風蕭蕭_Frank
以文會友
諾貝爾經濟學獎得主約瑟夫·斯蒂格利茨談特朗普、關稅和民主
Nobel winning economist Joseph Stiglitz on Trump, tariffs and democracy-
如需 Front Burner 的文字記錄，請訪問：https://www.cbc.ca/radio/frontburner/transcripts [https://www.cbc.ca/radio/frontburner/transcripts]
2025 年 3 月 18 日 Front Burner 文字記錄
主持人：Jayme Poisson
JAYME POISSON：大家好，我是 Jayme Poisson。上周，我有幸采訪了諾貝爾經濟學獎得主、比爾·克林頓總統和巴拉克·奧巴馬總統的前職員兼顧問約瑟夫·斯蒂格利茨。斯蒂格利茨還曾擔任世界銀行首席經濟學家，多次成為暢銷書作家，仍然是我們這個時代最傑出的經濟思想家之一。長期以來，他一直尖銳批評新自由主義和北美自由貿易協定等貿易政策，他認為這些政策賦予富人和企業特權，卻剝奪了工人的權利。在許多方麵，這些政策為我們當前的特朗普時刻創造了條件。這是一次範圍廣泛的談話。我們當然談到了特朗普的關稅戰，他認為加拿大應該如何認真對待來自美國的威脅，以及他目前任教的哥倫比亞大學正在發生的事情，包括最近逮捕並試圖驅逐一名學生，該學生去年幫助領導了反對以色列在加沙戰爭的抗議活動。這次談話是在現場觀眾麵前錄製的。這是我上周參加的一個會議的一部分，該會議討論了民主國家在世界各地麵臨的威脅，尤其是來自我們的網絡空間的威脅。這次會議由麥吉爾大學媒體生態係統觀察站和馬克斯貝爾公共政策學院舉辦。好的，下麵是對話。斯蒂格利茨教授，很高興今天能和您交談。
約瑟夫·斯蒂格利茨：很高興來到這裏。
JP：我想知道我們是否可以從今天的情況開始，特別是在這個國家。過去兩個月左右，加拿大一直處於與我們最親密的盟友的貿易戰的不同程度的恐慌之中。您對特朗普對加拿大的經濟和貿易政策有何反應？您是否曾想象過美國總統會這樣做？
約瑟夫·斯蒂格利茨：我無法想象一個正常的美國總統會這樣做，但特朗普並不正常。我認為，在他的第一屆政府期間，我們都說過的一件事就是我們無法使他的這種行為正常化。但在第二屆政府中，他已經做得過分了。所以，就關稅問題而言。大多數經濟學家會說他完全誤解了貿易政策的作用。特別是，他的動機之一是對貿易逆差的擔憂。他認為貿易赤字是其他國家利用美國的表現。任何上過初級宏觀經濟學課程的人都知道，多邊貿易赤字，即我們的出口和進口之間的差額，與國內儲蓄總額和國內投資總額之間的差距有關。如果你不改變這些數字，你就無法改變多邊貿易赤字。所以，所有的關稅可能會改變我們從誰那裏買什麽，以及我們在哪裏賣什麽。但這並不能改變多邊貿易赤字。諷刺的是，他自己的政策，例如增加赤字，以便為億萬富翁和公司減稅，幾乎肯定會增加多邊貿易赤字。所以，從純粹的經濟角度來看，這是無稽之談。然後，他還有另一個想法，這讓人覺得好笑，那就是我們應該有外部稅收部而不是國內稅收部，讓外國人來交稅，而不是美國人來交稅。好吧，我認為這是一個好主意，如果你能明白的話
如果你想給美國政府寄一張支票，那麽你就得讓外國人捐??款。我的意思是，顯然所有美國人都會歡迎這一點。但事實是，關稅大部分是由美國公民支付的。它們提高了價格，增加了通貨膨脹。時機再糟糕不過了，因為我們剛剛度過了通貨膨脹時期。而重新施加這種通貨膨脹壓力，真是太瘋狂了。
JP：商務部長霍華德·盧特尼克最近告訴哥倫比亞廣播公司，激進的關稅是值得的。
聲音片段
霍華德·盧特尼克：這些政策是美國有史以來最重要的東西。
記者：那麽，這是值得的嗎？
霍華德·盧特尼克：這是值得的。
JP：我認為他的意思是，即使導致經濟衰退，它們也會將工作崗位帶回美國。你如何回應利尼克先生？
約瑟夫·斯蒂格利茨：我希望他能選修我的經濟學課程，這樣我就可以從那裏開始。如果他願意，我可能會給他上輔導課。但他忘記了報複的可能性，而且肯定會有報複。你知道，世界各國必須這樣做，即使他們不想這樣做，他們的公民也在要求這些國家站起來。我們知道這些貿易戰、戰爭會導致生活水平下降。你知道，這是導致大蕭條的重要因素。這不是創造就業機會的計劃。這是一個破壞就業機會的計劃。所以，我認為它會產生同樣的影響。它會降低美國的生活水平，而不是最終創造就業機會。還有一個因素：美聯儲通過提高利率來應對通脹上升。提高利率會抑製經濟。沒有證據表明他們會采取與過去不同的應對措施。所以，這會對經濟造成另一個抑製。再次，另一個原因是時機再糟糕不過了，因為與此同時，他所做的一切都削弱了經濟。他還在發起反移民運動，而我們經濟的各個領域都嚴重依賴移民。所以，這將導致通貨膨脹，抑製我們的經濟。然後，政府大規模裁員，這是 3A 級的，對整個經濟的影響，以及他造成的不確定性。關稅，加征關稅，取消關稅，加征關稅，取消關稅。在這個他創造的混亂世界中，企業無法進行投資。所以，如果你把他所做的一切放在一起，我認為美國經濟的前景並不樂觀。
[音樂播放]
JP：我知道下一個問題需要你站在唐納德·特朗普的角度去思考，這是一個相當難的問題，但你認為他所在的政府願意忍受你所描述的可能即將來臨的痛苦嗎？對嗎？你認為他們有那種痛苦閾值嗎？
約瑟夫·斯蒂格利茨：是的。而且 [JP：是的]，你知道，一個正常的，甚至是共和黨的政府都會對選民的反應非常敏感。這些反應並不是很積極。那麽，共和黨在全國各地的反應是什麽？停止市政廳。你知道，這樣你就聽不到反應了。關於他如何在幾乎沒有異議的情況下奪取共和黨控製權的討論很多。關於他是如何做到這一點的有很多謠言。初選，也就是，你知道，讓別人參加初選是其中的一部分，但它已經超越了這一點。有傳言說，他的家人遭到恐嚇。你知道，這種事情在黑手黨或俄羅斯很常見，但在美國卻很少見。但這些傳言顯然正在流傳。
JP：他是法西斯分子嗎？
約瑟夫·斯蒂格利茨：他的行為不像民主領袖，馬斯克和他踐踏法治的方式正是法西斯分子的本性，他所采取的一係列行動看起來像是法西斯劇本中的情節。你知道，有幾本書描述了法西斯分子如何掌權，讀了這些書，你就會知道美國政府正在發生什麽。你不會感到很放鬆。
