Talk:Globalization and Its Discontents

Comments - various dates

I deleted the last paragraph of the content section because it was a description of the things the book left out and not its proper contents. The description of the MacKenzie paper was unnecessary and didn't add to the summary provided. Perhaps we could rename the section to critical reception? I've also added an example of the positive reviews described in the criticism section. The quote came from George Soros on the back jacket. Feel free to change it into something else if appropriate.--Pengutron (talk) 23:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I have edited this to contain more useful information, be less focused on criticism/ less POV and cite its sources. I wanted to include more criticism but I had difficulty finding critical reviews. I have taken out the following until such time as it can be attributed to specific notable critics as per WP:NOR. I think the criticism section ought to include more than one perspective, though I suspect that most criticism will be from a Libertarian perspective. Others are better placed to find such material than I, but I'm happy to finish the job if others point me in the direction of the sources. Mattley ^(Chattley) 21:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Removed material

Critics argue that Stiglitz creates straw man in his portrayal of his free market opponents labeling them “fundamentalists” and “ideologues” He also portrays the Free Market in an unrealistic light giving it an image of impossibility claiming that the Free Market requires “perfect information and perfect competition” two terms he does not appropriately define for the casual reader (For which this book is written). Having done so he misleads the reader into an inappropriate understanding of those terms, but furthermore, tells his readers that free market advocates believe perfect information and perfect competition to exist at all times.

Stiglitz also argues that rapid privatization and liberalization are bad and destructive policies by offering a highly sophomoric account of global events. His best example is the failed Russian attempt in the 1990s. Like the deceptive macroeconomic policies he supports, Stiglitz prefers to leave the information incomplete leaving the reader with only enough information to believe his point that privatization doesn’t really work and that Russia should have copied China’s slow and managed transition. What Stiglitz does not tell his reader is that Russia did try China’s slow and managed transition to capital markets a decade before, but it failed miserably.

A reading an opposintion viewpoint of history and economics, such as Brink Lindsey’s “Against the Dead Hand” will provide a more detailed account of Russia’s attempts at privatization and why it really failed; as Lindsey provides much of the information purposefully left out by Stiglitz to “prove” his point.

no the criticism did not come from a libertarian perspective it came from a factual perspective.

? and Its Discontents

Is the title a reference to Sigmund Freud's Civilization and Its Discontents? Mattley ^(Chattley) 01:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.208.221.93 (talk) 05:29, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I always assumed so...I doubt someone of Steiglitz's intellectual stature would use such a phrase without understanding it's analogue (and if he didn't his publisher would presumeably have!) Lexington50 (talk) 05:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

For such a short article..

..is such a large amount of criticism required? Slizor 00:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

yes, the book was that big of a piece of *%$% (Gibby 03:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC))

Wrong answer. Your personal feelings about the book have no bearing on the matter. Wikipedia should reflect a) what notable critics had to say and b) how the book was recieved by the public at large. The fact is that this book had a very positive reception, getting glowing reviews all over the place. The critics were few and far between. They were certainly more subtle than you suggest. All the criticism I have found comes from free market advocates and, while this does not make their criticism invalid, it hardly makes it notable or of interest to the reader. Advocates of the free market criticise people who don't advocate the free market. Amazing! Perhaps you want to add some material on forest-centred excretory behaviour to the article on bear? Really, you should have a look at how other articles handle balance and the incorporation of diverging views. You will note that Catholic Church does not have paragraphs and paragraphs detailing Ian Paisley's view of the papacy. There are thousands of articles on religion-related subjects that do not even mention the very widely held POV that THERE IS NO GOD! They do not need to, because anyone interested can go and read Atheism or some such. Similarly, anyone really interested can go and read about Libertarianism or Milton Friedman or the Free Market to their heart's content. NPOV does not mean that every article has to have at least a paragraph of your POV justified with some vague reference to Milton Friedman. Mattley ^(Chattley) 14:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

And guess what, I have cited material from notable critics suggesting the same....and half of what I wrote on their vies is not present. If you want to fight on the size of the criticism page, I will increase it because I have more citable material available. I have even more criticism from the same people on various sections of the book that comepletly missed points, conflated issues, made up information, distorted other information, ignored certain facts.

If you want to bullshit anymore, I will put more information up that demonstrates how much of a piece of shit that book really is...and it will be from the mouth of notable critics not mine.

Deal with it. (Gibby 17:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC))

Get your tanks off my lawn, Gibby. I'm not going to remove any of the criticism and never said I was. But this article is a very good example of where your goals as an editor conflict with those of this project. Demonstrating "what a piece of shit" this book is isn't what a wikipedia article should be doing. We should be accurately and fairly reflecting how it was recieved and reviewed. It is not about fighting. It is not about tracking down sources that support your POV to use as ammunition. It is about assembling points that reflect opinions about this book in a neutral, balanced and proportional fashion. You need to deal with that. Mattley ^(Chattley) 18:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

All you have to do to realize this is read the criticism on the book. Then you'll understand. I'm only defending the criticism, which is cited, and notable. You and sleezy are attempting to eliminate some criticism on what you arbitrarily determine to be too much criticism...nice try, but it won't fly.

