text:
User talk:213.249.161.106

Welcome
Welcome to Wikiquote, the free compendium of quotations! You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikiquote, but creating an account is quick, free and non-intrusive, requires you to provide no personal information, and gives you many benefits, including:
 * The use of a username of your choice
 * The ability to view all your contributions via a "My contributions" link
 * Your own user page
 * Your own talk page which, if you choose, also allows users to send you messages without knowing your e-mail address
 * The use of your own personal watchlist to which you can add articles that interest you
 * The ability to rename pages
 * The ability to upload images
 * The ability to customize the appearance and behavior of the website
 * The eligibility to become an administrator
 * The right to be heard in formal votes and elections, and on pages like votes for deletion

Click here to create an account.--Aphaia 01:55, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User talk:213.249.161.106


text:
User:63.87.230.130

Welcome to Wikiquote, the free compendium of quotations! You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikiquote, but creating an account is quick, free and non-intrusive, requires you to provide no personal information, and gives you many benefits, including:
 * The use of a username of your choice
 * The ability to view all your contributions via a "My contributions" link
 * Your own user page
 * Your own talk page which, if you choose, also allows users to send you messages without knowing your e-mail address
 * The use of your own personal watchlist to which you can add articles that interest you
 * The ability to rename pages
 * The ability to upload images
 * The ability to customize the appearance and behavior of the website
 * The eligibility to become an administrator
 * The right to be heard in formal votes and elections, and on pages like votes for deletion

Click here to create an account.

title: User:63.87.230.130


text:
User talk:67.35.89.226

Welcome to Wikiquote, the free compendium of quotations! You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikiquote, but creating an account is quick, free and non-intrusive, requires you to provide no personal information, and gives you many benefits, including:
 * The use of a username of your choice
 * The ability to view all your contributions via a "My contributions" link
 * Your own user page
 * Your own talk page which, if you choose, also allows users to send you messages without knowing your e-mail address
 * The use of your own personal watchlist to which you can add articles that interest you
 * The ability to rename pages
 * The ability to upload images
 * The ability to customize the appearance and behavior of the website
 * The eligibility to become an administrator
 * The right to be heard in formal votes and elections, and on pages like votes for deletion

Click here to create an account.--Aphaia 02:19, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:67.35.89.226


text:
Talk:El Goonish Shive

Hi. I am not a reader of EGS, but I've been watching the page. It seems the editors on this page are doing wonderful work. From looking at the page, I notice that EGS, or at least the fans quoting to it, has a strong emphasis on on dialog. I strongly suggest looking at Talk:Buffy the Vampire Slayer to see a set of rules it might be useful to adapt for formatting dialog. Thanks! ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 04:22, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Why, thank you. It may not be much, but this page is my first indelible mark on the Internet. I am heartened by your compliment and I will continue to add to the collection. Also, I have made the Wikipedia stub on 'Sore Thumbs' and added profiles on Noah and Mr. Tensaided to the El Goonish Shive article there. -- Jeremy J. K. Turcotte, Arnprior, Ontario, Canada, who made this page from scratch.

I'm baaack! I've made a few additions to the page, and someone else has, too. I took your advice and registered, Moshe. And I have taken up the alien language Uryuomoco. Teejvio hel meq! --Jeremy.

Hey, hey, hey, it's Jeremy back. I've really been working hard on adding all this stuff the last few weeks (I put in the subcategories, you know) and the cleanup banner is much to my chagrin. Would someone toss me a bone as to what is wrong?
 * Jeremy -- I added the cleanup tag based on the formatting of the quotes. The content here is very good, but the layout of the quotes is not quite up to snuff. Take a look at some of the templates or other pages for ideas. Basically, the formatting is all over the place: no divider lines between quotes, individual quotes mixed in with bits of dialogue, etc. Bottom line is that it just needs some tweaking to better organize things and make it look a little better. UDScott 17:30, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

 * I would like to add to UDScott's note above that one issue I have with the page as it stands is that absolutely nothing enables the reader to verify quotations: nothing has links to the comics, nothing has dates, nothing has chapters. This means that this page is (likely) an inaccurate mess: this isn't a diss against the hardworking contributors: my own pages are usually an inaccurate messes when I begin them. However, the wiki power of collaborative fixes magically makes them more accurate -- but such is not possible without clear citations :) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 16:27, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

 * I still think this page needs some organization, perhaps by date, so that the quotes can be verified (as Moshe suggested above). That is why I added the cleanup tag again. UDScott 20:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

 * In any case, cleanup tags should never be removed without an edit summary, and should rarely be removed without either a note on the talk page which justifies such removal, or massive formatting edits which fix the problems. Removing tags without comment is almost vandalism, I believe. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 20:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I, Jeremy James Kenneth Turcotte, am proud to say that on this 24th of February, 2006, the El Goonish Shive Wikiquote article has exactly 270 quotes. Of these, I have personally added 210 to 240 of these quotes, and at least 260 of them are funny (in context, at least). It is the largest webcomic article on Wikiquote, edging out Dinosaur comics (236 quotes) and 8-Bit Theater (116 quotes). Booh yeah!

 * This is an obscene amount of quotes to have, and it seems like quotes are being added for the sake of having the most quotes. Wouldn't it be better to simply have a few of the funniest ones, and cull the rest? I don't see anyone who isn't already a fan wading through all of that text, and a fan would probably simply look up the archives of the actual comic. Besides, a lot of these quotes are meaningless out of context. Personally, I think about 90% of this list could stand to be deleted. 59.167.83.169 11:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey, would anybody out there mind helping me reference all these quotes? There sure are a lot of them... ~Jeremy

 * Thanks for the help sourcing the stuff; keep up the good work! Some other things, though: the filler, news page and strips since March 2006 still need to be combed for quotes. Please? ~Jeremy.

 * There! Done!Jerermicus rex 22:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

 * If no-one objects, I'm taking down the cleanup banner. Jerermicus rex 14:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Reson for massive editing of links to EGS.
The move of El Goonish Shive (EGS) to the 910CMX Community (from Keenspot) broke just about every link on this page -- I found only two links that still worked. As I updated the links on my own web site, I wrote down the regular expressions I needed to fix those links, and applied the ones here that looked most applicable. There is one incorrect quote I intend to fix later, and each of the external links needs a parallel link to the appropriate archive page, since the new site has a much improved archive system. -- Haylo 2009Feb14

title: Talk:El Goonish Shive


text:
User talk:68.82.42.54

jni 04:46, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:68.82.42.54


text:
User talk:Snozzberry~enwikiquote

~ MosheZadka (Talk) 04:53, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Snozzberry. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Snozzberry~enwikiquote that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 23:36, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 05:58, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Snozzberry~enwikiquote


text:
Mandy Patinkin

Mandel Bruce Patinkin (born November 30, 1952, in Chicago, Illinois) is an American actor and renowned tenor. He is perhaps best known for his trademark line in 1987's The Princess Bride ("Hello. My name is Iñigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die."). He is also a model railroader.

Quotes

 * If we can't keep our Palestinian neighbors and Muslim neighbors alive with good water and fresh air, we'll never get them to the peace table.
 * Jewcy, "What makes Mandy Patinkin spin his wheels"

 * I'd have sex with a number of the Muppets. I just don't talk about it publicly. It's private. Although a hint is, that there was a character in Elmo in Grouchland who was called "My Lady" and that's all I'll say.
 * Kansan.com (the University of Kansas Daily), "A conversation with Mandy Patinkin" (2005-04-07)

 * It's pretty early out here in L.A., but I can guarantee it will happen today, I sure am lucky. It's better than NOT having it.
 * Lawrence.com, "Man of a thousand faces" (2005-04-07)
 * on being faced with a fan giving him the Inigo Montoya line

 * Everything I am came from my parents. I don't take that much credit for who I am and what I am.
 * Forward.com, "Broadway Star Mandy Patinkin Finds His Forte: Yiddish"

 * I always sang at temple growing up. I got a good reaction from Mrs. Goldberg and Mrs. Rosenbaum and the other old ladies.
 * Oregon Daily Emerald, "Mandy Patinkin to show his many faces at Hult"

 * No one is going to beat the crap out of me more than me.
 * People, "Actor Mandy Patinkin Battles His Perfectionist Tendencies…", (1989-05-08) by John Stark

title: Mandy Patinkin


text:
Jesse Ventura

James George Janos (born 15 July 1951), most famous as Jesse "The Body" Ventura, is an American politician and author, US Navy SEAL veteran, former professional wrestler, actor, radio, television talk show host on RT News program (The World According to Jesse), and teacher, who was the 38th Governor of Minnesota.