JP：我想稍後再和你討論埃隆·馬斯克。但我很想知道你對沃倫·巴菲特的一句話的反應。巴菲特先生談到關稅時說，引用……
聲音片段
沃倫·巴菲特：我的意思是，關稅實際上，我們對此有很多經驗。它們在某種程度上是一種戰爭行為。
JP：您是否認為這些激進的關稅等同於戰爭行為？
約瑟夫·斯蒂格利茨：最初，我並不這麽認為。最初，我認為它們隻是對經濟學的誤解的結果，認為它們會把工作帶回美國。你知道，隻是糟糕的經濟學。但在過去的幾個月裏，他明確表示，卡納
應該是第 51 個州，他明確表示，你知道，不久前他與加拿大和墨西哥簽署了自由貿易協定。[JP：是的。他……] 那是他的簽名。我的意思是，是的，他的協議，他要求對之前的協議《北美自由貿易協定》進行某些修改。所以，他表現出了違反國際法治的意願，就像他踐踏國內法治一樣，一整套關於保障措施的規定和行政部門可以做什麽的規定。而且，他現在在國際上也這麽做了。但很容易看出，這是讓加拿大屈服成為第 51 個州的策略的一部分。如果你沒有聽到他說，很難相信。
JP：你是一個在橢圓形辦公室待過幾次的人。你在政府工作過，你曾在做決定和權力交接的房間裏工作過。您認為加拿大政府現在應該如何回應，特別是當談到第 51 個州的言論時，您認為這裏的官員應該如何認真對待？幾個月前，很多人覺得這聽起來像個笑話，但實際上是什麽？
約瑟夫·斯蒂格利茨：是的，我認為他們需要非常認真地對待。這隻是我個人的看法。你知道，沒有人知道如何進入他的內心，他從一個立場轉到另一個立場。但我逐漸理解的方式有點像拿破侖的願景，他有一個新全球地緣政治和地緣經濟的願景，這個半球是美國的，那裏是中國的領地，他有點想把世界瓜分。這是一種 19 世紀的觀點，我們以為我們已經超越了這種觀點。但我認為他想把自己看作一位偉大的總統。當他說“讓美國再次偉大”時，你知道，我們在學校時就學過美國的天定命運。它涉及對美洲原住民的種族滅絕。但事實就是如此。我們襲擊了墨西哥。我們吞並了墨西哥的領土。所以，這是這種天定命運的又一步。我們誰都不敢相信我們會在 21 世紀看到這種事情。但事實就是如此。所以，我認為我們應該認真對待它。也許，我們應該考慮你可以達成什麽樣的交易，作為戰略和戰術的一部分。你必須考慮的另一件事是：你如何明智地應對關稅？有幾個因素可以明智地應對關稅。首先是：我之前說過關稅會傷害國家。所以，如果你想征收關稅，你必須非常謹慎，因為關稅可能會損害你的利益。 [JP：對。] 因此，其中一件事，很明顯，特朗普明白對從加拿大進口的自然資源征收關稅會造成傷害。所以，他豁免了這些關稅。那麽，加拿大應該采取的回應是對這些自然資源的出口征收出口稅。這將傷害美國。[JP：對。] 你知道，我不希望美國受到傷害，但從全球角度來看，我們必須恢複全球平衡並尊重國際法治。我認為加拿大公民抵製美國產品的行為，發出了強烈的信號，表明我們不喜歡這種做法。
[音樂播放]
JP：你是哥倫比亞大學的教授，如果我不提起這件事，那我就太失職了。而且，既然我們在談論權利的侵蝕，最近，31 歲的馬哈茂德·哈利勒（Mahmoud Khalil）剛從哥倫比亞大學畢業，去年曾幫助領導反對以色列的抗議活動，他被聯邦移民官員逮捕，試圖將他驅逐出境，盡管他是綠卡持有者，沒有被指控犯罪。
聲音片段
未知聲音 1：你將被捕。[馬哈茂德·哈利勒：我看不到……] 所以，轉過身，轉過身，轉過身。不要反抗，不要反抗。
未知聲音 2：好的。好的，他沒有反抗。他把手機給了我，好嗎？這不是[聽不清]。他沒有反抗。
未知聲音 1：張開你的手臂。
[聽不清的喋喋不休]
[馬哈茂德·哈利勒被捕的片段]
未知聲音 3：你要跟我們一起去。
馬哈茂德·哈利勒：我跟你一起去，別擔心。
JP：特朗普發布了關於他被拘留的消息，稱哈利勒被捕是未來許多被捕者中的第一個。他補充說，他的政府知道還有更多學生參與了“支持恐怖主義、反猶太主義、反美活動”。你現在是怎麽想的？
約瑟夫·斯蒂格利茨：這太可怕了。我認為必須這樣做，我認為反美主義最不應該做的就是讓我們回到 50 年代的背景下，當時眾議院非美活動調查委員會，麥卡錫試圖在整個學術界灌輸恐懼。但這實際上比學術界要廣泛得多，但顯然學術界正受到攻擊，就像麥卡錫統治時期一樣。其他影響來源
好萊塢等影響力也成為目標，我相信他們會受到追究。我認為你必須把這次逮捕看作是更廣泛的恐嚇模式，並在更廣泛的背景下看待它，其中不僅有恐嚇，還有將反猶太主義武器化、將反以色列混為一談，特別是以色列的種族清洗政策，你知道，被殺害的兒童數量，以及加沙發生的事情，將其與反猶太主義混為一談。而且，你知道，這顯然不是將對巴勒斯坦人的支持與對哈馬斯的支持混為一談。這是兩個不同的概念。你知道，你可以反對種族清洗，但仍然說，我認為，哈馬斯的所作所為是錯誤的。你不支持恐怖組織。這與麥卡錫時代發生的事情是一樣的，其中有連帶罪，還有另一個因素。他們非常反對大學和科學。對我來說，一個以技術為基礎的國家，一個代理助理總統（不管你怎麽稱呼他）靠技術發家致富的國家，竟然會攻擊科學技術和大學，而大學是科學技術的主要生產者，這真是太不可思議了。從長遠來看，這將對美國和美國經濟造成巨大破壞，更不用說我們談論的所有其他價值觀了。
JP：可以理解的是，埃隆·馬斯克在這次談話中出現了幾次。讓我們這樣做吧。很多人把這個時代比作鍍金時代，那個時代由納爾遜·洛克菲勒和安德魯·卡內基等億萬富翁主導，他們擁有令人難以置信的權力來掌控美國聯邦政府。特朗普實際上也表達了對那個時代的懷念。你認為那個時代和今天有什麽聯係？但它又有什麽不同呢？
