about it. Friedman? explains pretty well it in this short video: watch?v=tdLBzfFGFQU
By: jnhernandez30. on 04 Apr 10, 22:52:29
- I did not say today's economy is the as free as it gets. I said in today's economy he is as free as it gets. I mean that if any player in the economy, such as a consumer or company, has any market power then the free market system is thus not free and does not work. If there is absolutely no government then things like monopolies arise? and the system will no longer function properly. Also I do not wish for the gov. to pick winners and loser but rather even the playing field.
By: imre1000. on 04 Apr 10, 21:55:00
- why do you think today's economy is as free as it can get? It was much freer in the 19th century, and the economy was stable. What do you mean about every 'player' changing the rules? If this is about open competition - then I don't see a? problem with it. And if the alternative is governments picking winners, setting interest rates, fixing wages, bailing out banks - do you think that's a better choice?