风萧萧_Frank
以文会友
诺贝尔经济学奖得主约瑟夫·斯蒂格利茨谈特朗普、关税和民主
Nobel winning economist Joseph Stiglitz on Trump, tariffs and democracy-
如需 Front Burner 的文字记录，请访问：https://www.cbc.ca/radio/frontburner/transcripts [https://www.cbc.ca/radio/frontburner/transcripts]
2025 年 3 月 18 日 Front Burner 文字记录
主持人：Jayme Poisson
JAYME POISSON：大家好，我是 Jayme Poisson。上周，我有幸采访了诺贝尔经济学奖得主、比尔·克林顿总统和巴拉克·奥巴马总统的前职员兼顾问约瑟夫·斯蒂格利茨。斯蒂格利茨还曾担任世界银行首席经济学家，多次成为畅销书作家，仍然是我们这个时代最杰出的经济思想家之一。长期以来，他一直尖锐批评新自由主义和北美自由贸易协定等贸易政策，他认为这些政策赋予富人和企业特权，却剥夺了工人的权利。在许多方面，这些政策为我们当前的特朗普时刻创造了条件。这是一次范围广泛的谈话。我们当然谈到了特朗普的关税战，他认为加拿大应该如何认真对待来自美国的威胁，以及他目前任教的哥伦比亚大学正在发生的事情，包括最近逮捕并试图驱逐一名学生，该学生去年帮助领导了反对以色列在加沙战争的抗议活动。这次谈话是在现场观众面前录制的。这是我上周参加的一个会议的一部分，该会议讨论了民主国家在世界各地面临的威胁，尤其是来自我们的网络空间的威胁。这次会议由麦吉尔大学媒体生态系统观察站和马克斯贝尔公共政策学院举办。好的，下面是对话。斯蒂格利茨教授，很高兴今天能和您交谈。
约瑟夫·斯蒂格利茨：很高兴来到这里。
JP：我想知道我们是否可以从今天的情况开始，特别是在这个国家。过去两个月左右，加拿大一直处于与我们最亲密的盟友的贸易战的不同程度的恐慌之中。您对特朗普对加拿大的经济和贸易政策有何反应？您是否曾想象过美国总统会这样做？
约瑟夫·斯蒂格利茨：我无法想象一个正常的美国总统会这样做，但特朗普并不正常。我认为，在他的第一届政府期间，我们都说过的一件事就是我们无法使他的这种行为正常化。但在第二届政府中，他已经做得过分了。所以，就关税问题而言。大多数经济学家会说他完全误解了贸易政策的作用。特别是，他的动机之一是对贸易逆差的担忧。他认为贸易赤字是其他国家利用美国的表现。任何上过初级宏观经济学课程的人都知道，多边贸易赤字，即我们的出口和进口之间的差额，与国内储蓄总额和国内投资总额之间的差距有关。如果你不改变这些数字，你就无法改变多边贸易赤字。所以，所有的关税可能会改变我们从谁那里买什么，以及我们在哪里卖什么。但这并不能改变多边贸易赤字。讽刺的是，他自己的政策，例如增加赤字，以便为亿万富翁和公司减税，几乎肯定会增加多边贸易赤字。所以，从纯粹的经济角度来看，这是无稽之谈。然后，他还有另一个想法，这让人觉得好笑，那就是我们应该有外部税收部而不是国内税收部，让外国人来交税，而不是美国人来交税。好吧，我认为这是一个好主意，如果你能明白的话
如果你想给美国政府寄一张支票，那么你就得让外国人捐??款。我的意思是，显然所有美国人都会欢迎这一点。但事实是，关税大部分是由美国公民支付的。它们提高了价格，增加了通货膨胀。时机再糟糕不过了，因为我们刚刚度过了通货膨胀时期。而重新施加这种通货膨胀压力，真是太疯狂了。