You're going to have to deal with criticism of things you don't like. (Gibby 09:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC))

You can't only cite ideological libertarians as criticism, at least not without explaining that they have an agenda while reviewing. Can you find a criticism that isn't so ideologically tinged?

Why reduce the amount of criticsm when we can just make it balanced instead? If, as Mattley says (and I tend to agree), the book was largely well-received, it ought to be possible to juxtapose some positive reviews with the negative ones that are already present. Perhaps I will attempt to do that in the next few weeks. Would that be agreeable? Jbelleisle 01:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Woah, this is pretty old, but I still agree with what Jbelleisle and Mattley. Why do we need to point out that libertarians disagree with Stiglitz? I mean, is the phrase "many libertarians have accused Stiglitz of 'bad economics' " really necessary? That's like me going on the Libertarian page and writing "Joseph Stalin was fundamentally opposed to libertarian policies." Well, no shit. Does it really need to go there?

For a book that has sold a great deal of copies, and gets strongly positive reviews on amazon.com, I find it strange that the criticisms outweigh the praise so dramatically here on wiki. Will anyone fix this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.225.199.175 (talk) 08:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Different book with a same/close name

Globalization and Its Discontents: Essays on the New Mobility of People and Money by Saskia Sassen ISBN 1565845188 Publisher: New Press (June 1, 1999) [1]

I also found that confusing. Could someone make a disambiguation page, maybe? I think that would be a good idea.

Poverty increasing or decreasing?

In his book Stiglitz claims that globalization has not brought the promised economic benefits to some of the poorest nations in the world. This can be easily evidenced by the fact that during the last decade of the twentieth century the number of people living in poverty increased by almost 100 million.

This comes down to the question whether poverty is increasing or decreasing. Taking absolute numbers of the poor does not make sense in this regard. A random example: Say there are 100 poor. A generation later, 60 of them have managed to pull out of poverty, but the 40 remaining had 5 children each who also live in poverty. Thus, while we had 100 poor in the first generation, in the second we have 200 even though poverty was reduced by 60%. To measure whether poverty is being reduced, one should use its relative size, not the absolute number of people living in it.

I suggest removing the sentence "This can easily be evidenced (...)". Treos 08:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC) 84.13.160.118 17:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

i think youre trying to suggest what is significant is the percentage of people living in poverty- in the 90's the world population increased by 800 million (see wikipedia page on world population), so as poverty accounts for more than 1/8 of the world population, did it proportionally decrease? 84.13.160.118 17:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Globalization-Stiglitz.jpg

Image:Globalization-Stiglitz.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 01:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

NPOV section

The section "summarizing" the contents of the book is a completely POV essay. It needs to be redone by someone familiar with the book and its contents. Passages like "Stiglitz should know" and "Little wonder that thousands of activists -- who agree on little else -- brave barricades, tear gas, and slanted media coverage..." are straight out of a sympathetic book review and are totally inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. Elrith (talk) 12:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I have read this book, actually two times, and I was tempted to dive in and do a couple of fixes that you have suggested, but can not see how it will last. I do agree that the statement like Stiglitz should know, was improper, it should be something like Stiglitz had done research on asymmetric information. The activist part is actually not from reviewers, but its taken straight from the book. However, I have stopped getting involved in topics that may lead to fights, no need of adding to your life unnecessary stress. If possible, I prefer technical articles or typos that are unlikely to raise heat.

The most surprising thing is, we are still fighting to this day on whether his book (and other issues) is well thought out. Damn, I can not even resist having a smile. Consider even president Bush is inviting other world leaders for a meeting to discuss world economics and how to change the two organization in question here - world bank and IMF. I guess that mean despite the problems we have here at wikipedia, better thought out ideas will eventually bubble up to the top articles as the as more information become available. Time will tell

If anyone is willing to write a completely new summary, then by all means please do so. The current summary looks and sounds like somebody's college essay that they just pasted up there. Thereisn0try (talk) 15:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I just finished reading the book and wonder if there should even be a Contents section at all. It's a relatively short book intended more for a general public audience than academic and therefore, its contents can be well summarized in a few paragraphs.

I recommend that the Contents section be removed entirely and the introductory paragraph augmented as needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcus Mohr1 (talk • contribs) 01:47, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Globalization and Its Discontents. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130202033232/http://web.econ.unito.it/colombatto/Stiglitz.pdf to http://web.econ.unito.it/colombatto/Stiglitz.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060927153149/http://www.cceia.org/resources/transcripts/101.html to http://www.cceia.org/resources/transcripts/101.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:34, 15 December 2017 (UTC)