The interview 202408 below with Professor Stiglitz (at age 81, he still teaches at Columbia University), conducted by the three of us, has been edited for space and clarity.
Q. You may not remember this, but I first interviewed you for a Q&A in 2002, at the very beginning of my career. It was after the Enron scandal and the first dot-com bust, and you told me you thought that people were learning that Wall Street isn’t a font of wisdom, and that the U.S. system was on the verge of positive change. That didn’t happen. What did you miss or underestimate?
You’re absolutely right, I was overly optimistic that we would learn from those events. Nothing was a more clear demonstration of that than the 2008 financial crisis. And I continued to be optimistic then, even more optimistic, because it was so clear — I mean Enron was small compared to the disaster of the 2008 financial crisis, which was global in its reach.
I guess what I would say is, the way I talk about it in my new book, is that when things go bad, you come to a view that there is a need for change but figuring out which changes are needed is more complicated. You will get change, but don’t count on that being in the right direction.
And what we are seeing now is a reflection of that simple insight — Donald Trump and the MAGA movement, I believe, is a response to the failure of nearly 40 years of neoliberalism. But it is a response that exacerbates many or most of the problems that led to the disenchantment.
Q. Lyra has a related question: What are the economic prospects for America if Trump is elected in November?
In almost every dimension, things will get worse. So inflation is not much of a problem now and it has come down not because of what the Federal Reserve has done, what here the R.B.A. has done. Raising interest rates, they’ve made it worse, I believe. It’s come down because markets and the economy have responded to the supply-side interruptions and demand shift associated with the pandemic, and war in Ukraine. It’s just an automatic process.
But a 50 percent tariff on Chinese goods from Trump would raise the cost of living for typical Americans. We are very reliant on their textiles, clothes. We rely on them for drugs, for a whole host of products, so it would cause inflation. It would cause inflation, also, because of the drastic reduction in immigration, which we rely on. Americans, like most other advanced countries, are not reproducing at the same rate and so we rely on immigration.
Then there are other aspects of his policies — a major problem for us is inequality. He has a tax cut for billionaires, tax increases for ordinary Americans. So again, it would exacerbate the inequalities.
Q. In your latest book, you describe the U.S. as a low-tax, low-regulation, shareholder-centric economy. Australia is not as extreme, but inequality here is also widening. Why are some of these problems appearing even in more moderate countries?
Well, Australia does have some extreme policies like their treatment of mining and natural resources, which is where a lot of extreme inequality comes from. That you didn’t have a windfall profits tax; that you allow people to extract your resources for almost nothing, and in some cases, subsidize those extractions. Your financial sector regulation is in some ways a part of the global norm — again, it gives rise to the same global forces for inequality.
Australia’s not gone to the extreme in C.E.O. pay or dysfunction in governance, but it’s hard for any country to move out of the flow that’s going on globally.
Q. Baz has a question. It’s kind of related to Lyra’s question — do you think if Trump wins there would be a financial crisis that would leach into the rest of the world?
I think we’ll have a democratic crisis that will reach into the rest of the world. Just the other day he said something like, once you vote for him this time, you won’t have to think about elections anymore. That was a very dark statement. And he’s said that kind of thing before. What is so amazing is that those are probably moments of honesty percolating in what is going through his mind.
He has already shown he doesn’t believe in democracy, and that is more worrying to me.
He normalizes what should be totally unacceptable within a democratic society.
Q. Baz had also been wondering what you would do if you, as a leading proponent of what you call “progressive capitalism,” were in a position of power. What’s the first or most important fix for all of this?
There’s no single thing that would solve our problems. If there’s anything, it’s changing the mind-set. Change the mind-set away from neoliberalism, and that then sets the agenda going forward. If you approach these problems with the wrong theory, every one of your decisions is going to be wrong. So that, to me, is the underlying thing.
Q. Do you see reasons for hope or optimism now?
Hope actually may be too optimistic a word. But it is very clear that there’s a consensus that neoliberalism is broken. You see that both Republicans and Democrats, for instance, are now advocating industrial policy. That was such a no-no for 40 years.
I feel kind of sorry now for my friends who were in the center-right, who were about small government, a global view — the old Liberals in Australia. They have no home, no intellectual, no party home in the United States.
Whether it’s optimistic or pessimistic, it means that there’s been a very big change in our politics.
Now here are our stories of the week.
Around The Times
Great Taiwan Recall by Ed Moon : r/taiwan
============
My name is Ed. Late in July 2025, I boarded a plane from Taiwan Taoyuan International Airport with a one-way ticket. For the first time in a decade, I had no plans to return. I left behind a life I had slowly built up with my family. It was nothing special, but I had a house, a career, a car, and savings. For a foreigner in Taiwan, I was fortunate. Leaving it all behind for the promise of very little back in England seemed foolish just a year ago. But as the wheels lifted off that night, I felt only relief.
What happened?
For the last 4 years, I worked at Taiwan’s public English-language broadcaster, TaiwanPlus. I will write a post in the near future on my time at TaiwanPlus; much has been written by people who actually know very little about the organisation and its challenges.
Without jumping too much into the details, work at TaiwanPlus became increasingly untenable for me and indeed many others. Beginning with the ill-fated removal of a report that called Donald Trump (correctly) a “convicted felon”, the political interference in the newsroom became impossible to ignore.
When the Trump incident blew up, I began making plans to leave. It was clear that the passionate-but-reasoned public space in Taiwan that I knew and loved was being replaced by something else entirely. But it was the events of the next few months that finalised my decision.
My former colleague found herself making headline news for a basic statement of fact. Image captured from Newtalk.tw
The Great Recall
I want to preface this section with the following: there are many people whom I believe are very intelligent and well-meaning who would disagree with what I say here. They’ll tell you that recent events in Taiwan were part of a healthy and robust democracy and citizen activism; that Taiwan was strengthened, not weakened, by it. Maybe they’re right. I’ll only say that the Taiwanese public at large does not seem convinced.