Quotes

 * I believe in the separation of church and state... We all have our own religious beliefs. There are people out there who are atheists, who don't believe at all... They are all citizens of Minnesota and I have to respect that.
 * Explaining his refusal to sign a "National Day of Prayer" proclamation (6 May 1999)

 * We call our country home of the brave and land of the free, but it's not. We give a false portrayal of freedom. We're not free — if we were, we'd allow people their freedom. Prohibiting something doesn't make it go away. Prostitution is criminal, and bad things happen because it's run illegally by dirt-bags who are criminals. If it's legal, then the girls could have health checks, unions, benefits, anything any other worker gets, and it would be far better.
 * Interview in Playboy (November 1999)

 * Organized religion is a sham and a crutch for weak-minded people who need strength in numbers. It tells people to go out and stick their noses in other people's business. I live by the golden rule: Treat others as you'd want them to treat you. The religious right wants to tell people how to live.
 * Interview in Playboy (November 1999)

 * Every fat person says it's not their fault, that they have gland trouble. You know which gland? The saliva gland. They can't push away from the table.
 * Interview in Playboy (November 1999)

 * If I could be reincarnated as a fabric, I would come back as a 38 double-D bra.
 * Interview in Playboy (November 1999)

 * I speak my mind. If it offends some people, well, there's not much I can do about that. But I'm going to be honest. I'm going to continue to speak my mind, and that's who I am...
 * NBC's Meet The Press (3 October 1999) responding to criticism of his remarks in Playboy magazine.

 * Congratulations, you have a sense of humor. And to those who didn't: Go stick your head in the mud.
 * Speaking in a news conference to reporters, where a few were wearing the "Official Jackal" security passes that he had issued. (23 February 2001)

 * I asked him the most important question that I think you could ask — if he had ever seen Caddyshack.
 * On what he spoke about in his meeting with Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th Dalai Lama (9 May 2001); a scene in that film has the character played by Bill Murray telling a story about having caddied for the Dalai Lama.

 * I believe patriotism comes from the heart. Patriotism is voluntary. It is a feeling of loyalty and allegiance that is the result of knowledge and belief. A patriot shows their patriotism through their actions, by their choice. Chapter 391 is not about choice. In Chapter 391, the State mandates patriotic actions and displays. Our government should not dictate actions. The United States of America exists because people wanted to be free to choose. All of us should have free choice when it comes to patriotic displays... a government wisely acting within its bounds will earn loyalty and respect from its citizens. A government dare not demand the same. There is much more to being a patriot and a citizen than reciting the pledge or raising a flag. Patriots serve. Patriots vote. Patriots attend meetings in their community. Patriots pay attention to the actions of government and speak out when needed. Patriots teach their children about our history, our precious democracy and about citizenship. Being an active, engaged citizen means being a patriotic American every day. No law will make a citizen a patriot.
 * Explaining his veto of a bill [HF 2598*/SF 2411/CH 391] requiring public school students to recite the Pledge of Allegiance at least once a week (22 May 2002)

 * I feel used. I feel violated and duped over the fact that that turned into nothing more than a political rally.
 * After leaving a memorial ceremony for Democratic US Senator Paul Wellstone. (30 October 2002)

 * The current use of the National Guard is wrong... These are men who did not sign up to go occupy foreign nations.
 * The Army Times (6 September 2004)

 * I say legalize marijuana because we have a chance to leave this world a better place for our children. Marijuana legalization is job creation, tax dollars, something to rejuvenate our pathetic economy. This is a multibillion-dollar industry. This is about jobs; this is about economics; this is about freedom. This is about taking our country back.
 * Jesse Ventura's Marijuana Manifesto (2016), Introduction

I Ain't Got Time To Bleed (1999)

 * Full title: I Ain't Got Time To Bleed: Reworking the Body Politic from the Bottom Up

 * I didn't need this job. I ran for governor to find out if the American dream still exists in anyone's heart other than mine. I'm living proof that the myths aren't true. The candidate with the most money isn't always the one who wins. You don't have to be a career politician to serve in public office. You don't have to be well-connected. You don't even have to be a Democrat or a Republican. You can stand on your own two feet and speak your mind, because if people like where you're coming from, they will vote you in. The will of the people is still the most powerful force in our government.

 * Politics is not my life. I have a career in radio and another career in film. I have a wife who is the sweetest person in the world and two kids who are growing up into terrific, well-rounded people. I don't want to spend the rest of my life in politics. When I'm finished with my term as governor, I'm going back to the life that's waiting for me in the private sector.

 * During my transition period, I brought in 13 people who were either first-time voters or who hadn't voted in five consecutive elections. I asked each of them a question: Now that you've come into the system, how do we keep you involved? Their answers were very clear, very honest. They said, It's the same story every four years. Whenever an election's coming up, all the politicians come out and give you the same song and dance about the same issues, all the way up until they get elected. Then you don't hear any more from them until it's time for them to get elected again. We're tired of it. If you want to keep us involved, don't tell us what you think we want to hear, tell us the truth. There's a great need in our government right now for honesty. I speak my mind. You might not always like what you hear, but you're gonna hear it anyway. I call it like I see it; I tell the truth. And if I don't know something, I'll say so. Then I'll try to find the answer.

 * I decided to run for governor because I got mad.... I want to make government more directly accountable to the people.

 * I am not a career politician. I'm not a Democrat. I'm not a Republican. I'm a working man with commonsense ideas and goals. I describe myself politically as fiscally conservative and socially moderate-to-liberal.

 * I don't believe we need the government's help as much as some think we do. That belief sets me apart from the Democrats, since their way of dealing with everything is to tax and spend. I also believe that government has no business telling us how we should live our lives. I think our lifestyle choices should be left up to us. What we do in our private lives is none of the government's business. That position rules out the Republican Party for me. As the cliché says, "I don't want Democrats in the boardroom and I don't want Republicans in the bedroom."

 * There are a lot of good causes out there, but they can't possibly all be served by government. The Constitution guarantees us our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That's all. It doesn't guarantee our rights to charity. The government is not a parent. We can't expect the government to always be there, ready to bail us out. When we make decisions in life, we have to be willing to live with the consequences. We can't expect the government to help us get back on our feet every time we make a bad decision.

 * We've gotten into the bad habit of overlegislating. I believe in the America people's ability to govern themselves. If government would just get out of the way and allow them to lead their lives as they choose, they will succeed.

 * Remember that government doesn't earn one single dollar it spends. In order for you to get money from the government, that money must first be taken from somebody else.

 * Government works less efficiently when it begins to grow out of control and takes on more and more of the responsibilities that belong to the citizens.

 * Develop high expectations.

 * There's hardly a more effective way to solve the problems we face in our educational system than to reduce class size. A ratio of no more than 17 students per teacher ensures more 1-on-1 contact, better classroom discipline, you name it.

 * The best chance disabled students have for productive adult lives comes from being mainstreamed among other students. My daughter Jade is living proof of that. She has a disability, but we have made sure that she has gotten the same kind of exposure as other kids her age. There are a few exceptions; there are students whose special needs are such that mainstreaming won't work for them. But in the majority of cases, mainstreaming should be supported, encouraged, and facilitated for disabled students.

 * Students often approached me about state-paid tuition while I was out campaigning. After I explained to them that if the state pays their tuition now, they will pay higher taxes to pay other people's tuition for the rest of their lives, most of them ended up agreeing with me.

 * Government's role should be only to keep the playing field level, and to work hand in hand with business on issues such as employment. But beyond this, to as great an extent as possible, it should get the hell out of the way.

 * I'm against the draft. I believe we should have a professional military; it might be smaller, but it would be more effective.

 * People are always shocked when they ask me what I plan to do about crime as governor and my answer comes back as "Nothing!" Does the issue of crime need to be addressed? You bet it does. But, just as with many other social issues, I don't think that legislation is the most effective arena in which to fight crime. We already have tons of laws on the books. Most of those laws would work more effectively if we just enforced them better. As governor, there isn't a lot I can do beyond that to crack down on crime. Law enforcement is really a local issue. It's the cops' job to tighten down on criminals. Politicians always like to say "I'm gonna fight crime!" because it makes them sound great and gets them votes. But what can a politician do to fight crime?

