FORA.tv

Watch, Shout, Share

Not a member?  Register Now >>
 
NO ADS + DOWNLOADS + HQ VIEWING
NEW! FORA.tv Plus Membership Join Now >>

Former NY Gov. Eliot Spitzer on Governments and Markets

Safra Foundation Center for Ethics at Harvard
Rate It
18,600 Views
  • Info
  • Bio
  • Chapters
  • Highlights
  • Transcript
  • Download
  • Britannica
  • More
Page 1 of 2 1 2
JSY Avatar
JSY
Posts: 3
Posted: 01.02.10, 10:23 PM
Gosh that introduction must have been tough to sit through.
Permalink
mszlazak Avatar
mszlazak
Posts: 22
Posted: 01.03.10, 08:42 PM
Good expose.
Permalink
marvinzzz Avatar
marvinzzz
Posts: 4
Posted: 01.04.10, 08:10 AM
Which government is he talking about? The economic government or political government? This is a useless talk because the government has essentially no control over the economy because of the powers that be that control the stock of money. The only way governments should intervene is to responsibly control the stock of money. He talks about regulation failing, bla bla (usual bullshit), but what's the point when the government is not even in a position to control its own stock of money ? He's distracting you.

The stock of money is controlled within the US by the Federal Reserve which ironically is not federal (a government body) nor does it have any reserves. It is simply a private organisation that the US delegated the authority to control the stock of US money and acts within its own private interest of financial gain. Don't believe me? Look up the Federal Reserve in a telephone book you will find it in the business, not the government section.

Instead of this distraction of a 'lecture' and if he wants the government to do something.. repeal the Federal Reserve act, GATT and withdraw from the world bank. Then issue money that is directly correlated with population growth. This has been done in the past and currently (Guernsey) with great success because populations and governments are not enslaved into paying back vast amounts of interest payments. War, slavery, poverty, starvation, famine and world control in the hands of the IMF, World Bank, Fed and BOE are the root of all economic peril because all of these horrors generate vast amounts of debt and therefore interest (profit) for central banks.

Remember, the Fed that are supposedly saving us from economic peril through their interventions had caused 3 major recessions including the great depression within 25 years of their inaction. In no other time in US history had such economic problems existed within the powers of a central bank in the US. The government is merely a powerless economic face.

"Any system which gives so much power and so much discretion to a few men, so that mistakes - excusable or not - can have such far reaching effects is a bad system. It is a bad system to believers in freedom just because it gives a few men such power without any affective check by the body public - this is the key political argument against an independent central bank" -- Friedman.
Permalink
Mark Sullivan Avatar
Mark Sullivan
Posts: 155
Posted: 01.07.10, 08:50 PM
Is this a joke? Elliott Spitzer speaking about ethics and corruption? Only at Harvard.

How can government ensure ethics and transparenncy in anything when NO government - anywhere - at any time - has ever been either?
Permalink
Alan McCrindle Avatar
Alan McCrindle
Posts: 5
Posted: 01.19.10, 02:48 PM
Very impressive - and I am referring to Eliot's whole talk, not any of the highlights which can create the wrong impression of his overall insights if viewed alone (which is think is probably what marvinzzz did). He has 10 main takeaway points that are based on asking pertinent and important questions.

It is a pity that he has been tarred by his past because this it seems will cause people to automatically dismiss anything he has to say (eg Mark Sullivan's comment).

He is one of the few people who have identified that unregulated capitalism is a system that causes a race to the bottom. The same too applies to "democracy" which is the basis behind the decline in tax rates - the candidate that promises the lowest tax rates wins the most votes.

I particularly like his modified version of the Peter Principle with respect to Washington - the people and institutions responsible for this crisis are not only still in power but they have garnished even greater powers.

I say well done for bringing Eliot back onto the stage - the country needs him and this whole ethics project if it is to avoid what appears from the outside to be total collapse of democracy and some form of fascist coup or military dictatorship.
Permalink
Mark Sullivan Avatar
Mark Sullivan
Posts: 155
Posted: 01.23.10, 01:36 PM
Mr. McCrindle,

It is right that he be judged as a man as well as a politician. There was a time when virtue was the primary trait expected by the people for public servants. Perhaps virtue is not in vogue among our debased younger generation, but it still matters to me.
Permalink
Alan McCrindle Avatar
Alan McCrindle
Posts: 5
Posted: 01.23.10, 06:18 PM
Mark,

You are welcome to your perspective. There was also a time where people were allowed more than one wife, and this is the case even now in some countries. So if antiquity is the measure of what we should use as a bench mark where do we stop?