(For a quick overview of what this section is about, recall votes against almost all opposition district lawmakers in Taiwan were held in July and August after petition drives. They were accused of being proxies for the Chinese Communist Party, for favouring a more concilatory policy toward China compared to the government. None succeeded.)
I was never persuaded by attempts to sell the Lai Ching-te administration as “continuity Tsai Ing-wen.” For starters, the two don’t like each other; some would even say they hate each other. Thus, for Lai to simply follow in Tsai’s footsteps would be out of character for a man who has made his career by confronting people head-on, including Tsai when he primaried her in 2020. After gracefully sitting quietly through four years as her vice president, would he really just carry on, slow and steady?
The answer, quite clearly now, is no. Early on, there were no overtures to try and form a joint cabinet with the opposition, despite his Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) lacking a majority in parliament. And key allies of his were already talking about “a great recall” of every possible opposition lawmaker. This quite quickly took form, suddenly shorn of its DPP affiliation and tied to “citizen groups.”
This attempt to pretend it had nothing to do with the DPP was somehow swallowed hook, line, and sinker by many of the generally DPP-aligned commentariat in Taiwan. I try to imagine a similar event in the US, where, say, the NRA and various Republican-affiliated groups tried to remove a Democratic president. Would this line be so easily swallowed? How many of the members of the citizen groups were made up of DPP voters? DPP members?
The reality of Taiwan’s recall system is that since reform in 2016, it has been far too easy to get recalls on the ballot. It requires two rounds of signature gathering: first 1% and then 10% of the electorate in a given district. It’s still not a simple task; signatures must be physically gathered and filled out to strict standards. It takes weeks of standing in the streets, through rain, wind, and sun, day and night. But ultimately, almost every district in Taiwan will vote at least 30% for a DPP or Kuomintang (KMT, main opposition) candidate in national elections. In the modern, hyper-partisan, extreme-rhetoric world of Taiwanese politics, getting 10% of highly motivated DPP voters to sign on to recall a KMT lawmaker is more than possible.
Results from the 2024 Presidential Election. Taiwan’s two biggest political parties (green and dark blue) can normally rely on at least 30% of votes for their candidate in elections. In 2024, a third party (light blue) also received over 25% of the vote. The two blue parties are now aligned in opposition. Credit: CMMedia.com.tw
A New Enemy
The “great recall” was allied with another troubling development; the intentional targeting of mainland Chinese spouses in Taiwan. From elected politicians to pro-Beijing influencers and just ordinary residents, the government came up with a series of actions without introducing any new laws. For the most part, these were interpretations of existing clauses that had been viewed differently by every other administration in Taiwan. Without getting into the merits of each specific instance, the lack of due process and precedent being set were alarming. But it became far more sinister when it was revealed that two of the main campaigners against Chinese spouses and in favour of the recalls had been studying Nazism, including using similar iconography and quote “looking for a group to make into the Jews.”
Now of course, the DPP and Lai’s government had plausible deniability (despite sharing a stage with these individuals on multiple occasions), after all, they’re not working for the party. But really, does anyone believe that the recall groups and these influencers couldn’t be stopped with a few choice words? And even if not, public admonishment would have helped draw a line between right and wrong.
DPP lawmaker Puma Shen and business tycoon-cum-recall campaigner Robert Tsao stand in front of a suspiciously Nazi-themed logo at a rally backing the “Great Recall. I joked with colleagues at the time that it looked pretty Nazi-esque. Turns out it wasn’t a joke. Photo credit: Central News Agency
The Final Straw
Eventually, myself and my family became targets for a few of these extremist elements. The crime? Seemingly overseeing output that didn’t fit 100% with the government’s narrative.
Although I only rarely reported myself, I did have a senior editorial position, one that I always used to try and balance our output, which naturally focused on government policies and priorities (This is the same for countries around the world; the government sets the news agenda. To what extent the media is able to provide opposite viewpoints is very much a measure of media freedom). Certainly, I and others tried to get a balance of perspectives—even Chinese voices when we could—but working for public media in Taiwan, that was no simple task. So, I absolutely pushed for the few stories we could do to show other sides and lesser-told narratives throughout my time at TaiwanPlus (I’ll let others be the judge of whether or not I was successful). But these few stories caused an unending amount of grief for myself and my colleagues.
As a non-citizen who always stridently avoided taking sides on the very complicated issue of Taiwanese identity (one that I have no right to speak on), it was ultimately an impossible burden to have to try and maintain news professionalism, protect our journalists, and not allow it to affect myself and my family.
The change in atmosphere was both sudden and not. I could see Taiwan on this path for some time, but it had long been held back by a refusal by elites to engage in the worst impulses of supporters. I’m afraid that those days might be over.
And simply speaking, I don’t believe that Taiwan is headed in the right direction.
What Next?
After over 12 years in mainland China and Taiwan, a third of my life, coming back to the UK was hard. Although a part of me always wanted to return, another part was happy to stay in that life that I’d worked so hard to build.
But having written so much, almost all about Taiwan, I’m here to say — this Substack isn’t going to be just about Taiwan! That stage in my life is over, for now. Instead, I want to focus on the UK — for all its faults, it’s my home, and I desperately want to see its fortunes revived — and its understanding of Taiwan, and cross-strait relations. In London, it is too often seen through the frame of competing interests. Be it Beijing, Washington or Taipei, what works for other countries isn’t right for the UK. I hope that I can provide much needed perspective, analysis and (at least!) interesting content.
And at least for now, it’ll also serve as a platform to get things off my chest, now and again.
沒有留言:
張貼留言