約瑟夫·斯蒂格利茨：是的。所以，你知道，有很多關於美國成為寡頭政治的討論和提及。話雖如此，我們還是會以貶義的方式想到俄羅斯及其寡頭，而俄羅斯實際上並沒有真正的民主。你知道，它一直很脆弱，而且不會持續太久。無論他們擁有什麽，都沒有持續很長時間。當人們談論寡頭時，我們都會想到少數非常非常富有的人的不當影響。這種討論甚至在馬斯克擔任美國政府職務之前就開始了，他的團隊正在剝奪美國政府的權力，隨意解雇員工，違反一項又一項法律。你知道，我們有最高法院的裁決，規定行政部門不能扣押國會撥出的資金。國會控製著錢袋。當他們不撥款時，你不能花錢，但是當他們撥款時，作為行政部門，你的工作就是花錢。如果你不喜歡，就去國會修改法律。於是，最高法院出麵了，他說：“我不會遵守國家法律。”我們有利益衝突法來保護美國人免受企業權力的影響。他把這些法律撕毀了。所以，在我看來，現在的情況比鍍金時代要糟糕得多。這些人從來沒有像馬斯克那樣管理政府。還有一個不同之處。最終，洛克菲勒和卡內基這樣的人有公共利益的一麵。他們可能是無情的壟斷者，但他們也有真正關心公共利益的一麵。你有卡內基基金會、洛克菲勒基金會，還有洛克菲勒給大學的禮物。你知道，這些基金會很多，實際上在我們國家發揮了非常重要的作用。
JP：如果我們思考與鍍金時代的相似點和不同點，我認為一個不同點是，現在很多億萬富翁不僅擁有行業，他們還擁有主流話語模式和公共信息。X、Meta，甚至貝佐斯和《華盛頓郵報》。我認為最新的情況是，他指示《華盛頓郵報》的觀點版隻寫關於自由市場和個人自由的文章。那麽，這種做法可持續嗎？
約瑟夫·斯蒂格利茨：嗯，我認為你提出的觀點是洛克菲勒和卡內基之間的根本區別。他們當時並不擁有市政廳。當時媒體權力集中，赫斯特集團，這產生了後果。人們普遍認為，正是因為他們，我們才在 1898 年發動戰爭，並獲得了我們的殖民地菲律賓和波多黎各。所以，媒體集中產生了後果。但這並不是這些寡頭、19 世紀壟斷者和媒體控製的聯合。而這正是今天特別危險的地方。再加上他們接受了自由主義意識形態，他們如此自私，他們有著驚人的合作精神。
領導不和諧。馬斯克可以聲稱自己是自由主義者，但卻接受美國政府數十億美元的資助。他的一家公司基本上依賴美國政府。現在，我不知道你如何看待自由主義者和依賴政府資金的想法。
[音樂播放]
JP：現在我覺得，對現任政府的抵抗似乎並不多。我隻是好奇，你認為他們應該做什麽，也許具體來說不一定是他們應該提出的人，而是他們現在應該宣傳的政策，以試圖反擊這種情況，試圖獲得某種支持。
約瑟夫·斯蒂格利茨：是的。首先，這不是關於微調政策的辯論。這是一場試圖維護我們民主的戰爭。對我來說，如果隻是關於政策，那將是一回事。你知道，正如他們所說，選舉很重要。當另一方獲勝時，你會期待政策的改變。但令我如此不安的是我們的民主遭到破壞。這不是政策問題。你知道，你違反國際條約嗎？協議？這不是政策。這不應該是我們應該辯論的問題。我們都應該相信有法律和國際法。你需要遵守它。我們有關於利益衝突的法律，有關於監察長的保障措施，這些措施不能被解雇。我之前提到過，還有賦權。所有這些事情都是 250 多年來為使我們的民主發揮作用而創建的，而他們卻在踐踏它們。這就是我擔心的。我想，這應該是民主黨可以傳達的信息，你知道，我們可以對政策細節甚至政策框架持有不同意見，但這對我們的民主來說真的非常危險。
JP：我隻是好奇。我甚至不知道您是否會同意這一點，但對我來說，現在發生的事情就像是您一生中許多工作的頂峰，回到了原點。您有這種感覺嗎？
約瑟夫·斯蒂格利茨：是的。我的意思是，以錯誤的方式歸宿。
[交談]
JP：是的，是的。對不起。我覺得這可能不是正確的說法。
約瑟夫·斯蒂格利茨：我知道你的意思，是的。
JP：但你明白我在這裏想說什麽嗎？就像……
約瑟夫·斯蒂格利茨：我給你舉兩個例子。
JP：也許你可以幫我。
約瑟夫·斯蒂格利茨：是的。好的。我進入阿默斯特學院時，主修物理。大三的時候，我說，你知道，我們社會的不平等、種族隔離、收入不平等一直困擾著我。我說，你知道，我真正想做的不是物理，而是經濟學，並想為此做點什麽。所以，你知道，隻是反映了這一點，你知道，我在 1963 年 8 月與馬丁·路德·金一起遊行，在 1962 年去了佐治亞州幫助融合。你知道，所以，那裏有一位民權活動家。我進入經濟學領域，可能有點像那裏的活動家。我的論文是關於不平等的，當時沒有人寫關於不平等的文章。
JP：是的。當時並不酷。對吧？
約瑟夫·斯蒂格利茨：當時並不酷。[JP：是的]。因此，在寫完論文後，我開始研究信息經濟學和其他晦澀難懂的話題。但是，60 年後，我們有了一位總統，他正在積極地試圖扭轉我們在不平等、包容性和多樣性方麵取得的有限進步。所以，你知道，你有點感覺我這一生取得了一點進步，比我希望的要少得多。但是，看到這種倒退，我該怎麽說呢？真的幾乎讓你流淚。
JP：最後一個問題。四年後美國會是什麽樣子？
約瑟夫·斯蒂格利茨：好吧，我希望我們能經曆一場創傷，然後變得更健康。我們意識到我們的民主是多麽珍貴，多麽脆弱，我們必須建立更強大的保障措施。作為保障措施的一部分，當我們麵臨極端的財富和收入不平等時，民主製度就無法正常運轉，這意味著我們必須創造一個更具包容性的社會。因此，走出這場創傷，我們將建立更強大的民主製度，並認識到我們偏離了軌道。這就是我的希望。
JP：斯蒂格利茨教授，非常感謝您的發言。
[觀眾鼓掌]
JP：好的。今天就到這裏。我是傑米·普瓦鬆。非常感謝您的聆聽。明天再聊。
如需查看本係列的文字記錄，請訪問此頁麵。
Nobel winning economist Joseph Stiglitz on Trump, tariffs and democracy