I am not sure how generational it is - I have an inkling that it was more hidden in the past. These is an interesting article in the Economist that looks at research exactly at this issue of corruption and power - it is very common. And I am not justifying it by the way.

http://www.economist.com/sciencetech...28544&fsrc=rss

I have found the whole ethics issue an extreme challenge at some level. For example, if the evidence that we humans are currently using our global renewable resource base up faster than it can replace itself we are basically running into a situation where many humans will eventually die as a result of current behaviour. And, as it turns out, some of us are consuming more on a per capita basis than others - namely people like myself and other who live in developed countries. So it is fair to say then that our current behaviour is going to lead to the death of others in the future - and maybe even ourselves. The only reason that our behaviour is not called murder or suicide is because of a legal definition - for an act to be classified as murder in Australia the murdered person must die in less than one year of the act.

I don't know what your take on this is. In my opinion a legal definition based on time does not exonerate us from being guilty of an act far worse than Eliot Spitzer was guilty of.
Permalink
Mark Sullivan Avatar
Mark Sullivan
Posts: 155
Posted: 01.23.10, 08:42 PM
Alan,

I'm not a cultural relativist. We are not a society that permits polygamy, so your first question argues against something I never posited. Spitzer is a politician, but he is a man first. We never know what a politician will do when in office. As voters we must examine their past behavior to give us an idea as to what they might do in the future. I believe, and naturally this is just one man's opinion, that marital infidelity is a very serious moral failure and character flaw. He humiliated his wife and his family. As a voter, I would move on and never reelect him for anything, as there are many, many bright, effective people to choose from and some of these are more honorable.

I am a fallen, imperfect human being also. I would not vote for me either. I am saddened that people forgive grave moral failings from public officials so easily. It's odd that Michael Vick is viewed as evil by many people and they do not wish to see him in the public eye again because he mistreated dogs, but someone who betrays his wife and children is welcomed into positions of trust.

Secondly, I reject your thesis that we are committing murder by using "more on a per capita basis than others." Murder is a crime - to intentionally cause the death of another person through deliberate action intended to kill them. There is no intent on the part of a middle class American family to kill anyone by keeping the house at 72 degrees in the summer, or taking 2 showers a day, or driving an SUV to take the kids to ballet and baseball practice, or eating too much or using standard lightbulbs, or having 5 children. First off, how much should people consume? Who is to decide this? Which group of humans consumes the "correct" amount? Would you say the lifestyle of that middle class family is somehow criminal? Murderous? More ethically wrong than a man committing adultery? I do not see how you could say this.

Why do you condemn yourself for living in and perpetuating a modern, technologically advanced society that has lifted the common man to a quality of life once reserved for royalty? Is it because you feel bad that not every society has achieved the prosperity yours has? Wouldn't your energy be better spent helping those others get to where you are than you feeling remorseful for the blessings you have gained through hard work?
Permalink
chriscom Avatar
chriscom
Posts: 4
Posted: 04.20.10, 03:56 PM
My simple suggestion to Mark is- keep things in perspective.Yes, Eliot has serious moral failings.Who hasn't? Questions are now being asked even about Pope Benedict himself regarding his alleged complicity in sexual abuse of children.

So if Eliot is giving a speach on Governments and markets or on jurisprudence in the United States then I'm all ears. My attitude,in such a case, is to focus on the message and not the messenger.I would also happily have him join the team of in-house lawyers of my company(if I could pay him).
What I probably wouldn't do is have him as my spiritual advisor or have him taking my kid's sunday school class.Neither of which I think he has any interest in doing anyway.

let us be a little pragmatic and also try and keep things separate.
Permalink
davideifler Avatar
davideifler
Posts: 1
Posted: 04.21.10, 07:44 AM
This guy is repulsive. What next? Bill Clinton and Tiger Woods peaching about marital fidelity?
Permalink
Page 1 of 2 1 2
Please log in or register to post a comment.
Advertisement
NO ADS + DOWNLOADS + HQ VIEWING
UPGRADE TO FORA.tv PLUS
JOIN NOW >>

Related Programs

Driving in the Wrong Direction: Bailing Out US Automakers Driving in the Wrong Direction: Bailing Out US Automakers
01:08:16 min | 1,296 Views
Too Big to Fail: The Inside Story of a Crisis Too Big to Fail: The Inside Story of a Crisis
00:23:16 min | 11,541 Views
Eliot Spitzer: The Cataclysm of 2008-2009 Eliot Spitzer: The Cataclysm of 2008-2009
01:05:31 min | 98,774 Views
Robert Reich: 2010 Economic Forecast Robert Reich: 2010 Economic Forecast
01:08:26 min | 94,978 Views
Never Waste a Good Crisis with Anthony Citrano Never Waste a Good Crisis with Anthony Citrano
00:09:50 min | 3,722 Views

Browse Programs by Tag

Arts Books Climate Change Computing Conflict Credit Crunch Defense Economic Policy Education Election 2008 Emerging Markets Energy Entertainment Entrepreneurship Environment Food Globalization Health & Wellness Healthcare History International Relations Internet Investing Journalism Law Marketing Medicine Music Muslim World Natural Sciences New Media Personal Technology Philanthropy Religion Social Issues Social Sciences Sustainability Terrorism U.S. Foreign Policy White House 2009

Advertisement