JP：商务部长霍华德·卢特尼克最近告诉哥伦比亚广播公司，激进的关税是值得的。
声音片段
霍华德·卢特尼克：这些政策是美国有史以来最重要的东西。
记者：那么，这是值得的吗？
霍华德·卢特尼克：这是值得的。
JP：我认为他的意思是，即使导致经济衰退，它们也会将工作岗位带回美国。你如何回应利尼克先生？
约瑟夫·斯蒂格利茨：我希望他能选修我的经济学课程，这样我就可以从那里开始。如果他愿意，我可能会给他上辅导课。但他忘记了报复的可能性，而且肯定会有报复。你知道，世界各国必须这样做，即使他们不想这样做，他们的公民也在要求这些国家站起来。我们知道这些贸易战、战争会导致生活水平下降。你知道，这是导致大萧条的重要因素。这不是创造就业机会的计划。这是一个破坏就业机会的计划。所以，我认为它会产生同样的影响。它会降低美国的生活水平，而不是最终创造就业机会。还有一个因素：美联储通过提高利率来应对通胀上升。提高利率会抑制经济。没有证据表明他们会采取与过去不同的应对措施。所以，这会对经济造成另一个抑制。再次，另一个原因是时机再糟糕不过了，因为与此同时，他所做的一切都削弱了经济。他还在发起反移民运动，而我们经济的各个领域都严重依赖移民。所以，这将导致通货膨胀，抑制我们的经济。然后，政府大规模裁员，这是 3A 级的，对整个经济的影响，以及他造成的不确定性。关税，加征关税，取消关税，加征关税，取消关税。在这个他创造的混乱世界中，企业无法进行投资。所以，如果你把他所做的一切放在一起，我认为美国经济的前景并不乐观。
[音乐播放]
JP：我知道下一个问题需要你站在唐纳德·特朗普的角度去思考，这是一个相当难的问题，但你认为他所在的政府愿意忍受你所描述的可能即将来临的痛苦吗？对吗？你认为他们有那种痛苦阈值吗？
约瑟夫·斯蒂格利茨：是的。而且 [JP：是的]，你知道，一个正常的，甚至是共和党的政府都会对选民的反应非常敏感。这些反应并不是很积极。那么，共和党在全国各地的反应是什么？停止市政厅。你知道，这样你就听不到反应了。关于他如何在几乎没有异议的情况下夺取共和党控制权的讨论很多。关于他是如何做到这一点的有很多谣言。初选，也就是，你知道，让别人参加初选是其中的一部分，但它已经超越了这一点。有传言说，他的家人遭到恐吓。你知道，这种事情在黑手党或俄罗斯很常见，但在美国却很少见。但这些传言显然正在流传。
JP：他是法西斯分子吗？
约瑟夫·斯蒂格利茨：他的行为不像民主领袖，马斯克和他践踏法治的方式正是法西斯分子的本性，他所采取的一系列行动看起来像是法西斯剧本中的情节。你知道，有几本书描述了法西斯分子如何掌权，读了这些书，你就会知道美国政府正在发生什么。你不会感到很放松。
JP：我想稍后再和你讨论埃隆·马斯克。但我很想知道你对沃伦·巴菲特的一句话的反应。巴菲特先生谈到关税时说，引用……
声音片段
沃伦·巴菲特：我的意思是，关税实际上，我们对此有很多经验。它们在某种程度上是一种战争行为。
JP：您是否认为这些激进的关税等同于战争行为？
约瑟夫·斯蒂格利茨：最初，我并不这么认为。最初，我认为它们只是对经济学的误解的结果，认为它们会把工作带回美国。你知道，只是糟糕的经济学。但在过去的几个月里，他明确表示，卡纳