Last week Jayme had the opportunity to interview Nobel Prize winning economist, and former staffer and advisor to Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, Joseph Stiglitz. Stiglitz also worked as the chief economist at the world bank, is a bestselling author many times over and remains one of the towering economic thinkers of our time. He has long been a sharp critic of neoliberalism, and trade policies like NAFTA that he believes privileged the rich and corporations, but disenfranchised workers. This was a wide ranging conversation and dealt with Trump's tariff war, the threats towards Canada and the recent arrest and attempt to deport a Columbia student who helped lead protests against Israel's war in Gaza last year. The conversation was recorded in front of an audience. It was part of a conference put on by McGill's Media Ecosystem Observatory and the Max Bell School of Public Policy. For transcripts of Front Burner, please visit: https://www.cbc.ca/radio/frontburner/transcripts [https://www.cbc.ca/radio/frontburner/transcripts]
Front Burner Transcript for March 18, 2025
Host: Jayme Poisson
JAYME POISSON: Hi everyone, I'm Jayme Poisson. Last week, I had the opportunity to interview Nobel Prize-winning economist and former staffer and adviser to Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, Joseph Stiglitz. Stiglitz also worked as a chief economist at the World Bank, is a bestselling author many times over, and remains one of the towering economic thinkers of our time. He has long been a sharp critic of neoliberalism and trade policies like NAFTA that he believes privileged the rich and corporations, but disenfranchised workers. And in many ways, helped to create the conditions for our current Trump moment. This was a wide-ranging conversation. We talked about Trump's tariff wars, of course, how seriously he thinks Canada should take the threats coming from the U.S., and about what is taking place at Columbia University, where he currently teaches, including the recent arrest and attempt to deport a student who helped lead protests against Israel's war in Gaza last year. The conversation was recorded in front of a live audience. It was part of a conference that I was at last week, dealing with threats that democracies are facing around the world, especially from our online spaces. And it was put on by McGill's Media Ecosystem Observatory and the Max Bell School of Public Policy. Alright, here's the conversation. Professor Stiglitz, it is such a pleasure to speak with you today.
JOSEPH STIGLITZ: Nice to be here.
JP: I wonder if we could begin with the moment that we find ourselves in today, especially here in this country. Canada has spent the last two months or so in varying levels of panic over a trade war with our closest ally. And what is your reaction to Trump's economic and trade policy regarding Canada? Is it something that you had ever conceived of an American President doing?
