In Joseph Stiglitz’s work, he (2013) suggests that at present, politics and economics, despite the apparent flaws in their structures, have led to a total limitation of opportunities for citizens to take jobs and earn competitive wages to get out of the engulfing pit of crisis. Second, he (2013) points to the inefficiency of the economy due to monopolistic policies in the interests of a few. Stiglitz (2013) discusses collective disunity and loss of identity as a consequence of inequality in society and the creation of the so-called new coalition of the 99% and notes the possibility of the collapse of the educational system’s accessibility and the resulting poverty.
The main criticism is Hinds’s views on the objectivity and appropriateness of how Stiglitz addresses the problems; for example, taking income from the productive strata and making it available to the non-productive is a somewhat questionable action for economic development. Hinds also describes a theory of competitive evolution, where people in dubious financial situations are forced to be interested in improving their conditions of existence, which is often a catalyst for the provision of new jobs and the enrichment of another percentage of the population (Hinds, 2013). At this point, I would like to add that I often face a situation when young people deprived of excessive benefits and opportunities behave much more motivated and, as a result, achieve success, bring innovation and development into our life. Hinds (2013) is quite strong on the educational system and says that America, more than any other country, contributes to its own and international development. I also sympathize with some of the arguments that Hinds makes, for example, the impossibility of rapid development under conditions of absolute equality, and that poverty is a more critical problem only indirectly related to inequality. The idea that it is impossible for people who have failed to do so before or who have too strong an interest in a particular sphere of their power to build a new system of economy and political order is very close to me.
Despite the specificity of Stiglitz’s charges, which may seem subjective, I agree that the lack of a working system for determining who is to blame and the consequences for them after an economic or political disaster is deplorable. There is always room for protest and open discontent in a system where things are bad, but no one is to blame.
References
Stiglitz, J.E. (2013). The Price of Inequality: How Todays Divided Society Endangers Our Future. W.W. Norton.
Hinds, M. (2013). Inequality Can Be a Good Thing.