 * How come life in prison doesn't mean life? Until it does, we're not ready to do away with the death penalty. Stop thinking in terms of "punishment" for a minute and think in terms of safeguarding innocent people from incorrigible murderers. Americans have a right to go about their lives without worrying about these people being back out on the street. So until we can make sure they're off the street permanently, we have to grit our teeth and put up with the death penalty. So we need to work toward making a life sentence meaningful again. If life meant life, I could, if you'll excuse the pun, live without the death penalty. We don't have it here in Minnesota, thank God, and I won't advocate to get it. But I will advocate to make life in prison mean life. I don't think I would want the responsibility for enforcing the death penalties. There's always the inevitable question of whether someone you gave the order to execute might truly have been innocent.

 * There's no question that we need tougher drunk-driving laws for repeat offenders. We need to take a lesson from European countries where driving isn't a right but a privilege. There isn't a person on this planet by this time who doesn't know that when you consume alcohol you shouldn't get behind the wheel of a car. The people who do it anyway should have their privilege to drive taken away.

 * Our government has the weirdest bias against cannabis. There's no reason for everybody to be so afraid of it. It's not the antichrist the DEA makes it out to be. Industrial hemp is a very useful plant. I challenged the attorney general to get rid of the criminal stigma associated with hemp so we can look at it in terms of how it might be useful. And government has no business telling us what we can and can't use for pain relief.

 * We shouldn't be wasting so much time and so many resources on prosecuting consensual crimes such as prostitution and drug possession. I hold drug possession and drug dealing as two totally different concepts. The drug dealers who resort to deadly street violence should be dealt with severely as the criminals they are. But we have to become willing to admit as a nation that our war against drugs has failed. And we have to start looking for other solutions. I want the drug business stopped. But I know it never will stop as long as people want the drugs. It's supply and demand. You can even get drugs in prison.

 * I'm all for gun control, I just define it a little differently. If you can put 2 rounds into the same hole from 25 meters, that's gun control! If you're going to own a gun, you have an obligation to know what you're doing with it. When the Constitution gave us the right to bear arms, it also made us responsible for using them properly. It's not fair of us as citizens to lean more heavily on one side of that equation than on the other. So I support waiting periods and training requirements for gun ownership, and I like the idea that it shouldn't be incredibly easy to get guns. I support the right to carry concealed weapons, but I think people who want a concealed-weapons permit need to pass a training and safety course. The Constitution calls for a "well-regulated militia." In other words, you need to know how to use your weapon, and practice with it. Where I draw the line is at gun registration. A law that says that everybody who owns a gun has to be on record is too easy to abuse.

 * I don't support abortion. I could never participate in one. But I think it would be a mistake to make them illegal again. What criminalization will do is force women into garages and back alleys, and then you're going to have two lives in jeopardy. My mom, who was a nurse, used to talk about the messes that would come in after back-alley abortions went wrong. The way to stop abortion is to deal, philosophically and spiritually, with the people who get them. And that's not something government can touch.

 * I get very disturbed when I see people demonstrating with signs that say "Welfare Rights." There is nothing in the Constitution that says you have a right to welfare! Do you know what welfare is? It's taking money from someone who is working to give to someone who's not!

 * A Navy SEAL will defy death at least twice a week. When you get that kind of familiarity with death, barriers go down, and anything else seems insignificant. I don't like what happened in the navy's Tailhook scandal; I think what those officers did was wrong. But I understand why it happened. When you get a force of that many hundreds of warriors together, there's bound to be trouble.

 * War isn't civilized. War is failure. It's the ultimate result of a breakdown in public policy, and soldiers are the machines that handle that breakdown. In warfare, you're taught to do whatever you have to, to stay alive.

 * Even while I was a Navy SEAL, I participated in the 1970s peace movement. I marched at peace rallies. I admit it wasn't so much because of my great love of peace as it was because of my great love of female companionship. To the women in the movement, I was the poor beleaguered victim of the system, sent off against his will to fight this horrible war. They didn't realize that the navy had no draft!

 * To this day, I'm against the draft. I believe the military is much stronger if it's an all-volunteer organization.

 * I believe very strongly that guns are instruments of death. That's all they're used for; there's no purpose for them other than to kill. I think you have to understand that in order to respect them. I have no fear of my teenage son handling weapons, because he has that respect.

 * I'm not knocking private schools, but I owe it to my kids to let them grow up in a place where private school isn't required. They're only in school 6-8 hours a day; they have to live in their neighborhood 24 hours a day. I didn't want them growing up in a place where anybody with the means had abandoned their public schools.

 * I believe I was destined to become mayor of Brooklyn Park. And maybe, by fulfilling that destiny to become mayor, I sealed my destiny to become governor. I hope I'm not destined to become president. I don't say that with arrogance — it's only that everything seemed to fall so easily into place in both of my other races. But I truly wanted to be mayor and governor — I don't want the presidency. I'll never say never, because you never know what will happen. But 99% of me says no.

 * While I was mayor, I learned that government is a system of checks and balances — you can't simply walk in and change things. It takes time. I used to joke that it would be nice if a magic wand came with the job, if I could just wave it and make things work the way they're supposed to. But unfortunately it's not that easy. The bureaucracy is so huge that in a lot of situations all I can do is tell people the truth and let the chips fall where they may.

 * Whenever you take a stand on an issue, people will line up around the block to kick your ass over it. By having an opinion, you make yourself a target. Why do you think Congress likes to hide behind closed doors at decision-making time? I put all the city council meetings on public TV, over the good old boys' objections. Exposure creates an educated, involved public, which isn't in the interests of the old-boy network.

 * I view the traditional two parties as in some ways very evil. They've become monsters that are out of control. The two parties don't have in mind what's best for Minnesota. The only things that are important to them are their own agendas and their pork. Government's become just a battle of power between the two parties. But now that Minnesota has a governor who truly comes from the private sector, a lot of light's going to be shed on how the system is unfair to people outside the two parties.

 * Don't look for me to make a run for the White House. I don't want that. I see what happens to everyone who takes that office: They all go in so virile and young, and then in the course of 4 years they age 20. I can get by being governor, but being president would be too much stress, too much responsibility — I'd be the most powerful person in the world! And I don't want to do that to Terry. I won't say absolutely not, but I wouldn't put any money on there ever being a Jesse "The Prez" Ventura.

 * Over the past few decades, we've gotten into the bad habit of looking to the government to solve every personal and social crisis that comes along. People have really come to misunderstand government's scope. There's only so much it can do. For one thing, it's a terrible social regulator. And morals and values aren't things that legislation can even touch. You can't legislate morality. It doesn't work.

 * I'd like to clarify my comments about religious people being weak-minded. I didn't mean all religious people. I don't have any problem with the vast majority of religious folks. I count myself among them, more or less. But I believe because it makes sense to me, not because I think it can be proven. There are lots of people out there who think they know the truth about God and religion, but does anybody really know for sure? That's why the founding fathers built freedom of religious belief into the structure of this nation, so that everybody could make up their minds for themselves. But I do have a problem with the people who think they have some right to try to impose their beliefs on others. I hate what the fundamentalist fanatics are doing to our country. It seems as though, if everybody doesn't accept their version of reality, that somehow invalidates it for them. Everybody must believe the same things they do. That's what I find weak and destructive.

 * I'm not disparaging suicides when I call them weak, I'm pointing out that anybody who would consider doing a thing like that needs help. I don't think a normal, mentally healthy person commits suicide. Of course, there are exceptions; people who are terminally ill are a different issue. But in the vast majority of cases, suicide is a tragedy that does unbelievable damage to the family and friends the suicide leaves behind. You don't want to encourage people to do such a thing.

 * I'd like to work on having every fourth year become a year in which no laws are made, but the old laws are reviewed, updated, or deleted as needed. That way we won't get endless, obsolete laws piling up on the books.