应该是第 51 个州，他明确表示，你知道，不久前他与加拿大和墨西哥签署了自由贸易协定。[JP：是的。他……] 那是他的签名。我的意思是，是的，他的协议，他要求对之前的协议《北美自由贸易协定》进行某些修改。所以，他表现出了违反国际法治的意愿，就像他践踏国内法治一样，一整套关于保障措施的规定和行政部门可以做什么的规定。而且，他现在在国际上也这么做了。但很容易看出，这是让加拿大屈服成为第 51 个州的策略的一部分。如果你没有听到他说，很难相信。
JP：你是一个在椭圆形办公室待过几次的人。你在政府工作过，你曾在做决定和权力交接的房间里工作过。您认为加拿大政府现在应该如何回应，特别是当谈到第 51 个州的言论时，您认为这里的官员应该如何认真对待？几个月前，很多人觉得这听起来像个笑话，但实际上是什么？
约瑟夫·斯蒂格利茨：是的，我认为他们需要非常认真地对待。这只是我个人的看法。你知道，没有人知道如何进入他的内心，他从一个立场转到另一个立场。但我逐渐理解的方式有点像拿破仑的愿景，他有一个新全球地缘政治和地缘经济的愿景，这个半球是美国的，那里是中国的领地，他有点想把世界瓜分。这是一种 19 世纪的观点，我们以为我们已经超越了这种观点。但我认为他想把自己看作一位伟大的总统。当他说“让美国再次伟大”时，你知道，我们在学校时就学过美国的天定命运。它涉及对美洲原住民的种族灭绝。但事实就是如此。我们袭击了墨西哥。我们吞并了墨西哥的领土。所以，这是这种天定命运的又一步。我们谁都不敢相信我们会在 21 世纪看到这种事情。但事实就是如此。所以，我认为我们应该认真对待它。也许，我们应该考虑你可以达成什么样的交易，作为战略和战术的一部分。你必须考虑的另一件事是：你如何明智地应对关税？有几个因素可以明智地应对关税。首先是：我之前说过关税会伤害国家。所以，如果你想征收关税，你必须非常谨慎，因为关税可能会损害你的利益。 [JP：对。] 因此，其中一件事，很明显，特朗普明白对从加拿大进口的自然资源征收关税会造成伤害。所以，他豁免了这些关税。那么，加拿大应该采取的回应是对这些自然资源的出口征收出口税。这将伤害美国。[JP：对。] 你知道，我不希望美国受到伤害，但从全球角度来看，我们必须恢复全球平衡并尊重国际法治。我认为加拿大公民抵制美国产品的行为，发出了强烈的信号，表明我们不喜欢这种做法。
[音乐播放]
JP：你是哥伦比亚大学的教授，如果我不提起这件事，那我就太失职了。而且，既然我们在谈论权利的侵蚀，最近，31 岁的马哈茂德·哈利勒（Mahmoud Khalil）刚从哥伦比亚大学毕业，去年曾帮助领导反对以色列的抗议活动，他被联邦移民官员逮捕，试图将他驱逐出境，尽管他是绿卡持有者，没有被指控犯罪。
声音片段
未知声音 1：你将被捕。[马哈茂德·哈利勒：我看不到……] 所以，转过身，转过身，转过身。不要反抗，不要反抗。
未知声音 2：好的。好的，他没有反抗。他把手机给了我，好吗？这不是[听不清]。他没有反抗。
未知声音 1：张开你的手臂。
[听不清的喋喋不休]
[马哈茂德·哈利勒被捕的片段]
未知声音 3：你要跟我们一起去。
马哈茂德·哈利勒：我跟你一起去，别担心。
JP：特朗普发布了关于他被拘留的消息，称哈利勒被捕是未来许多被捕者中的第一个。他补充说，他的政府知道还有更多学生参与了“支持恐怖主义、反犹太主义、反美活动”。你现在是怎么想的？
约瑟夫·斯蒂格利茨：这太可怕了。我认为必须这样做，我认为反美主义最不应该做的就是让我们回到 50 年代的背景下，当时众议院非美活动调查委员会，麦卡锡试图在整个学术界灌输恐惧。但这实际上比学术界要广泛得多，但显然学术界正受到攻击，就像麦卡锡统治时期一样。其他影响来源
