51–60 of 325 posts
Compelling counter-evidence to Picketty's C21: https://medium.com/the-ferenstein-wire/a-26-year-old-mit-gra...
This post seems to respond to the theory that wealth inequality is caused by the rise of automation. That has nothing to do with Piketty's theory.
In the interest of giving the fuller discussion: Picketty's book has been out for a while now. It is good economics. It deserves rightful praise, and scrutiny. Acemoglu and Robinson's answer[1] is also good economics. Digestible podcast form here [2]. It purports that Picketty's "r>g" model is flawed. It also deserves a reading. All of this is part of a larger discussion, which C21 started. r > g doesn't seem to expl…
I wonder whether it is considered good or bad behaviour to point out incorrect spelling, but it is Piketty, not Picketty
On one hand it seems like a nitpicky thing to point out, but on the other hand, to paraphrase Lieutenant Commander Data: one is his name; the other is not [1].
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly. We should be taxing wealth and not income (or roughly speaking, unearned instead of earned income). Taxing productive activity is literally counter-productive. This will only become a more pressing issue once automation (esp. of the transport industry) gets into full-swing. Eventually we won't have a choice in the matter. There are a whole host of current issues that are culminating in wealth and income dist…
> We should be taxing wealth and not income (or roughly speaking, unearned instead of earned income). You'll see most economists advocating a consumption tax, instead. > quantitive easing pumping up asset prices while doing nothing for the real economy Both the "pumping up asset prices" and "while doing nothing for the real economy" is extremely disputable. It's kind of pompous of you to think you know better than th…
The problem with that is that it affects the poor more than the wealthy. Buying the same thing will hurt one person much more than another and will do little to ease inequality, it may exacerbate it. Additionally, it puts us in the position of making judgments about what should and should not be taxed and how much.
> Corporations aren't people; they don't ever actually pay taxes. People pay taxes.
I would buy this if we didn't give corporations so many rights. Indeed, their purpose is tools to shield individuals. Sometimes this is good; if I create a corporation and my business fails, they cannot come after my personal assets and that encourages economic investment. But it can also be bad when the corporation becomes a place to hide my assets from taxation or even to avoid personal responsibility. They can engage in speech, litigate in court, and even get government benefits such as grants or funding. Because of this, we should tax them.
what is the best open source software for doing oeconomic simulations?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> We should be taxing wealth and not income (or roughly speaking, unearned instead of earned income). You'll see most economists advocating a consumption tax, instead. > quantitive easing pumping up asset prices while doing nothing for the real economy Both the "pumping up asset prices" and "while doing nothing for the real economy" is extremely disputable. It's kind of pompous of you to think you know better than th…
In some sense I agree with you. And it seems that, anyway, the big multinationals can find ways to squirrel away their profits without having to pay much, if any, taxes anyway. So in this way corporate taxes hit the SMB's while the big boys get a free pass.. However, one argument against lowering corporate taxes I've seen is that it would incentivize people to skirt around their personal taxes by "using" corporations…
Wonderful talk. One thing he called for was a wealth tax, which is something that makes complete sense but is going to be very unpopular. On the otherhand, he also calls for progressive income taxes (something that is reported by the media and an easier pill to swallow) - in my country, Canada, progressive income taxes are not the answer IMHO. We didn't have as much inequality for education (i.e. lots of decent Unive…
Compelling counter-evidence to Picketty's C21: https://medium.com/the-ferenstein-wire/a-26-year-old-mit-gra...
Why would it contradict Piketty's theory? Housing is capital. This post seems to respond to the theory that wealth inequality is caused by the rise of automation. That has nothing to do with Piketty's theory.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> We should be taxing wealth and not income (or roughly speaking, unearned instead of earned income). You'll see most economists advocating a consumption tax, instead. > quantitive easing pumping up asset prices while doing nothing for the real economy Both the "pumping up asset prices" and "while doing nothing for the real economy" is extremely disputable. It's kind of pompous of you to think you know better than th…
> You'll see most economists advocating a consumption tax, instead. The problem with that is that it affects the poor more than the wealthy. Buying the same thing will hurt one person much more than another and will do little to ease inequality, it may exacerbate it. Additionally, it puts us in the position of making judgments about what should and should not be taxed and how much. > Corporations aren't people; they…