‘No Empirical Evidence’ for Thomas Piketty’s Inequality Theory • Hacker News Board

Re: ‘No Empirical Evidence’ for Thomas Piketty’s Inequality Theory

#11

Post by regularfry » Mon, Aug 08, 2016, 9:23 AM UTC

chakkop wrote: post #8

I'm curious - does anyone else think that the equality that matters is equality in material outcomes? I think that would be such a boring world. The real equality that matters is equality in dignity as human beings, equality before the law, equality in our respect to each other. I think the developed world has made monumental strides on these fronts, which are spreading around the world too. (Even though, of course,…

The danger is where inequality in rates of improvement in material outcomes leads to inequality in moral outcomes. To borrow some rather loaded language, the more the 1% can buy themselves legal advantage, the more unjust the world becomes. If the rate of legal advantage is affected by the absolute difference between the 1% and the 99% (which I'd argue is demonstrably true - beyond a certain point you've got regulatory capture, but even before then, paid legal representation is the lever that matters here), then it's trivially true that a more materially unequal world is more morally imbalanced in the absence of a somewhat socialist government.

Yes, the poorest and the average now are doing better than they were. That doesn't make defensible the disparity in gains between the richest and the rest.

Re: ‘No Empirical Evidence’ for Thomas Piketty’s Inequality Theory

#12

Post by fwn » Mon, Aug 08, 2016, 9:31 AM UTC

coldtea wrote: post #7

nanis wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I only did mathematical modeling for HPC systems, not economies. No worries. Economics content in Piketty's arguments is zero.

And scientific content in most economists is zero. It's 80% ideology + 20% math used to prove their point based on ideological assumptions. Which is also why economics and economists managed to ever make 0 predictions for anything more complicated than the most basic of models, and have failed time and again to predict real world outcomes. And then they get in bed with power, as advisors, ministers, etc -- talk about…

"ideological assumptions" or - less biased - "premises".

Re: ‘No Empirical Evidence’ for Thomas Piketty’s Inequality Theory

#13

Post by Shivetya » Mon, Aug 08, 2016, 9:42 AM UTC

coldtea wrote: post #7

nanis wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I only did mathematical modeling for HPC systems, not economies. No worries. Economics content in Piketty's arguments is zero.

And scientific content in most economists is zero. It's 80% ideology + 20% math used to prove their point based on ideological assumptions. Which is also why economics and economists managed to ever make 0 predictions for anything more complicated than the most basic of models, and have failed time and again to predict real world outcomes. And then they get in bed with power, as advisors, ministers, etc -- talk about…

sadly that 80/20 can be applied to other controversial issues as well if not the conflict of interests of being in bed with politicians or corporate interests.

outside of hard sciences its difficult for even some in the field to know what is and and what isn't at times, the chance for the layman is near zero. hence when I tend to dismiss anything backed with politician ranting

Re: ‘No Empirical Evidence’ for Thomas Piketty’s Inequality Theory

#14

Post by k-mcgrady » Mon, Aug 08, 2016, 9:46 AM UTC

chakkop wrote: post #8

I'm curious - does anyone else think that the equality that matters is equality in material outcomes? I think that would be such a boring world. The real equality that matters is equality in dignity as human beings, equality before the law, equality in our respect to each other. I think the developed world has made monumental strides on these fronts, which are spreading around the world too. (Even though, of course,…

If you look at things over 200 years we are doing much better but I think it's more important to look at it generation by generation. For example, growing up I will have had a comfortable life - going into adulthood supposedly my generation will be the first (no idea when that data goes back to) to do worse than it's parents. So throughout my life I will become less comfortable. It seems like we've now reached a point where the poor ACTUALLY become poorer and the rich become richer,

Re: ‘No Empirical Evidence’ for Thomas Piketty’s Inequality Theory

#15

Post by pdkl95 » Mon, Aug 08, 2016, 9:51 AM UTC

coldtea wrote: post #7

nanis wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I only did mathematical modeling for HPC systems, not economies. No worries. Economics content in Piketty's arguments is zero.

And scientific content in most economists is zero. It's 80% ideology + 20% math used to prove their point based on ideological assumptions. Which is also why economics and economists managed to ever make 0 predictions for anything more complicated than the most basic of models, and have failed time and again to predict real world outcomes. And then they get in bed with power, as advisors, ministers, etc -- talk about…

"Understanding economics well impedes an understanding the economy." -- Yanis Varoufakis

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5AUAIzciLE#t=1355

Re: ‘No Empirical Evidence’ for Thomas Piketty’s Inequality Theory

#16

Post by berntb » Mon, Aug 08, 2016, 9:52 AM UTC

coldtea wrote: post #7

nanis wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I only did mathematical modeling for HPC systems, not economies. No worries. Economics content in Piketty's arguments is zero.