Indivisible Day Proclamation (2002)

 * Whereas: The unique features of this nation at its foundation was its establishment of a secular Constitution that separated government from religion — something never done before; and Whereas: Our secular constitution has enabled people of all world views to coexist in harmony, undivided by sectarian strife; and Whereas: President James Madison made clear the importance of maintaining this harmony when he said, "The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the endless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries"; and Whereas: The diversity of our people requires mutual respect and equal protection for all our citizens, including minority groups, if we are to remain "One nation, indivisible"; and Whereas: It is the unfettered diversity of ideas and world views that have made our nation the strongest and most productive in the world; and Whereas: Eternal vigilance must be maintained to guard against those who seek to stifle ideas, establish a narrow orthodoxy, and divide our nation along arbitrary lines of race, ethnicity, and religious belief or non-belief. Now Therefore, I, Jesse Ventura, Governor of Minnesota, do hereby proclaim that Thursday July 4, 2002 shall be observed as: Indivisible Day In the State of Minnesota.

Harvard interview (February 2004)

 * "The Body politic", The Boston Globe (25 February 2004)

 * They're Crips and Bloods in Brooks Brothers suits.
 * On US Republicans and Democrats.

 * They could care less about the public. The public comes in third. Number one is keeping their power. Number two are the special interests, the people footing the bill. Finally, the public good might be third — if they can profit from it. If there's no profit, they could care less.
 * On Democrats and Republicans

 * It's panhandling. . . That's the system we have, though. It's based on bribery.
 * On political fund-raising

 * A third-party candidate is never treated equally. They look at you as a novelty, as cannon fodder. "This is entertaining," they think, "but we'll go back to the Democrats and Republicans, because only they can run our government." Which is baloney.

 * Could someone please tell me how this will affect me? Come on, this is Harvard, folks. I came all the way out here to learn this.
 * On same-sex marriage.

 * Some felt I'm not academically qualified, and they're right.
 * On teaching at Harvard.

 * I give kudos to them for having the courage to bring me here... The risk is, I'm not the status quo.

 * I thought to myself, "This is Harvard", You expect Harvard to be this stuffy, arrogant place. But then you get here and see how bright everyone is — what could be better? I loved it.

 * When you have an opportunity to learn, you become smarter at more things. Having run government for four years, and being in charge of 26 departments, that's an education. So I think I'm savvier today. And probably more cynical.

 * Why did they label me a college dropout? The connotation is, he left to go have fun. Not that I served honorably in the Navy, went to college on the GI Bill, trained to be a pro wrestler, and took a job when the opportunity came up. Isn't that what college is for, to prepare you to earn a living? The positive is, I still have three years of eligibility left — if Harvard wants me for its football team.
 * On the "stupid, lazy" media reports on his lack of a college education.

 * Having been a villain in wrestling, my relationship with the media has always been rocky. They don't view wrestling for what it really is, entertainment.

 * I looked at my wife and said, "You know what? If these people put their own dollar-an-hour raise above the integrity of our nation, I don't wanna be their boss anymore."
 * On his reaction to Minnesota state workers going on strike.

Don't Start the Revolution Without Me! (2008)

 * We—"the free love generation"—are now telling our children to abstain from sex? When I spoke at Carleton College, I told the young people: "Unless they were a virgin on their wedding day, anyone who preaches abstinence to you is a hypocrite." Two weeks later, Ann Coulter showed up at the same school, and one of the students raised his hand and asked her whether she'd been a virgin! It made the papers—and made me laugh. You know what Coulter did? Attacked the kid and changed the subject.
 * Ch. 1 (p. 3)

 * I had people coming up and telling me they hadn't voted in twenty-five years, but they were turning out for me on Tuesday. I still see the face of this kid who approached me in the little town of Willmar. "Jesse," he said, "you are us."
 * Ch. 1 (p. 19)

 * Pro wrestling had heroes and villains, and I'd already decided I was going to be a "bad guy" like "Superstar" Billy Graham. That's why I grew the blond mane, to look like a California beach bum. I knew people in the Midwest would hate that. In a sport where Gorgeous George, Gorilla Monsoon, and The Crusher were some of the big names, I knew that plain old Jim Janos wasn't going to cut the mustard. I'd always liked the name Jesse, maybe because of Jesse James. I looked on a map of California and my eyes landed on a highway that ran north of L.A. called Ventura. Jesse Ventura, the Surfer. Now that had a ring to it.
 * Ch. 2 (p. 27)

 * I've often referred to pro wrestling as "ballet with violence." Yes, it's staged, as far as who's going to be the winner, but it's not fake. It's really an art form, and one that requires careful discipline. When you smash your opponent with a folding chair, you've got to know how not to hurt him. When you get body-slammed, it's painful, no way around it. But you get used to it.
 * Ch. 2 (p. 29)

 * I started stating that maybe I should run for governor. Well, it caught on like wildfire. I felt I'd boxed myself into a corner—if I didn't attempt to do this, I would lose my credibility. And in the world of talk radio, once that happens, you're finished.
 * Ch. 2 (p. 37)

 * The media today are controlled by the big corporations. It's all about ratings and money. Believe it or not, I think the downfall of our press today was the show 60 Minutes. Up until it came along, news was expected to lose money, in order to bring the people fair reporting and the truth. But when 60 Minutes became the top-rated program on television, the light went on. The corporate honchos said, "Wait a minute, you mean if we entertain with the news, we can make money?" It was the realization that, if packaged the correct way, the news could make you big bucks. No longer was it a matter of scooping somebody else on a story, but whether 20/20's ratings this week were better than Dateline's. I'm not knocking 60 Minutes. It was tremendously well done and hugely successful, but in the long run it could end up being a detriment to society.
 * Ch. 3 (p. 48)

 * My major criticism of today's media is, they're no longer reporting the news, they're creating it. When that happens, you're in deep trouble.
 * Ch. 3 (p. 48)

 * The thing about most of the media is that they want to reduce everybody to the lowest common denominator. They don't want people to have any heroes. I've got nothing against criticism of political figures, but that's different from a personal attack. It's easier to do sensationalism and character assassination than focus on the real issues. And they're obsessed, it seems, with portraying the ugliest side of humanity—the dishonesty, hypocrisy, ego battles, and fights. How dare Fox, CNN, and MSNBC call themselves news stations? They're entertainment stations.
 * Ch. 3 (p. 51)

 * [A] group of scientists came out and said unequivocally that global warming is being caused by human beings. Did you hear that mentioned on the "news"? No, that day Britney Spears shaved her head. People would rather hear about this than what's happening in Iraq? Or are we simply being dumbeddown to that point? The people of the United States should demand more than this!
 * Ch. 3 (p. 51)

 * I was stunned to learn that there are CIA operatives inside some state governments. They are not in executive positions—in other words, not appointed by the governor—but are permanent state employees. Governors come and go, but they keep working—in legitimate jobs, but with dual identities. In Minnesota, this person was at a deputy commissioner level, fairly high up. [...] Are they put there to spy? To see the direction that state government is going, what's happening, and report back—to whom? And for what purpose? Do they think there are traitors in certain states? I don't know. That part, I wasn't told. I'm left to wonder why our Constitution is being violated.
 * Ch. 5 (p. 93)

 * I always felt, in looking at [the Cuban] situation, that it was wrong. And I now know why. It came to me one night in Mexico. China is communist, the same as Cuba, and yet we have no problem trading with China. In fact, today we can't get over there quick enough. The difference is simple: China welcomes our corporations. Cuba threw them out. It's a basic decision of corporate America: We will punish Cuba because Castro stuck it to us by nationalizing everything after he came to power. What other reason could there be? China is far more powerful but we now welcome them into global trade with open arms—as we should—while we continue this bitter, hostile policy towards Cuba. It must be because there are still people alive in the corporate world who got hammered by Fidel's revolution.
 * Ch. 6 (p. 111)

 * The Christian right wing in America is a polarizing force when it comes to gay rights, abortion, and patriotism. To me, these aren't "issues," they are matters of individual freedom of choice. But the militant Christians … especially don't like anything beyond their idea of the "normal"—like the percentage of our population who happen to be gay. To me, gay rights is simple: it's about equality. We're all supposed to be equal under the Constitution, which doesn't say anything about the "Hetero States of America."
 * Ch. 10 (p. 180)

 * My views on abortion come from my mom. She was a nurse in surgery for her entire adult life, and used to tell me how terrible it was before Roe vs. Wade—when back-alley abortions often placed the woman's life in danger. Today, some people live under a false premise that, if the government makes something illegal, it will go away. But then the illegal activity is simply controlled by an underground or criminal element. And, in the case of abortion, you will not receive the safety and precautions necessary.
 * Ch. 10 (p. 182)

