斯蒂格利茨認為美國不應該再執意在平衡貿易赤字上,也不能再採取貿易保護主義措施來試圖保護或重建高薪製造業的工作崗位。他說:「那些因為全球化而成為失敗者美國人,也將會成為逆全球化下的失敗者,歷史並不能逆轉。(The very Americans who have been among the losers of globalization stand to be among the losers of a reversal of globalization. History cannot be put into reverse)」[9]他譴責自由主義和新自由主義下的政策,[10][11][12]但同時也呼籲降低貿易壁壘和促進自由貿易。[13][14]
首先,任何貿易協議必須是對等的。舉例而言,如果在跨太平洋戰略經濟夥伴關係協議(TPP)談判中美國要求日本放棄對稻米的補貼,美國也應該取消對農作物生產成本以及灌溉水的補貼,不僅僅是對稻米的補貼——因其對美國而言相對不重要——並且應該也放棄對其他農作物的補貼。 (First, any trade agreement has to be symmetrical. If, as part of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), the US demands that Japan eliminate its rice subsidies, the US should in turn offer to eliminate its production and water subsidies, not just on rice — which is relatively unimportant in the US — but on other agricultural commodities as well.)
”
“
第二,貿易協議不應把商業利益放在國家利益之上,尤其是當FTA會影響到金融管制與智慧財產權的情況之下。舉例而言,美國跟智利的FTA禁止智利的資本管制措施。可是IMF認定資本管制措施是總體經濟控管的一種良好的金融政策工具。 (美國)其他的FTA也堅持要求對手國開放金融業跟解除管制,可是2008年的金融風暴已經教育我們:沒有良好的金融業監管,會危害經濟繁榮。美國製藥業和美國貿易代表辦公室(USTR)聯手,成功地壓迫其他國家接受不平衡的智慧財產權保護條款;這些條款會使得對手國一定要跟美國大藥廠買品牌學名藥而不能跟非原廠買非專利仿製藥,也因此會使得藥廠的利益(超高藥價逼使窮人買不起藥)建立於很多人犧牲了因為使用學名藥救命的機會。美國最高法院現在也已經宣布,美國專利局對於相關專利的頒布太過寬鬆。 (Second, no trade agreement should put commercial interests ahead of broader national interests, especially when non-trade-related issues like financial regulation and intellectual property are at stake. For example, the US' trade agreement with Chile impedes Chile's use of capital controls — even though the IMF now recognizes that capital controls can be an important instrument of macro-prudential policy. Other trade agreements have insisted on financial liberalization and deregulation as well, even though the 2008 crisis should have taught the world that the absence of good regulation can jeopardize economic prosperity. The US' pharmaceutical industry, which wields considerable clout with the Office of the US Trade Representative (USTR), has succeeded in foisting on other countries an unbalanced intellectual property regime, which as it is designed to fight generic drugs, puts profit ahead of saving lives. Even the US Supreme Court has now said that the US Patent Office went too far in granting patents on genes.)
”
“
最後,談判過程必須透明化,但是那些(跟美國談判的國家)需要警覺:美國的貿易談判是黑箱作業,USTR甚至拒絕向美國國會透露談判底線。根據已經外洩的訊息,其實不難理解為什麼會這樣:USTR正在逆轉(改變)美國國會先前在FTA中加入的條款(例如跟秘魯簽的FTA),那項條款可以讓秘魯的窮人買到非專利仿製藥(相對應於美國大藥廠生產的專利品牌藥)。 (Finally, there must be a commitment to transparency, but those engaging in these trade negotiations should be forewarned: The US is committed to a lack of transparency. The USTR's office has been reluctant to reveal its negotiating position even to members of the US Congress; on the basis of what has been leaked, one can understand why. The USTR's office is backtracking on principles — for example, access to generic medicines — that the US Congress had inserted into earlier trade agreements, like that with Peru.)
斯蒂格利茨同時是新自由主義的堅定反對者,2020年4月撰文特稿「新自由主义的终结与历史的新生」(The End of Neoliberalism and the Rebirth of History)認為新型冠狀病毒在很多國家的不受限蔓延帶有一種政治深層原因,因為有些領導人無法擺脫選舉金主對於經濟利益的優先視角而下達遵從科學的政策。其文中前所未有批判了新自由主義及其代表人物福山,[22]並反諷其當年的書名歷史終結認為新自由主義發展已走上畸形道路給世界帶來真正「文明終結」後果:
1995年, 耶魯大學教授約翰·羅默(John E. Roemer)博士撰文表達了他對於約瑟夫·斯蒂格利茨於二十世紀九十年代所寫的一本抨擊市場社會主義的書藉《社會主義向何處去?》(Whither Socialism?)的一些負面看法[26]。奧地利派經濟學家彼得·約瑟夫·博特克(Peter Joseph Boettke)博士於1996年亦撰文抨擊該書[27]。奧地利派經濟學家大衛·普里奇科特(David L. Prychitko)博士同樣於1996年撰文表示他認為該書有很多不足之處,例如有着未經證實的預設立場、把新古典派和奧地利派各自所提出的一些理論混為一談和沒有解答不少與國家有關的政治學問題[28]及由著名經濟學家詹姆斯·M·布坎南(James McGill Buchanan Jr.)博士等人所提出的一些與憲法有關的法學問題[29]。
《不公平的代價:破解階級對立的金權結構》(The Price of Inequality: How Today's Divided Society Endangers Our Future,Norton),2012年,W. W. Norton & Company出版,ISBN 978-0-393-08869-4
《扭轉全球化危機:史迪格里茲報告》(The Stiglitz Report: Reforming the International Monetary and Financial Systems in the Wake of the Global Crisis),2010年,The New Press出版,ISBN 978-1595585202
《失控的未來:揭開全球中產階級被掏空的真相》(Freefall: America, Free Markets, and the Sinking of the World Economy),2010年,W. W. Norton & Company出版,ISBN 978-0-393-07596-0
^Whither Socialism? by Joseph E. Stiglitz, Author(s) of Review: Peter J. Boettke, Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. 34, No. 1 (Mar., 1996), pp. 189–91