And all those spanky new Toyota pick-ups. Uh huh.
Thomas Piketty: Clamping down with law and order will not be enough
21–30 of 183 posts
Re: Thomas Piketty: Clamping down with law and order will not be enough
#22Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wow. Talk about gratuitous negativity. Lots of people have a favorite theory about where Daesh came from. Blame Bush. Blame Obama. Blame Islam. Blame oil companies. At least this hammer isn't one we're already sick of hearing. What do you actually think is wrong with Piketty's analysis, other than the fact that he has actually published on this topic before?
I think he meant that "income inequality" is the hammer, as the source of every one of society's ills.
Yes, to which 'notacoward replied:
"What do you actually think is wrong with Piketty's analysis, other than the fact that he has actually published on this topic before?"
Re: Thomas Piketty: Clamping down with law and order will not be enough
#23It's been clear for a very long time - what's needed is: Opportunities for creation of wealth, access to health care and specifically mental health care and lots of education. Next.
There is absolutely no credible, facts-driven research to suggest that lack of wealth, access to health care, access to mental health care, or access to education have a direct correlation to individuals joining terrorist groups or the rise of such groups. It's just a common trope repeated because it fits with people's existing ideologies. Terrorism is much more complicated than that.
Re: Thomas Piketty: Clamping down with law and order will not be enough
#24Wow. Talk about "when all you have is a hammer."
You didn't address his argument at all. Just an ad hominem. Is that because you can't address it? Because his thesis seems quite reasonable to me. And historically, we certainly know that societies with extreme income inequality are less stable than those with more equality.
I'd argue that the main problem with the theory is that there are plenty of places where there is high income inequality (such as the United States, as indicated by the diagram) and something like ISIS seems rather unlikely† .
Sure, you can say that inequality may have contributed to the issue, but there are a ton of factors that have resulted in Syria being plunged in Civil War. Pointing to any one as a decisive factor seems like an inevitable simplification. Also, it doesn't really answer the question "Why _now_?". Claiming that something eventually happen is not really predictive if no time frame can be given.
† Or I might be overly optimistic about my own country's stability.
Re: Thomas Piketty: Clamping down with law and order will not be enough
#25Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wow. Talk about gratuitous negativity. Lots of people have a favorite theory about where Daesh came from. Blame Bush. Blame Obama. Blame Islam. Blame oil companies. At least this hammer isn't one we're already sick of hearing. What do you actually think is wrong with Piketty's analysis, other than the fact that he has actually published on this topic before?
I think he meant that "income inequality" is the hammer, as the source of every one of society's ills.
Understood, but why do you think that hammer is out of place here? A hammer is still a useful tool for certain tasks, and a true statement doesn't cease being true when it's repeated. If Piketty is wrong, the constructive response would be to explain why.
Re: Thomas Piketty: Clamping down with law and order will not be enough
#26Re: Thomas Piketty: Clamping down with law and order will not be enough
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
You didn't address his argument at all. Just an ad hominem. Is that because you can't address it? Because his thesis seems quite reasonable to me. And historically, we certainly know that societies with extreme income inequality are less stable than those with more equality.
I'll address the argument. Lots of countries with high income inequality do not have a terrorism problem. When is the last time Brazilians terrorists attacked New York and/or Paris? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_eq...
You are addressing a one-sentence summary of the argument, not the actual argument, which is much more complex than "income inequality results in terrorism."
Re: Thomas Piketty: Clamping down with law and order will not be enough
#28While inequality may be ONE factor, it is definitely not THE factor. Much more important are the factors of American imperialism, Islamic extremist ideology, destabilization of Iraq, and so on. What Piketty is right about, however, is that it is the policies of the West is in part to blame for the extreme rise of inequality in the Arab world. That said, I am not too certain Arabs would have fared better on their own.
No reasonable person would expect there to be a single factor. But some straw did break the camel's back.
We need to start realizing that reality isnt a great headline. Making bold or absolute claims is a good way. Once we keep that in mind it makes these conversations easier.
Re: Thomas Piketty: Clamping down with law and order will not be enough
#29I don't understand why we shouldn't believe what's coming straight out of ISIS' mouth.
ISIS has said they're killing us because of their interpretation of a book written in the first millennia. They say this every time they attack us. Yet (mostly on the left) we keep coming up with reasons why this isn't the case. "No, actually, you're not attacking us for that reason, really it's our fault because we gave the oil to the emirs."
When someone shoots up a Planned Parenthood, however, he doesn't even have to make a public statement and the same people are quick to blame Christian beliefs or rhetoric and immediately accept the ideological reason for the violence. Why don't we say that gunmen attack Planned Parenthoods because of income inequality in the United States?
Finally, is there anywhere to find the original article by Piketty in English? The linked version is in French.
Re: Thomas Piketty: Clamping down with law and order will not be enough
#30Wow. Talk about "when all you have is a hammer."
You didn't address his argument at all. Just an ad hominem. Is that because you can't address it? Because his thesis seems quite reasonable to me. And historically, we certainly know that societies with extreme income inequality are less stable than those with more equality.
[deleted]