JOSEPH STIGLITZ: I couldn't conceive of a normal American president doing, but Trump is not normal. And I think one of the things we all said during his first administration is we can't normalize his kind of behaviour. But in the second administration, he's gone way over the top. So, take the issue of tariffs alone. Most economists would say he totally misunderstands the role of trade policy. In particular, one of his motivations is a concern about trade deficits. He thinks the trade deficits are a reflection of other countries taking advantage of the United States. Anybody that takes an elementary macroeconomic course knows that the multilateral trade deficit, the difference between our exports and imports, is related to the disparity between aggregate domestic savings and aggregate domestic investment. And if you don't change those numbers, you don't change the multilateral trade deficit. So, all the tariffs may change who we buy what from, you know, and where we sell what. But it doesn't change the multilateral trade deficit. The irony is that his own policies with respect to, for instance, increasing the deficit so he can give a trade, a tax cut for the billionaires and for the corporations, almost surely will increase the multilateral trade deficit. So, from a pure economic point of view, it's non-sense. And then, he has this further idea which causes some amusement that we ought to have the Department of External Revenue rather than the Department of Internal Revenue, having foreigners pay our taxes rather than Americans paying. Well, I think it's a great idea if you could get foreigners to contribute, if you want to send a cheque in to the U.S. government. I mean, obviously all Americans would welcome that. But the fact is that for the most part, tariffs are paid by American citizens. They increase the price, they increase inflation. And the timing couldn't be worse because we're just getting over an inflationary episode. And to put this inflationary pressure back on, it's really crazy.
JP: Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick recently told CBS that aggressive tariffs would be worth that.
SOUNDCLIP
HOWARD LUTNICK: These policies are the most important thing America has ever had.
REPORTER: So, it is worth it?
HOWARD LUTNICK: It is worth it.
JP: A I think he means because they would shore up jobs like back to the U.S., even in the event that they lead to a recession. And how would you respond to Mr. Linick?