 * Especially at these young ages, I call it brainwashing to make it mandatory to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. If a teacher wants to make this part of the classroom, all they need do is simply say, "You know, I'm very patriotic. And every morning when you come into class, I'm going to stand up and say a Pledge of Allegiance to my country. You're welcome to join me if you'd like."
 * Ch. 10 (p. 188)

 * I wish that Canada and Mexico would legalize marijuana, because that would put the United States on an island. You'd have two countries proving, like the city of Amsterdam has, that making drugs legal is not a negative formula, but the best way to deal with the problem. Making something illegal doesn't mean it goes away, it just means criminals are going to run it.
 * Ch. 10 (p. 189)

 * Why not treat marijuana in the same way as alcohol and tobacco? It's so widely used, and it has medical purposes that are denied by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Numerous doctors and private studies have clearly shown that medicinal marijuana is a painkiller that can help cancer and AIDS patients, and can also be used to treat glaucoma. The latest breakthrough is that it helps Alzheimer's patients.
 * Ch. 10 (p. 189)

 * The fact is, growing hemp for industrial purposes would make it a very useful plant. It can be a fiber for clothing, a source of paper, even an alternative fuel. Canada is already using hemp this way. I simply don't see that cannabis grows wild on earth just so humans can eradicate it. Of course, the work of eradicating marijuana creates jobs within law enforcement. If we made it legal, and taxed it like we do tobacco and alcohol, maybe those law enforcement people could start paying more attention to murders and terrorism. I also think it's time for people to rise up against the prescription drug industry, the biggest opponent of legalization. You have to remember that they don't want anything out there that they can't make a profit from. Marijuana is a weed, and that means you can grow it, essentially free. This doesn't sit well with the pharmaceutical industry, and I think our Food and Drug Administration is nothing but a puppet whose strings the industry pulls.
 * Ch. 10 (p. 190)

 * Another of the religious right's scams is marching into public school science classes and trying to mandate teaching of "creation science," as opposed to evolution. Somehow, they put evolutionism and creationism in the same category—believing that one makes the other impossible. But aren't these two separate systems of knowledge? One is a scientific theory, the other is a religious doctrine. It's kind of like comparing the law of gravity to the Sermon on the Mount. Evolution doesn't pretend to disprove the Bible's version of creation, or the belief in an all-powerful being as "prime mover" of the universe. Science only deals with what's observable, definable, and measurable. It's open to all possibilities, unlike creationism, which is a closed book. So leave evolution to the science teachers, and creation to the Sunday school of the parents' choosing.
 * Ch. 10 (p. 186)

 * Given how many convicts awaiting capital punishment have been cleared because of DNA evidence, I no longer support the death penalty. Minnesota doesn't have this on the books, so I'm thankful that, as governor, I never had to face the decision of whether to execute someone on death row. Again, I simply don't believe that government has the inherent right to make those kinds of choices.
 * Ch. 10 (p. 187)

 * I want to believe that bin Laden and al-Qaeda were responsible for the 9/11 attacks, but now I have doubts. If they were responsible, I am beginning to think it was not without some knowledge of those impending attacks on our side.
 * Ch. 11 (p. 212)

 * I was a few months out of office when the invasion of Iraq took place in March 2003. Had I still been governor, I might have been the only one who opposed it. It had to do with the fact that we were lining up our military against that country as an aggressor and an occupier.
 * Ch. 14 (p. 259)

 * At the end of the Vietnam War, I was actively involved in the Stop-the-Draft movement. I've done a full 180-degree turn today. [...] As long as we have a professional military, it's not going to touch that many Americans whose attitude is, "Well, they all volunteered, they're there because they want to be." The fact is, a professional military is now the strong arm of our president and corporate America, and the gun can be pulled out of the holster far too easily. It creates an atmosphere where the majority of the fighting men are poor people. Trying to improve in the military is their only way of getting a college education down the line. The rich kids, even a great majority of the middle class kids, are not serving. I'm okay with a professional military during peacetime, but the moment a vote to go to war occurs, the draft should automatically be reinstated. We need to make war as difficult as we can to declare. You've got to bring the war home.
 * Ch. 14 (p. 268)

 * If I ever became president, I'd push with every ounce of power I had for Congress to pass something else into law: Every elected federal official must predesignate an individual in their immediate family who has to begin military service—the moment that official casts an affirmative vote toward going to war. This could be a grandchild, a niece or nephew, but someone. It doesn't mean they necessarily go to the war zone. What it does mean is that they and their family experience some personal discomfort because of this decision. Going to war should bring difficulty, especially to those who are the orchestrators or the authorizers. Right now, it's far too easy for them to go on TV with their bleeding hearts and give standing ovations to our service personnel. War should not be laissez-faire. If you're not willing to send someone from your family, how can you be so willing to send someone else's?
 * Ch. 14 (p. 270)

 * I would rather face the terrorists than lose my civil liberties. If protecting our safety means taking away our Bill of Rights, then could I be so crass and bold as to scream "Give me liberty or give me death"? Once freedom is gone—the bedrock foundation that built our country—what's left to stand for and believe in?
 * Ch. 14 (p. 271)

 * Now whether or not someone can participate in debates is based upon an arbitrary polling figure. You have to be polling nationally at 15 percent. If that criteria had been applied in Minnesota, I would not have become the governor. Because at the time of the primary, I was only polling at 10 percent. But I was allowed to debate, and I proved that you could be at 10 percent and still end up winning. And I did it in a mere eight weeks.
 * Ch. 15 (p. 286)

Movies

 * "Bunch a slack-jawed faggots around here. This stuff [Red Man chewing tobacco] will make you a god-damned sexual tyrannosaurus -- just like me." (from Predator)

Quotes about Ventura

 * What I found most refreshing about Governor Ventura was his willingness to defend his positions and attack his interrogators. . . He's an imposing man who's not easily intimidated, and he's convinced he has the aura that will take him to higher places.
 * Lawrence Grobel, interviewer for Playboy magazine.

 * Can you believe a governor of a state in America would say such an insensitive, bigoted thing?
 * US Senator Trent Lott, about Ventura's remarks about organized religion in Playboy magazine.

 * While this may have been intended as a joke we take the matter seriously and will not subject AP staffers to wearing something that may be intended to demean them and their profession.
 * David Pyle, Minnesota bureau chief for the Associated Press rejecting the use of "Official Jackal" security badges.

 * His most substantial contribution to American politics is that he showed that in the right conditions and with the right strategy, you can drive an independent populist truck straight through the Potemkin village that is the party system. … His legacy is that he showed that a centrist candidate with a healthy disrespect for big everything — corporations, government, media — can rally the unhappy, inchoate middle and ride that into office.
 * Micah Sifry author of Spoiling for a Fight: Third-Party Politics in America (2002)

 * He was governor of an important state and a phenomenon in American political life... It's true he's not an intellectual, but he has street smarts. Plus, Jesse is fun to be around. I have no qualms whatsoever.
 * Dan Glickman, director of the Harvard Institute of Politics on hiring Ventura as a visiting fellow.

title: Jesse Ventura


text:
Joseph Stiglitz

Joseph Eugene Stiglitz (born February 9, 1943) is an American economist and author. He is the winner of the John Bates Clark Medal in 1979 and the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics in 2001, which he shared with George Akerlof and Michael Spence. Stiglitz previously served as Chief Economist of the World Bank between 1997 and 2000.

Quotes

 * There is little doubt that the observation that quality may depend on price (productivity on wages; default probability on interest rates) has provided a rich mine for economic theorists: A simple modification of the basic assumptions results in a profound alteration of many of the basic conclusions of the standard paradigm. The Law of Supply and Demand has been repealed. The Law of the Single Price has been repealed. The Fundamental Theorem of Welfare Economics has been shown not to be valid. More than that, the theories that we describe here provide the basis of progress toward a unification of macroeconomics and microeconomics. They pro vide an explanation of unemployment and credit rationing, derived from basic microeconomic principles. It is a theory in which the extensive idleness that periodically confronts society's resources, human and capital, is seen as but the most obvious example of market failures that prevasively and persistently distort the allocation of resources.
 * "The Causes and Consequences of The Dependence of Quality on Price", Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. 25, No. 1 (Mar., 1987)

 * Most poor people earn more than minimum wage when they are working; their problem is not low wages. The problem comes when they are not working.
 * Economics (1993).