好莱坞等影响力也成为目标，我相信他们会受到追究。我认为你必须把这次逮捕看作是更广泛的恐吓模式，并在更广泛的背景下看待它，其中不仅有恐吓，还有将反犹太主义武器化、将反以色列混为一谈，特别是以色列的种族清洗政策，你知道，被杀害的儿童数量，以及加沙发生的事情，将其与反犹太主义混为一谈。而且，你知道，这显然不是将对巴勒斯坦人的支持与对哈马斯的支持混为一谈。这是两个不同的概念。你知道，你可以反对种族清洗，但仍然说，我认为，哈马斯的所作所为是错误的。你不支持恐怖组织。这与麦卡锡时代发生的事情是一样的，其中有连带罪，还有另一个因素。他们非常反对大学和科学。对我来说，一个以技术为基础的国家，一个代理助理总统（不管你怎么称呼他）靠技术发家致富的国家，竟然会攻击科学技术和大学，而大学是科学技术的主要生产者，这真是太不可思议了。从长远来看，这将对美国和美国经济造成巨大破坏，更不用说我们谈论的所有其他价值观了。
JP：可以理解的是，埃隆·马斯克在这次谈话中出现了几次。让我们这样做吧。很多人把这个时代比作镀金时代，那个时代由纳尔逊·洛克菲勒和安德鲁·卡内基等亿万富翁主导，他们拥有令人难以置信的权力来掌控美国联邦政府。特朗普实际上也表达了对那个时代的怀念。你认为那个时代和今天有什么联系？但它又有什么不同呢？
约瑟夫·斯蒂格利茨：是的。所以，你知道，有很多关于美国成为寡头政治的讨论和提及。话虽如此，我们还是会以贬义的方式想到俄罗斯及其寡头，而俄罗斯实际上并没有真正的民主。你知道，它一直很脆弱，而且不会持续太久。无论他们拥有什么，都没有持续很长时间。当人们谈论寡头时，我们都会想到少数非常非常富有的人的不当影响。这种讨论甚至在马斯克担任美国政府职务之前就开始了，他的团队正在剥夺美国政府的权力，随意解雇员工，违反一项又一项法律。你知道，我们有最高法院的裁决，规定行政部门不能扣押国会拨出的资金。国会控制着钱袋。当他们不拨款时，你不能花钱，但是当他们拨款时，作为行政部门，你的工作就是花钱。如果你不喜欢，就去国会修改法律。于是，最高法院出面了，他说：“我不会遵守国家法律。”我们有利益冲突法来保护美国人免受企业权力的影响。他把这些法律撕毁了。所以，在我看来，现在的情况比镀金时代要糟糕得多。这些人从来没有像马斯克那样管理政府。还有一个不同之处。最终，洛克菲勒和卡内基这样的人有公共利益的一面。他们可能是无情的垄断者，但他们也有真正关心公共利益的一面。你有卡内基基金会、洛克菲勒基金会，还有洛克菲勒给大学的礼物。你知道，这些基金会很多，实际上在我们国家发挥了非常重要的作用。
JP：如果我们思考与镀金时代的相似点和不同点，我认为一个不同点是，现在很多亿万富翁不仅拥有行业，他们还拥有主流话语模式和公共信息。X、Meta，甚至贝佐斯和《华盛顿邮报》。我认为最新的情况是，他指示《华盛顿邮报》的观点版只写关于自由市场和个人自由的文章。那么，这种做法可持续吗？
约瑟夫·斯蒂格利茨：嗯，我认为你提出的观点是洛克菲勒和卡内基之间的根本区别。他们当时并不拥有市政厅。当时媒体权力集中，赫斯特集团，这产生了后果。人们普遍认为，正是因为他们，我们才在 1898 年发动战争，并获得了我们的殖民地菲律宾和波多黎各。所以，媒体集中产生了后果。但这并不是这些寡头、19 世纪垄断者和媒体控制的联合。而这正是今天特别危险的地方。再加上他们接受了自由主义意识形态，他们如此自私，他们有着惊人的合作精神。
