Obama had to save the banks, sure, but he didn't have to save the bankers and the shareholders and the bondholders. We broke the rules of capitalism in order to save those at the top - as we always do.
Interpretation
The quote critiques the financial rescue measures taken during the economic crisis, highlighting that they favored the wealthy elite over the general public.
Joseph Stiglitz's quote emphasizes the disparity in economic treatment where the financial bailouts during the crisis not only protected banks but also the wealthy individuals who made profits from the system. It points to a broader critique of capitalism, suggesting that rules are often bent to favor those at the top while neglecting the needs of the average citizen. This statement serves as a reflection on the ethical implications of such policies and the systemic inequality they perpetuate.
In practice
During a debate on economic policy, this quote can be used to illustrate the unfairness of financial bailouts.
Free migration within Europe means that countries that have done a better job at reducing unemployment will predictably end up with more than their fair share of refugees. Workers in these countries bear the cost in depressed wages and higher unemployment, while employers benefit from cheaper labor.
I don't think we can have democracies that work where most of the people are not benefiting economically, where most of the people are worried about their job security.
Let me put it very forcefully: No large economy has ever recovered from an economic downturn through austerity. It's not going to happen in the United States, and it's not going to happen in Europe.
What separates developing countries from developed countries is as much a gap in knowledge as a gap in resources.
One of the arguments I make for the failure of the euro is that, at the time it was being constructed, there was a 'neo-liberal' ideology which said that all we need to do to make this thing work is to get deficits low, keep inflation low, and take down barriers, and then everything would be fine.
Trump sees the world in terms of a zero-sum game. In reality, globalisation, if well managed, is a positive-sum force: America gains if its friends and allies - whether Australia, the E.U., or Mexico - are stronger. But Trump's approach threatens to turn it into a negative-sum game: America will lose, too.
During the next four years...unless drastic steps are taken by Congress, the U.S. will have nearly 8,000,000 unemployed and will stand on the brink of a deep depression.
He who controls the money supply of a nation controls the nation.
The trouble with the profit system has always been that it was highly unprofitable to most people.
The public firm can nowhere maintain itself in free competition with the private firm; it is possible today only where it has a monopoly that excludes competition. Even that alone is evidence of its lesser economic productivity.
I think if you look back through time, the history of income, wealth and taxation is full of surprise. So I am not terribly impressed by those who know in advance what will or will not happen.
Thus, our national circulating medium is now at the mercy of loan transactions of banks, which lend, not money, but promises to supply money they do not possess
Subscribe for the occasional hand-picked quote. No noise.