 * The reason that the invisible hand often seems invisible is that it is often not there.
 * Quoted in Daniel Altman, "Managing Globalization: Q & A with Joseph Stiglitz", The International Herald Tribune (2006-10-11).

 * They [ free market policies] were never based on solid empirical and theoretical foundations, and even as many of these policies were being pushed, academic economists were explaining the limitations of markets — for instance, whenever information is imperfect, which is to say always.
 * "Bleakonomics" The New York Times Sunday Book Review (2007-09-30).

 * It's actually a tribute to the quality of economics teaching that they have persuaded so many generations of students to believe in so much that seems so counter to what the world is like. Many of the things that I'm going to describe make so much more common sense than these notions that seem counter to what ones eyes see every day.
 * "Nobel Prize Lecture" Information and the Change in the Paradigm in Economics, at Aula Magna, Stockholm University, (2001-12-08).

 * The fall of Wall Street is for market fundamentalism what the fall of the Berlin Wall was for communism.
 * Interview with Nathan Gardels, The Huffington Post, September 16th 2008

 * The theories that I (and others) helped develop explained why unfettered markets often not only do not lead to social justice, but do not even produce efficient outcomes. Interestingly, there has been no intellectual challenge to the refutation of Adam Smith’s invisible hand: individuals and firms, in the pursuit of their self-interest, are not necessarily, or in general, led as if by an invisible hand, to economic efficiency. The only question that has been raised concerns the ability of government to remedy the deficiencies of the market. Within academia, a significant fraction of economists are involved with developing and expanding on the ideas of imperfect information (and imperfect markets) that I explored. For instance, Edmund Phelps, this year’s Nobel Prize winner, belongs to this "school" of thought. But in political discourse, simplistic “market fundamentalism” continues to exert enormous influence.
 * Interview on Bebbe Grillo's Blog, January 2007.

 * The top 1 percent have the best houses, the best educations, the best doctors, and the best lifestyles, but there is one thing that money doesn’t seem to have bought: an understanding that their fate is bound up with how the other 99 percent live. Throughout history, this is something that the top 1 percent eventually do learn. Too late.
 * "Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%", Vanity Fair, May 2011.

 * And it should be clear that, in spite of the increases in GDP, in spite of the 2008 crisis being well behind us, everything is not fine. We see this in the political discontent rippling through so many advanced countries; we see it in the widespread support of demagogues, whose successes depend on exploiting economic discontent; and we see it in the environment around us, where fires rage and floods and droughts occur at ever-increasing intervals.
 * "It's time to retire metrics like GDP. They don't measure everything that matters", The Guardian, November 2019

 * Today, as we face a retreat from the rules-based, liberal global order, with autocratic rulers and demagogues leading countries that contain well over half the world’s population, Fukuyama’s idea seems quaint and naive.
 * "The end of neoliberalism and the rebirth of history", Social Europe, November 2019

Whither Socialism? (1994)

 * The standard neoclassical model the formal articulation of Adam Smith's invisible hand, the contention that market economies will ensure economic efficiency provides little guidance for the choice of economic systems, since once information imperfections (and the fact that markets are incomplete) are brought into the analysis, as surely they must be, there is no presumption that markets are efficient.
 * Chap. 1 : The Theory of Socialism and the Power of Economic Ideas

 * The Lange-Lerner-Taylor theorem, asserting the equivalence of market and market socialist economies, is based on a misguided view of the market, of the central problems of resource allocation, and (not surprisingly, given the first two failures) of how the market addresses those basic problems.
 * Chap. 1 : The Theory of Socialism and the Power of Economic Ideas

 * The neoclassical paradigm, through its incorrect characterization of the market economies and the central problems of resource allocation, provides a false sense of belief in the ability of market socialism to solve those resource allocation problems. To put it another way, if the neoclassical paradigm had provided a good description of the resource allocation problem and the market mechanism, then market socialism might well have been a success. The very criticisms of market socialism are themselves, to a large extent, criticisms of the neoclassical paradigm.
 * Chap. 1 : The Theory of Socialism and the Power of Economic Ideas

 * The central economic issues go beyond the traditional three questions posed at the beginning of every introductory text: What is to be produced? How is it to be produced? And for whom is it to be produced? Among the broader set of questions are: How should these resource allocation decisions be made? Who should make these decisions? How can those who are responsible for making these decisions be induced to make the right decisions? How are they to know what and how much information to acquire before making the decisions? How can the separate decisions of the millions of actors decision makers in the economy be coordinated?
 * Chap. 1 : The Theory of Socialism and the Power of Economic Ideas

 * At the core of the success of market economies are competition, markets, and decentralization. It is possible to have these, and for the government to still play a large role in the economy; indeed it may be necessary for the government to play a large role if competition is to be preserved. There has recently been extensive confusion over to what to attribute the East Asian miracle, the amazingly rapid growth in countries of this region during the past decade or two. Countries like Korea did make use of markets; they were very export oriented. And because markets played such an important role, some observers concluded that their success was convincing evidence of the power of markets alone. Yet in almost every case, government played a major role in these economies. While Wade may have put it too strongly when he entitled his book on the Taiwan success Governing the Market, there is little doubt that government intervened in the economy through the market.
 * Chap. 1 : The Theory of Socialism and the Power of Economic Ideas

 * At the core of the failure of the socialist experiment is not just the lack of property rights. Equally important were the problems arising from lack of incentives and competition, not only in the sphere of economics but also in politics. Even more important perhaps were problems of information. Hayek was right, of course, in emphasizing that the information problems facing a central planner were overwhelming. I am not sure that Hayek fully appreciated the range of information problems. If they were limited to the kinds of information problems that are at the center of the Arrow-Debreu model consumers conveying their preferences to firms, and scarcity values being communicated both to firms and consumers then market socialism would have worked. Lange would have been correct that by using prices, the socialist economy could "solve" the information problem just as well as the market could. But problems of information are broader.
 * Chap. 1 : The Theory of Socialism and the Power of Economic Ideas

 * In short, whether for the obvious reason that in the absence of futures markets the price system cannot perform its essential coordinating role with respect to future-oriented activities, such as investments, or for the more subtle reasons just discussed, that in the absence of futures markets, extending infinitely far into the future, the market economy is likely to exhibit dynamic instabilities there is no reason to believe that even with rational expectations it will converge to the steady state; there is no presumption that markets, left to themselves, will be efficient. For advocates of market socialism, the implication of this analysis seems clear: There is a need for the kind of government control of the allocation of investment envisaged in market socialism.
 * Chap. 2 : The Debate over Market Socialism: A First Approach

 * Competition is limited by the scale of the market, and as the scale of the market has changed, so has the effectiveness of competition.
 * Chap. 2 : The Debate over Market Socialism: A First Approach

 * But while Keynes as well as the subsequent research in new Keynesian economics has provided an explanation for both unemployment and economic volatility while it has attempted to identify precisely what is wrong with the Arrow-Debreu model that can account for these observations there was another message of Keynes that was clearly heard: The macroeconomic ills of capitalism were curable. One didn't need to institute fundamental reforms in the economic system. One only needed selective government intervention. It is in this sense that Keynesian economics greatly weakened the case for market socialism.
 * Chap. 2 : The Debate over Market Socialism: A First Approach

 * Advocates of the Austrian tradition often defend the lack of formal modeling and the corresponding absence of formal efficiency theorems: The market economy is an organic process, too complicated to be reduced to the simplistic formal models. The job of the economists is to describe this organic process and to see the kinds of impediments that the absence of a legal structure, on the one hand, or excessive government intervention, on the other, might impose for it. But while they may not resort to, or even like, the standard welfare criterion of Pareto optimality, there are strong normative overtones in their discussions. Darwin may have thought that he was simply describing the evolutionary process when he asserted that it resulted in the survival of the fittest, but such statements require a definition of the "fittest" and an analysis of the general equilibrium, dynamic properties of the system. Today we recognize that evolutionary processes, under a wide variety of circumstances, may not possess "efficiency" properties.
 * Chap. 2 : The Debate over Market Socialism: A First Approach

 * It should be clear of course that for traders to have incentives to gather information required that information not be perfectly disseminated in the market. If, simply by looking at market prices, those who do not spend money to acquire information can glean all the information that the informed traders who have spent money to acquire information have, then the informed traders will not have any informational advantage; they will not be able to obtain any return to their expenditures on information acquisition. Accordingly, if there were a complete set of markets, information would be so well conveyed that investors would have no incentives to gather information. (Of course with all participants having the same [zero] information, incentives to trade would be greatly reduced.) To put the matter differently, the assumptions of "informed" markets and "a complete set of markets" may be mutually exclusive.
 * Chap. 3 : Critique of the First Fundamental Theorem of Welfare Economics

