Leif Pagrotsky on George Soros and Joseph Stiglitz

Pagrotsky: I have deep respect for George Soros. He bets his own money, and he takes responsibility for what he’s doing, and if he loses, he loses himself, and if he wins, he wins himself, and he uses the money in a way that I approve of. We have [cooperated] in the past on projects in Eastern Europe, and I have deep respect for his commitment. A few days ago, we shared a panel at Columbia University, discussing the consequences of globalization. He is an American capitalist, a very rich person. He lives in the market, literally, everyday, whereas I’m a Social Democrat. When I outlined my view of globalization, he called me a market fundamentalist. I think that was very amusing. Swedish Social Democracy, by welcoming globalization, by opening its border to foreign trade, to imports, by supporting flexibility on structural change in the economy, it’s considered to be a market fundamentalist by George Soros. I think that was very amusing. In many areas, Joe Stiglitz and I share the same views. In some areas, we don’t, and some areas he has views that I’m not well informed enough to have an opinion of my own, but I feel that when I want to take a stand on a new issue that I haven’t carefully thought through, I don’t feel that my analysis is fully complete before I’ve consulted Prof. Stiglitz. I think he is very, very smart. He follows economic policy debate and theoretical debate in a way that he can bridge the bridge the perspectives that is very unusual. He is more skeptical to globalization than I am. He focuses very, very much on risks and problems, and I, perhaps because I come from a small country that is dependent upon the rest of the world, I focus more on what we can do to be beneficiaries, to make it work for us, and that may be one of the main differences. But we also cooperated. We have written articles together in the past, in the Financial Times, on financial regulations, for instance, and on the use of offshore financial centers, how that has caused problems for us in various respects, and I am… I don’t want to exaggerate our differences, but I’m deeply impressed by his command of theory and practice at the same time. That is very unusual.

Leif Pagrotsky weighs in on two economic titans.

LinkedIn meets Tinder in this mindful networking app

Swipe right to make the connections that could change your career.

Getty Images
Sponsored
Swipe right. Match. Meet over coffee or set up a call.

No, we aren't talking about Tinder. Introducing Shapr, a free app that helps people with synergistic professional goals and skill sets easily meet and collaborate.

Keep reading Show less

Brain study finds circuits that may help you keep your cool

Research by neuroscientists at MIT's Picower Institute for Learning and Memory helps explain how the brain regulates arousal.

Photo by CHARLY TRIBALLEAU / AFP/ Getty Images
Mind & Brain

MIT News

The big day has come: You are taking your road test to get your driver's license. As you start your mom's car with a stern-faced evaluator in the passenger seat, you know you'll need to be alert but not so excited that you make mistakes. Even if you are simultaneously sleep-deprived and full of nervous energy, you need your brain to moderate your level of arousal so that you do your best.

Keep reading Show less

34 years ago, a KGB defector chillingly predicted modern America

A disturbing interview given by a KGB defector in 1984 describes America of today and outlines four stages of mass brainwashing used by the KGB.

Politics & Current Affairs
  • Bezmenov described this process as "a great brainwashing" which has four basic stages.
  • The first stage is called "demoralization" which takes from 15 to 20 years to achieve.
  • According to the former KGB agent, that is the minimum number of years it takes to re-educate one generation of students that is normally exposed to the ideology of its country.
Keep reading Show less

How pharmaceutical companies game the patent system

When these companies compete, in the current system, the people lose.

Top Video Splash
  • When a company reaches the top of the ladder, they typically kick it away so that others cannot climb up on it. The aim? So that another company can't compete.
  • When this happens in the pharmaceutical world, certain companies stay at the top of the ladder, through broadly-protected patents, at the cost of everyday people benefitting from increased competition.
  • Since companies have worked out how to legally game the system, Amin argues we need to get rid of this "one size fits all" system, which treats product innovation — "tweaks" — the same as product invention.