And scientific content in most economists is zero. It's 80% ideology + 20% math used to prove their point based on ideological assumptions. Which is also why economics and economists managed to ever make 0 predictions for anything more complicated than the most basic of models, and have failed time and again to predict real world outcomes. And then they get in bed with power, as advisors, ministers, etc -- talk about…

It is a classic conspiracy theory to say that most of a scientific field is a fraud from (political) ideology.

(That is, your statement presupposes most people of the field are either idiots, fanatics or crooks.)

I'd be interested if you can back that up? (With non ideological sources, of course.)

Edit: Considering the numbers, there are going to be some true conspiracy theories... and mass hypnosis from unverifiable things like psychology (Freud, Jung, etc). The burden of proof is still on the one presenting the conspiracy theories.

Edit 2: And of course, some sciences are experimental and use the scientific method. Some are largely historical (palaeontology, economics, etc). That doesn't counter my point either.

Re: ‘No Empirical Evidence’ for Thomas Piketty’s Inequality Theory

#17

Post by forreal2 » Mon, Aug 08, 2016, 9:55 AM UTC

Many of these kind of "studies" need the author to have actually witnessed at least one or twice how a person, man,woman, children, opening a trash bag looking for food, and then they'd know how the face of a hungry human being looks like.

Re: ‘No Empirical Evidence’ for Thomas Piketty’s Inequality Theory

#18

Post by coldtea » Mon, Aug 08, 2016, 10:11 AM UTC

berntb wrote: post #16

coldtea wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And scientific content in most economists is zero. It's 80% ideology + 20% math used to prove their point based on ideological assumptions. Which is also why economics and economists managed to ever make 0 predictions for anything more complicated than the most basic of models, and have failed time and again to predict real world outcomes. And then they get in bed with power, as advisors, ministers, etc -- talk about…

It is a classic conspiracy theory to say that most of a scientific field is a fraud from (political) ideology. (That is, your statement presupposes most people of the field are either idiots, fanatics or crooks.) I'd be interested if you can back that up? (With non ideological sources, of course.) Edit: Considering the numbers, there are going to be some true conspiracy theories... and mass hypnosis from unverifiable…

>That is, your statement presupposes most people of the field are either idiots, fanatics or crooks.

Kind of like there have been hundreds of thousands of Freudian psychoanalysts (considered scientists) in the 20th century until now?

Or how people consider (and increasingly clinics embrace) homeopathists as doctors and scientists? With their own educational programs, journals and everything too.

In any case there's nothing special about many people working in a field that makes them automatically proper scientists.

To begin with, the term "science" is ambiguous.

It can refer to empirically or axiomatically verifiable, experimental, scientific-method following fields, which is what is actually "science" (e.g. physics, chemistry, mathematics, biology, etc.) and whatever ad-hoc field of study one can come up with.

The first is sometimes called "hard sciences" to differentiate them from the more "lax" and "anything goes" ones.

Now, the second type could still be a productive (if informal) field of inquiry and argumentation and insight. I'm all for continental philosophy for example.

But it's not scientific in the way engineering or physics is. Not even close.

The "Academy of Science" in most countries includes philosophers for example. And they do get Ph.D degrees and everything. They never verify anything, and they can hold totally conflicting views and still be "valid" and well established. Would you consider them "scientists"?

If not, are you a conspiracy theorist?

It's naive to believe that the way a society names some practices is also revealing about the essence of those practices.

Re: ‘No Empirical Evidence’ for Thomas Piketty’s Inequality Theory

#19

Post by dghf » Mon, Aug 08, 2016, 10:16 AM UTC

chakkop wrote: post #8

I'm curious - does anyone else think that the equality that matters is equality in material outcomes? I think that would be such a boring world. The real equality that matters is equality in dignity as human beings, equality before the law, equality in our respect to each other. I think the developed world has made monumental strides on these fronts, which are spreading around the world too. (Even though, of course,…

> The real equality that matters is equality in dignity as human beings, equality before the law, equality in our respect to each other.

But in practice these things are to some extent dependent on equality (or at least less disparity) in material outcomes.

"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread." -- Anatole France.

Re: ‘No Empirical Evidence’ for Thomas Piketty’s Inequality Theory

#20

Post by chakkop » Mon, Aug 08, 2016, 10:19 AM UTC

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #10

chakkop wrote: post #8

I'm curious - does anyone else think that the equality that matters is equality in material outcomes? I think that would be such a boring world. The real equality that matters is equality in dignity as human beings, equality before the law, equality in our respect to each other. I think the developed world has made monumental strides on these fronts, which are spreading around the world too. (Even though, of course,…

What people seem to care about is not net improvement, but relative improvement. It really comes down to if you feel like things aren't better because you are comparing them to other people. It's not right or wrong, it's just an impossibly moving target.

Agreed with you and k-mcgrady. I think maybe we will need to use more and more 'hacks' that make us aware that it's already reasonably good.

FWIW, Benjamin Friedman ('The Moral Consequences of Economic Growth') has great research that shows that when people stop feeling like they're advancing and participating in economic growth, moral and ethical ideals like open-mindedness, acceptance, tolerance, and democracy deteriorate, which is concerning.