 * The theory of market socialism, for the most part, was not based on an analysis of these market failures, and of the reasons why government might be able to resolve them, but rather on the naive comparison of the actual performance of market economies and the hypothesized performance of a market socialist economy with an idealized view of government. This idealization not only failed to take into account the political realities, but more important from the perspective of this chapter, failed to take into account essential economic realities.
 * Chap. 3 : Critique of the First Fundamental Theorem of Welfare Economics

 * We need to distinguish between incentives at the organizational level and at the individual level, though some of the problems in designing incentive structures are common to both. We need to ask how, for the kinds of activities the public sector engages in, the organization is rewarded for "success" or punished for lack of it, and how individuals are similarly rewarded and punished.
 * Chap. 13 : Asking the Right Questions: Theory and Evidence

 * Informational constraints not only limit the ability of shareholders to control rent-seeking behavior on the part of top managers, they also limit the ability of top managers to control rent-seeking behavior on the part of their subordinates. How much of the time spent by a middle-level manager to prepare a report was absolutely necessary? To what extent was it devoted to acquiring information, of marginal value to the firm, but which would make that manager look relatively good compared to other managers? To what extent are the efforts and resources spent by a manager to cultivate a client really being directed to enhance that manager's job opportunities? Private and organizational objectives are intricately intertwined, and in many cases they are not conflicting. But at the margin they frequently are, and there seems little reason to doubt that private objectives frequently, perhaps usually, win out.
 * Chap. 13 : Asking the Right Questions: Theory and Evidence

 * At the same time I have noted that some of the differences between the public and private sector may have been exaggerated they are differences among the activities being pursued, not differences of the sector within which they are pursued. Private sector organizations face incentive (principal-agent) problems no less than do public organizations. Some of the differences are not innate but are more a consequence of common practice. The most important of these is the absence of competition and the high degree of centralization. Government organizations no less than private organizations dislike competition. The difference is the government has the power to forbid competition, which private organizations do not and indeed government sees one of its roles as curbing unfair practices aimed at reducing competition.
 * Chap. 13 : Asking the Right Questions: Theory and Evidence

 * Thus the first objective of state economic policy is to ensure competition. This needs to be taken into account in the process of privatization or reorganizing state enterprises, as well as in the laws allowing the formation of firms, cooperatives, and partnerships. The government must take actions to minimize the barriers to entry.
 * Chap. 15 : Some Tentative Recommendations

 * An essential commitment, which virtually all observers have emphasized, is not to subsidize enterprises that are making losses. While the standard remedy for this is "privatization," it should be recognized that this is neither necessary nor sufficient for imposing hard budget constraints. Governments in many countries have subsidized private producers (e.g., of steel), and governments in some countries have imposed hard budget constraints on government enterprises.
 * Chap. 15 : Some Tentative Recommendations

 * Privatization is, at best, only a partial solution. Privatizations in which vouchers are given, and there is not a recapitalization, do not address this problem at all. Privatizations in which the firm is sold are likely, in the presence of limited competition for the firm, to provide an underestimate of the true value of the firm's assets. Accordingly good performance, based on this undervaluation of the firm's assets, does not provide a true measure of the firm's efficiency.
 * Chap. 15 : Some Tentative Recommendations

 * As I argued earlier, I view competition as far more important than privatization.
 * Chap. 15 : Some Tentative Recommendations

 * Competition is important, not only because of its ability to promote economic efficiency but also because of the zest that it gives to life. Here we encounter one of the many ambivalences that characterizes our views about market economies: Competition is good, but we have our doubts about excessive competition. We encourage cooperation within teams but competition among them. We frown upon people who are excessively competitive. Yet the competitive market environment may encourage and bring out these aspects of individuals' personalities. If ruthlessly competitive people are successful, such behavior may be imitated. At the same time those who are (excessively) cooperative may be taken advantage of, derogated as pansies. Accordingly such behavior will be discouraged.
 * Chap. 16 : Philosophical Speculations

 * By changing the locus of caring and responsibility from the individual to the government not only for the needy, but for oneself, one's parents, one's children we change society and we change ourselves. Here again we see a certain irony: Attempts to improve society by having the government undertake a greater role in redistribution, may ultimately through their effects on individuals and the nature of the social contract have more ambiguous consequences.
 * Chap. 16 : Philosophical Speculations

 * The answer that socialism provided to the age-old question of the proper balance between the public and the private can now, from our current historical perspective, be seen to have been wrong. But if it was based on wrong, or at least incomplete, economic theories, theories that are quickly passing into history, it was also based on ideals and values many of which are eternal. It represented a quest for a more humane and a more egalitarian society.
 * Chap. 17 : Conclusions

Autobiographical Essay (2001)
Joseph Stiglitz. Autobiographical Essay for the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel, (2001)

 * There must have been something in the air of Gary that led one into economics: the first Nobel Prize winner, Paul Samuelson, was also from Gary, as were several other distinguished economists... Certainly, the poverty, the discrimination, the episodic unemployment could not but strike an inquiring youngster: why did these exist, and what could we do about them.

 * My teachers helped guide and motivate me; but the responsibility of learning was left with me.

 * In debate, one randomly was assigned to one side or the other. This had at least one virtue — it made one see that there was more than one side to these complex issues.

 * The notion that every well educated person would have a mastery of at least the basic elements of the humanities, sciences, and social sciences is a far cry from the specialized education that most students today receive, particularly in the research universities.

 * The best teachers still taught in a Socratic style, asking questions, responding to the answers with still another question. And in all of our courses, we were taught that what mattered most was asking the right question — having posed the question well, answering the question was often a relatively easy matter.

 * I, like many members of my generation, was concerned with segregation and the repeated violation of civil rights. We were impatient with those (like President Kennedy) who took a cautious approach. How could we continue to countenance these injustices that had gone on so long? (The fact that so many people in the establishment seemed to do so — as they had accepted colonialism, slavery, and other forms of oppression — left a life-long mark. It reinforced a distrust of authority which I had had from childhood).

 * There was an incongruity between many of the models that we were taught and the policy positions that our teachers (and we) believed in. The models seemed more consonant with free market prescriptions, though they were presented more as benchmarks rather than full characterizations.

 * Once I undertook the analysis of a problem, I often looked at it from a variety of perspectives. I approached the problem as a series of thought experiments — unlike many other sciences, we typically cannot do actual experiments.

 * If stability and efficiency required that there existed markets that extended infinitely far into the future — and these markets clearly did not exist — what assurance do we have of the stability and efficiency of the capitalist system?

 * Economists often like startling theorems, results which seem to run counter to conventional wisdom.

 * An early insight in my work on the economics of information concerned the problem of appropriability — the difficulty that those who pay for information have in getting returns.

 * I recognized that information was, in many respects, like a public good, and it was this insight that made it clear to me that it was unlikely that the private market would provide efficient resource allocations whenever information was endogenous.

 * Seeing an economy that is, in many ways, quite different from the one grows up in, helps crystallize issues: in one's own environment, one takes too much for granted, without asking why things are the way they are.

 * Growing up in Gary Indiana gave me, I think, a distinct advantage over many of my classmates who had grown up in affluent suburbs. They could read articles that argued that in competitive equilibrium, there could not be discrimination, so long as there are some non-discriminatory individuals or firms, since it would pay any such firm to hire the lower wage discriminated-against individuals, and take them seriously. I knew that discrimination existed, even though there were many individuals who were not prejudiced. To me, the theorem simply proved that one or more of the assumptions that went into the theory was wrong.