JOSEPH STIGLITZ: I wish he had taken my economics course, that that I would begin there. And maybe if he wants, I'll give him a tutorial. But he forgets about the possibility that there will be retaliation and there will be retaliation. You know, countries around the world have to, even if they didn't want to, their citizens are demanding that these countries stand up. And we know where these kinds of trade war, wars lead, lowering standards of living. And, you know, it was an important contributor to the Great Depression. That wasn't a creation, a job creation program. It was a job destruction program. So, I think it's going to have the same impact. It's going to lower standards of living in the United States, not, in the end, going to create jobs. One more element: The Federal Reserve responds to increases in inflation by raising interest rates. Raising interest rates dampens the economy. There is no evidence that they would respond to this any differently than they have in the past. So, that would be another dampening on the economy. And again, the timing for another reason couldn't be worse, because at the same time, he's doing all these things that are weakening the economy. He's also having this campaign against immigrants, and we depend very heavily for, on our immigrants in sector after sector of our economy. So, that's going to be inflationary and depress our economy. And then, there are the massive government layoffs that are Triple-A, the effects of going throughout the economy, the uncertainty that he's created. Tariffs, on tariffs, off tariffs, on tariffs, off. Businesses can't do investment in this chaotic world that he's created. So, if you take in context all the things he's done, I think the prospects for the American economy are not very good.
[Music playing]
JP: I realize this next question requires you to kind of get in the mind of Donald Trump, which is, it's quite an ask, but do you think that this administration that he's in is willing to tolerate the kind of pain that you are describing that could be coming? Right? Do you think they have that pain threshold or...?
JOSEPH STIGLITZ: Yes. And [JP: Yeah], you know, a normal, even Republican administration would be very sensitive to the reactions of their electorate. Those reactions have not been very positive. And so, what was the response of the Republican throughout the country? Stop town halls. You know, so you don't hear the reaction. There has been a lot of discussion going on about how he has seized control of the Republican Party, with almost no dissent. There are lots of rumours about how he's done it. Primaring, that is, you know, having someone else stand in the primary is part, but it's gone beyond that. There are rumours about intimidation of families. This is, you know, the kind of thing you would expect in a mafia kind of, you know, or in Russia, not in the United States. But those kinds of rumors are clearly going on right now.
JP: Is he a fascist?
JOSEPH STIGLITZ: He does not act in a way a democratic leader acts, and the way that Musk and he have trampled the rule of law is what you expect out of a fascist, and the set of actions that he's taken looks like it's taken out of the fascist playbook. You know, there have been several books that have described how fascists get into power and read those books, and you see what is going on in the U.S. government. You can't feel very relaxed.
JP: I want to come back to Elon Musk with you a little bit later. But I would be curious to get your reaction to a quote from Warren Buffett. Mr. Buffett was talking about the tariffs and he said, quote…
SOUNDCLIP
WARREN BUFFETT: I mean, tariffs are actually, we've had a lot of experience with them. They're, they're an act of war to some degree.
JP: Do you see these aggressive tariffs as tantamount to an act of war?
JOSEPH STIGLITZ: Originally, I did not. Originally, I thought they were just the result of misguided understanding of economics, the idea that they would bring jobs back to the United States. You know, just bad economics. But over the last couple months, where he has explicitly said Canada ought to be the 51st state, where he is explicitly, you know, he signed the free trade agreement with Canada and Mexico not that long ago. [JP: Yes. He...] And that was his signature. I mean, yeah, his agreement and he, he demanded certain changes in the previous agreement, NAFTA. And so, what he has shown is, you know, a willingness to violate international rule of law, just like he's trampled on domestic rule of law, a whole set of provisions about safeguards and provisions of what the executive branch can do. And, and he's done that now internationally. But it's easy to see this is part of a strategy of making Canada knuckle under to become the 51st state. If you didn't hear him say it, it would be hard to believe.
JP: You are a person who has been around the Oval Office a few times. You've worked in government, you've been in the room where decisions are made and power is brokered. How do you think the Canadian government should be responding right now, and particularly when it comes to the 51st state rhetoric, how seriously do you think officials here should, should take that? What actually started as something that sounded like a joke to a lot of people just a few months ago?