领导不和谐。马斯克可以声称自己是自由主义者，但却接受美国政府数十亿美元的资助。他的一家公司基本上依赖美国政府。现在，我不知道你如何看待自由主义者和依赖政府资金的想法。
[音乐播放]
JP：现在我觉得，对现任政府的抵抗似乎并不多。我只是好奇，你认为他们应该做什么，也许具体来说不一定是他们应该提出的人，而是他们现在应该宣传的政策，以试图反击这种情况，试图获得某种支持。
约瑟夫·斯蒂格利茨：是的。首先，这不是关于微调政策的辩论。这是一场试图维护我们民主的战争。对我来说，如果只是关于政策，那将是一回事。你知道，正如他们所说，选举很重要。当另一方获胜时，你会期待政策的改变。但令我如此不安的是我们的民主遭到破坏。这不是政策问题。你知道，你违反国际条约吗？协议？这不是政策。这不应该是我们应该辩论的问题。我们都应该相信有法律和国际法。你需要遵守它。我们有关于利益冲突的法律，有关于监察长的保障措施，这些措施不能被解雇。我之前提到过，还有赋权。所有这些事情都是 250 多年来为使我们的民主发挥作用而创建的，而他们却在践踏它们。这就是我担心的。我想，这应该是民主党可以传达的信息，你知道，我们可以对政策细节甚至政策框架持有不同意见，但这对我们的民主来说真的非常危险。
JP：我只是好奇。我甚至不知道您是否会同意这一点，但对我来说，现在发生的事情就像是您一生中许多工作的顶峰，回到了原点。您有这种感觉吗？
约瑟夫·斯蒂格利茨：是的。我的意思是，以错误的方式归宿。
[交谈]
JP：是的，是的。对不起。我觉得这可能不是正确的说法。
约瑟夫·斯蒂格利茨：我知道你的意思，是的。
JP：但你明白我在这里想说什么吗？就像……
约瑟夫·斯蒂格利茨：我给你举两个例子。
JP：也许你可以帮我。
约瑟夫·斯蒂格利茨：是的。好的。我进入阿默斯特学院时，主修物理。大三的时候，我说，你知道，我们社会的不平等、种族隔离、收入不平等一直困扰着我。我说，你知道，我真正想做的不是物理，而是经济学，并想为此做点什么。所以，你知道，只是反映了这一点，你知道，我在 1963 年 8 月与马丁·路德·金一起游行，在 1962 年去了佐治亚州帮助融合。你知道，所以，那里有一位民权活动家。我进入经济学领域，可能有点像那里的活动家。我的论文是关于不平等的，当时没有人写关于不平等的文章。
JP：是的。当时并不酷。对吧？
约瑟夫·斯蒂格利茨：当时并不酷。[JP：是的]。因此，在写完论文后，我开始研究信息经济学和其他晦涩难懂的话题。但是，60 年后，我们有了一位总统，他正在积极地试图扭转我们在不平等、包容性和多样性方面取得的有限进步。所以，你知道，你有点感觉我这一生取得了一点进步，比我希望的要少得多。但是，看到这种倒退，我该怎么说呢？真的几乎让你流泪。
JP：最后一个问题。四年后美国会是什么样子？
约瑟夫·斯蒂格利茨：好吧，我希望我们能经历一场创伤，然后变得更健康。我们意识到我们的民主是多么珍贵，多么脆弱，我们必须建立更强大的保障措施。作为保障措施的一部分，当我们面临极端的财富和收入不平等时，民主制度就无法正常运转，这意味着我们必须创造一个更具包容性的社会。因此，走出这场创伤，我们将建立更强大的民主制度，并认识到我们偏离了轨道。这就是我的希望。
JP：斯蒂格利茨教授，非常感谢您的发言。
[观众鼓掌]
JP：好的。今天就到这里。我是杰米·普瓦松。非常感谢您的聆听。明天再聊。
如需查看本系列的文字记录，请访问此页面。
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.