Making globalization work (2006)

 * ISBN 9780141024967 ''

 * Instead, unchecked by competition [by the USSR] to "win the heart and minds" of those in the Third World, the advanced industrial countries actually created a global trade regime that helped their special corporate and financial interests, and hurt the poorest countries of the world.
 * Preface

 * New technologies (reinforced by new trade rules) are enhancing the market power of incumbent, dominant firms, such as Microsoft, which are all from the developed world; for the first time, in a key global industry, there is a near-global monopolist.
 * §2, p. 58

 * When I was at the World Bank, it would often be said in the face of obvious failure that our strategy was correct, it just wasn't implemented well.
 * §2, p. 52

 * In part, free trade has not worked because we have not tried it: trade agreements of the past have been neither free nor fair. They have been asymmetric, opening up markets in the developing countries to goods from the advanced industrial countries without full reciprocation.
 * §3, p. 62

 * The United States and Europe have perfected the art of arguing for free trade while simultaneously working for trade agreements that protect themselves against imports from developing countries. [...] Western negotiators almost take it for granted that they can control what gets discussed, and determine the outcomes.
 * §3, p. 78

 * The era of multilateral trade liberalization seems to be nearing an end (at least for a while), as well-founded disillusionment in the developing countries combines with growing protectionist sentiment in the developed world.
 * §3, p. 81

 * If there is to be support for trade globalization in the developed world, we must make sure that the benefits and costs are more evenly shared, which will entail more progressive income taxation.
 * §3, p. 100

 * Innovation is important; it has transformed the lives of everyone in the world. And intellectual property laws can and should play a role in stimulating innovation. However, the contention that stronger intellectual property rights always boost economic performance is not in general correct. It is an example of how special interests—those who benefit from stronger intellectual property rights—use simplistic ideology to advance their causes.
 * §4, p. 106

 * One of the reasons that basic research is advanced most by not resorting to intellectual property is that while doing so would have questionable benefits, the costs are apparent. [...] Interestingly, even in software, this system of open collaboration has worked. Today we have the Linux computer operating system, which is also based on the principle of open architecture.
 * §4, p. 112

 * Intellectual property does not really belong in a trade agreement.
 * §4.2 TRIPs, p. 116

 * TRIPs imposed on the entire world the dominant intellectual property regime in the United States and Europe, as it is today. I believe that the way that intellectual property regime has evolved is not good for the United States and the EU; but even more, I believe it is not in the interest of the developing countries.
 * §4.2 TRIPs, p. 117

 * The job of the Western trade negotiators is to get a better trade deal for their country's interests—for example, gaining more market access and stronger intellectual property rights—without giving up agriculture subsidies or nontariff trade barriers. Fairness is not in the lexicon of these trade negotiators.
 * §4, p. 131

 * The natural resource curse is not fate; it is choice. The exploitation of natural resources is an important part of globalization today, and in some ways the failures of the resource-rich developing countries are emblematic of globalization's failures.
 * §5, p. 149

 * I have argued that simply as a matter of fairness in trade, it is intolerable for one country to provide, in effect, emission subsidies to its firms. [...] Europe must use the foundations of the international trade law we have created to force any recalcitrant country, any rogue state—including the United States—to behave responsibly.
 * §6, p. 185

 * Perhaps the most successful global monopoly is Microsoft, which has succeeded in gaining global market power not only in PC operating systems but in key applications such as browsers. [...] Microsoft's monopoly power leads not only to higher prices but to less innovation. [...] The failure to develop a global approach to global cartels and monopolies is yet another instance of economic globalization outpacing political globalization.
 * §7.2.2 Limiting the power of corporations, p. 202

 * Limited liability should not be sacrosanct. Like property rights—including intellectual property—it is a creation of man, to provide appropriate incentives; when that artifice fails to fulfill its social function, it needs to be modified.
 * idem, p. 207

 * The problem is easy to state: developing countries borrow too much—or are lent too much—and in ways that force them to bear most or all of the risk of subsequent increases in interest rates, fluctuations in the exchange rate, or decreases in income. Given this, it is not surprising that they often cannot repay what is owed.
 * §8

 * The global financial system is not working well, and it is especially not working well for developing countries. Money is flowing uphill, from the poor to the rich. [...] With nearly two-thirds of reserves being held in dollars, the United States is, in this sense, the major recipient of these benefits. If the interest rate America has to pay is just one percentage point lower than it otherwise would be on these $3 trillion of loans from poor countries, what America received from the developing countries via the global reserve system is more than it gives to the developing countries in aid.
 * §9

 * The IMF has been encouraging, sometimes even forcing (as condition of assistance), countries to have their central banks focus only on inflation. Europe succumbed to these doctrines. Today, throughout Euroland, there is unhappiness as the European Central Bank pursues a monetary policy that, while it may do wonders for bond markets by keeping inflation low and bond prices high, has left Europe's growth and employment in shambles.
 * §10, p. 280

 * In the long run, the most important changes required to make globalization work are reforms to reduce the democratic deficit.
 * §10, p. 284

 * For much of the world, globalization as it has been managed seems like a pact with the devil. A few people in the country become wealthier; GDP statistics, for what they are worth, look better, but ways of life and basic values are threatened. For some parts of the world the gains are even more tenuous, the costs more palpable. Closer integration into the global economy has brought greater volatility and insecurity, and more inequality. It has even threatened fundamental values. This is not how it has to be. We can make globalization work, not just for the rich and powerful but for all people, including those in the poorest countries. The task will be long and arduous, We have already waited far too long. the time to begin is now.
 * Explicit

Quotes about Stiglitz

 * My final criticism is that Stiglitz's book is carelessly written. Stiglitz was—and perhaps still is—an outstanding economic theorist. But he has been producing big, loosely argued books. The laudable aim behind them is to inform a broader audience about economic policies that could make the world a better place, certainly with better lives for the poor, and such advocacy has its place in moving people to action. But he lacks the eloquence, urgency, and passion of the preacher, while he has too often abandoned the rigor of the scientist. In my view, he has not yet found a style suitable to the popular exposition of his economic ideas.
 * Robert Skidelsky, "Gloomy about Globalization", New York Review of Books (April 17, 2008).

 * I recently told Joe Stiglitz how much I admire him. I really think he’s so exemplary, not just because he’s smart but because of what he did in the Clinton administration and what he did at the World Bank. When he won the Nobel Prize, all he talked about to any reporter who asked him questions was that the real problem is world poverty. When I first met him, Dunlop insisted on the young radicals getting together with the real smart guys who were not the radicals, and Stiglitz was one of them. So we got together for lunch at the Harvard Faculty Club. It was a little strained at first, but we had a nice talk, and I finally said to Stiglitz, “Listen Joe, do you really believe that the interest rate is the intersection of the supply and demand for capital?” I said exactly that, and he said, “Yes, I believe that.” So twenty years later I said to him, “Listen Joe, you really threw me a curve ball when you told me you believed this.” I thought if this is what the smartest people in the profession believe, I’m not going to even talk to them; meanwhile he totally revolutionizes capital theory along the lines that supply and demand don’t determine interest rates! Either his views changed, or he was being “in your face” to me.
 * Herbert Gintis, interview in The Changing Face of Economics (2004) edited by David Colander, Richard P. F. Holt, and J. Barkley Rosser, Jr.

 * To allow arcane trade law, which has been negotiated with scant public scrutiny, to have this kind of power over an issue so critical to humanity's future is a special kind of madness. As Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz puts it, "Should a group of foolish lawyers, who put together something before they understood these issues, interfere with saving the planet?" Clearly not.
 * Naomi Klein This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. The Climate (2014)

 * Most economists now recognize climate change as a market failure, but only a few understand it as part of the larger pattern of environmental destruction that scientists have labelled the 'Great Acceleration'. Capitalism as currently practised has imperilled the existence of millions of planetary species, as well as the health and well-being of billions of humans. It also threatens the prosperity that it was intended to create. Challenging 250 years of dominant economic thinking, the climate crisis has shown that the unrestrained pursuit of self-interest does not serve the common good. It has shown, in the words of economist Joseph Stiglitz, that Adam Smith's invisible hand - the idea that free markets lead to efficiency as if consciously guided - is invisible because it is not there'.
 * Naomi Oreskes in The Climate Book edited by Greta Thunberg (2022)

 * From conversations, I became convinced that people who counterfactual upwards (i.e., compare themselves to those richer) want to actively dispossess the rich. As with all communist movements, it is often the bourgeois or clerical classes who are the early adopters of revolutionary theories. So class envy doesn’t originate from a truck driver in South Alabama, but from a New York or Washington, D.C., Ivy League–educated IYI [Intellectual Yet Idiot] (say Paul Krugman or Joseph Stiglitz) with a sense of entitlement, upset some “less smart” persons are much richer.
 * Nassim Nicholas Taleb, Skin in the Game: Hidden Asymmetries in Daily Life (2018, Random House)

title: Joseph Stiglitz