JOSEPH STIGLITZ: Yeah, I think they need to take it very seriously. This is just my own. You know, nobody knows how to get inside his mind, and he goes from one position to another. But the way I've been coming to understand is a little bit of a Napoleonic vision, that he has a vision of a new global geopolitics of geo-economics, where this hemisphere is U.S., there is China's domain, and he's sort to divide the world up. It's sort of a, a 19th century view that we thought we'd moved beyond. But I think he wants to see himself as a great President. And when he says, "Make America Great Again," you know, there was that, we, when we were in, in school, we learned about America's manifest destiny. It involved genocide of Native Americans. But there it was. It, we, we attacked Mexico. We annexed Mexico's territory. And so, this is another step in that kind of manifest destiny. And none of us could believe that we would be seeing this in the 21st century. But there, there we have it. So, I think one should take it seriously. And probably, well, one should think about what kind of deals you can make as part of a, part of the strategy and part of the tactics. The other thing you have to think about is: How do you respond smartly to the tariffs? And there are several elements responding intelligently to tariffs. First is: I said before the tariffs hurt the country. So, for you to impose tariffs, one has to be very selective because there is the risk that they will harm you. [JP: Right.] So, one of the things, it was very clear that he, Trump understood that tariffs on the importation of natural resources from Canada would hurt. So, he's exempted them. Well, the response to do for, for Canada is to impose export levies on the export of these natural resources. That will hurt the United States. [JP: Right.] You know, I don't want the United States to be hurt, but I over in the global scheme of things, one has to restore a global balance and respect for international rule of law. I think the kinds of things that Canadian citizens are doing of boycotting American products, sending a strong signal that we don't like this.
[Music playing]
JP: You are a professor at Columbia University, and I'd be remiss to not bring this up. And also, since we're talking about the erosion of rights, recently, a 31-year-old Mahmoud Khalil, who is a recent graduate of Columbia and helped lead protests against Israel last year, was arrested by federal immigration officers in an attempt to deport him, even though he is a green card holder and not charged with a crime.
SOUNDCLIP
UNKNOWN VOICE 1: You're going to be under arrest. [MAHMOUD KHALIL: I can't see...] So, turn around, turn around, turn around, turn around. Stop resisting, stop resisting.
UNKNOWN VOICE 2: Okay. Okay, he's not resisting. He's giving me his phone, okay? It's not [inaudible]. He's not resisting.
UNKNOWN VOICE 1: Put your arms around.
[Inaudible chatter]
[Clip of Mahmoud Khalil getting arrested]
UNKNOWN VOICE 3: You're going to have come with us.
MAHMOUD KHALIL: I'm coming with you, don't worry.
JP: Trump posted about his detention, saying Khalil's arrest was the first arrest of many to come. He added his administration knew of many more students who engage in, quote, "pro-terrorist, anti-Semitic, anti-American activity." How are you thinking about all of this right now?
JOSEPH STIGLITZ: It's terrible. I think one has to, and I think the last thing anti-American helps should put us in the context of where we were in the '50s with the House Un-American Activities Committee, McCarthy trying to instill fear throughout academia. But this is actually much broader than academia, but obviously academia is being targeted in the same way that it was under McCarthy. Other sources of influence like Hollywood were also targeted, and I'm sure it will go after them. I think you have to see what this particular arrest as this broader pattern of intimidation, and see it more broadly in a whole variety of contexts in in which there is I, you know, not only intimidation, weaponizing antisemitism, conflating anti-Israel, in particular Israel policies of ethnic cleansing and, you know, the number of children that have been killed, the just, what's happening in Gaza, conflating that with antisemitism. And it's, you know, clearly not conflating support for the Palestinians with support for Hamas. Those are two different. You know, you can be against ethnic cleansing and still say, I think, what Hamas did was wrong. And you don't support terrorist organizations. It's the same kind of thing that happened under McCarthy, where guilt by association and what, there's one more element of this. They are very anti-universities and anti-science. For me, it's just so amazing that a country whose strength has been based on technology and who's Acting Assistant President, whatever you call Musk, has made his money out of technology, would be attacking science and technology and the universities, which are the major producers of science and technology. Over the long run, it, this will do enormous destruction for America and for our American economy, let alone all the other values that we talk about.
JP: Elon Musk has understandably come up a few times in this conversation. Let's, let's do that. A lot of people have compared this moment to the Gilded Age, an era dominated by the likes of billionaires like Nelson Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie, who had incredible access to power over the U.S. federal government. It's a time that Trump has actually also expressed nostalgia about. What are the through lines that you see connecting that moment to today? How is it different, though, too?
JOSEPH STIGLITZ: Yeah. So, you know, there's a lot of discussion and reference to the, America becoming an oligarchy. And that said, in a disparaging way, we think of Russia and its oligarchs and Russia didn't really have a, a real democracy. And, you know, it was always fragile and it didn't last. Whatever they had didn't last very long. And we are, when people talk about the oligarchs, there's that same kind of undue influence of a few very, very rich people. And that discussion began even before Musk took the position he has in the U.S. government with his team just stripping away the U.S. government, firing people at will, violating law after law. You know, we have Supreme Court decisions that say that the executive branch cannot impound funds that are, have been allocated by Congress. Congress controls the purse strings. You can't spend money when they don't appropriate it, but when they appropriate it, your job as the executive branch is to spend it. And if you don't like that, go to Congress and change the law. And so, the Supreme Court has come out and that and he says, "I'm not going to obey the law of the land." We have conflict of interest laws to protect Americans against influence of corporate power. He's ripped those aside. So, in my mind, it's much worse than it was at the, in the Gilded Age. These individuals never were running government in the way that Musk is running government. And there's one more difference. In the end, people like Rockefeller and Carnegie had a public interest side to them. They may have been ruthless monopolist, but they also had a side in them that was really interested in public interest. You had the Carnegie Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, the gifts that Rockefeller gave to universities. You know, these were legion and actually played a very important role in our country.
JP: If we're thinking about the similarities and the differences with the Gilded Age, it strikes me that one difference is that a lot of these billionaires right now, they don't just own industry, what they own are dominant modes of discourse and public information. X, Meta, even Bezos and the Washington Post. I think the latest is that he has instructed his opinions section at the Washington Post to write only about free markets and, and personal liberties. And so, is this sustainable?
JOSEPH STIGLITZ: Well, I think the point that you raise is that is a fundamental difference between Rockefeller, Carnegie. They didn't own the, you might say, the town hall of the time. There was concentration of media power, the Hearst, and that had consequences. There's a widespread view that it was because of them that we went to war in 1898 and acquired our colonies, Philippines and Puerto Rico. So, it had consequences of media concentration. But it wasn't the joining together of these oligarchs, monopolists of the 19th century and the control of the media. And that's what's particularly dangerous today. And combined with the fact that they bought into a libertarian ideology that they are so selfish and they have an amazing cognitive dissonance. Musk can claim to be a libertarian, but accept billions and billions of dollars from the U.S. Government. And I have one of his companies basically be dependent on the U.S. Government. Now, how you hold those ideas of a libertarian and being dependent on, on government money, I don't know.
[Music playing]
JP: It strikes me right now that there doesn't seem to be much of a resistance to this current administration. I'm just curious, like what you think they should be doing, and maybe specifically not necessarily people that they should be putting forward, but policies that they should be touting right now to try and punch back against this, to try and get some sort of traction.
JOSEPH STIGLITZ: Yeah. Well, first, this is not a debate about fine tuning policies right now. The, this is a war to try to preserve our democracy. And the, to me, if it were just about policy, that would be one thing. You know, elections as, as they say, matter. And, and when another side wins, you expect a change in policy. But what disturbs me so much is the destruction of our democracy. That's not a question of policy. You know, do you violate international treaties? Agreements? That's not a policy. It shouldn't be a question that we should be debating. We, we should all believe that there's a law and international law. You need to obey it. We have laws about conflicts of interest, safeguards about Inspector Generals that can't be fired. I mentioned before, empowerment. All of these things that have created over 250 years to make our democracy work, and they're trampling all of them. That's what concerns me. And that should be the message, I think, hopefully, that the Democratic Party can say that, you know, we can all disagree about details of policies or even policy frameworks, but this is really, really dangerous for our democracy.
JP: I'm just curious. I don't even, I don't know if you would even agree with this, but like for me, it seems to me like what what's happening right now is just like the culmination of so much of your life's work kind of coming home to roost. Do you feel that way?
JOSEPH STIGLITZ: Yes. I mean, roost in the wrong way.
[cross-talk]
JP: Yeah, yeah. Sorry. I feel like I, this is probably not the right way to say it.
JOSEPH STIGLITZ: I know what you're getting at, yeah.
JP: But do you understand what I'm trying to say here? Like...
JOSEPH STIGLITZ: I'll give you two examples.
JP: Maybe you can help me out.
JOSEPH STIGLITZ: Yeah. Okay. I entered, I had been a, a physics major at Amherst College, and in my junior year, I said, you know, these, the social inequities in our society, racial segregation, income inequality just kept bugging me. And I said, you know, really what I want to do is not physics, but economics and to do something about it. And so, you know, just reflection of that, you know, I was, went down, march with Martin Luther King in August of 1963, went down in '62 down to Georgia to help integrate. You know, so, so there was a civil rights and activist. I went into economics, maybe a little bit as an activist there. And my thesis was about inequality in a period in which nobody was writing about inequality.
JP: Yeah. Like, wasn't cool then. Right?
JOSEPH STIGLITZ: It was, wasn't cool then. [JP: Yep]. And, and so I, after writing the thesis, I worked on other things like economics of information and other obscure topics. But, but and here we are 60 years later, and we have a President who is actively trying to roll the clock back on the limited advances that we have made in inequality, inclusion, and diversity. So, you, you know, you sort of felt a little bit over my lifetime and made a little progress, much less than I had hoped. But then, to see this roll back is like, how can I say it? It's really almost brings tears to your eyes.
JP: Final question for you. What does America look like in four years?
JOSEPH STIGLITZ: Well, would I hope it looks like is that we will have gone through a trauma from which we emerge healthier. We realize how precious our democracy is, how fragile it is, how we have to build much stronger safeguards. That part of the safeguards, you cannot have a well-functioning democracy when you have the extremes of wealth and income inequality that we have, and that means we have to create a more inclusive society. And so out of this trauma, we will emerge a stronger democracy and recognize where we went off the track. So, that's my hope.
JP: Professor Stiglitz, thank you very much for this.
[Clapping from audience]
JP: Alright. That is all for today. I'm Jayme Poisson. Thanks so much for listening. Talk to you tomorrow.
For transcripts of this series, please visit this page.
