Live data from Hacker News

Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the 21st Century, in 20 minutes (2014) [video]

boingboing.net

81–90 of 325 posts

Re: Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the 21st Century, in 20 minutes (2014) [video]

#81
post #75

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…

One thing that always puzzles me about r > g is that it's comparing a first derivative to a second derivative. How can this be meaningful? To explain further, r is return on investment, which approximately means rate of growth of wealth of capital. That is, it is a the first derivative of a stock, or equivalently a flow. g is the rate of growth of income, where income itself is a flow. So it's the second derivative o…

> How does it even make sense to compare these two quantities when they don't have the same units?

They both have units T^-1, don't they?

For example, they could both be measured in "Percentage increase per year".

Re: Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the 21st Century, in 20 minutes (2014) [video]

#82
post #23

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…

"Things are better than they've ever been, on average."

Sure but that isn't how human psychology works. Especially in rich countries, where basic needs are met, inequality start playing a much greater role with respect to happiness.

Inequality has always been an important factor. The poor in France probably had it better than people in the stone age or medieval times when they made their revolution. Some can be said for the Russians. But they all made revolutions due to the high level of inequality.

If you look at countries experiencing big revolutions it seems to me to have not been about how poor or rich the countries were in absolute terms but rather how unequal they were. In fact in exceptionally poor countries you don't get any revolutions at all because people are to busy just surviving, and there is no intellectual class to advocate it and fuel the flames.

Also "better" is a tricky term. Every society place different expectations on people's lifestyles. One interesting thing I observed about America e.g. is that if you look at things purely statistically in terms on material goods you'll find that the Americans has more TVs, bigger house, more and bigger cars, more of all sorts of stuff, go out eating more frequently etc than say your average Scandinavian or Dutch person. Yet interestingly when you talk to these Americans life seems much harder. They worry about having enough money to repair their car if it breaks down. They need to go to work or whatever. They worry about not being properly covered on medical insurance, not having enough money for their kids college. They seem terrified of losing their job, or getting one will less good health insurance or whatever because they have a particular condition which requires this or that particular insurance which only the particular job they have now provides. So many seem overworked and stressed out.

In comparison, I don't even have a car, and it isn't a big deal. I go to work on a subway. My dutch friends would often just have biked. College education, no worries already taken care of by government. Health insurance. Same deal. Worried about losing job. Not a big deal, my work doesn't have any special perks I need and unemployment benefits are quite good so I will manage fine until I find a new job.

It seems American society has manage to create this system where the only acceptable lifestyle for a normal person is simply far more expensive than most can afford and they borrow money to keep up appearances. While in most of Europe you can be happy with a lot less. The really important things in life are taken care of like health, school, work etc.

Having smaller houses, cars and fewer huge flatscreen TVs seem like a small disadvantage in comparison.

I am not saying one thing is better. If American truly just want lots of stuff, maybe that is the best approach, but it just doesn't seem to make people that happy or calm to me.

Re: Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the 21st Century, in 20 minutes (2014) [video]

#83
post #75

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…

One thing that always puzzles me about r > g is that it's comparing a first derivative to a second derivative. How can this be meaningful? To explain further, r is return on investment, which approximately means rate of growth of wealth of capital. That is, it is a the first derivative of a stock, or equivalently a flow. g is the rate of growth of income, where income itself is a flow. So it's the second derivative o…

I think the idea of the comparison is that r (return on investment) is greater than g (growth of income) and that this leads to the problem of wealth concentration.

The relevance of the comparison is that the working class are dependant on g while the truly wealthy have and control r.

Re: Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the 21st Century, in 20 minutes (2014) [video]

#84
post #77

I wish more people could have Thomas Piketty's balanced view on capitalism. Too often it is treated as some sort of game where you have to pick sides whether you are for or against capitalism. Especially in America there seems to be a kneejerk reaction to any calls for regulations or moderations of the effects of the free market. Usually it is dismissed without further discussion with "look what happened in the east…

Where in the USA is the market not regulated?

is wealth regulated, and do you have a wealth tax?

Re: Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the 21st Century, in 20 minutes (2014) [video]

#85
post #23

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…

It's kind of pompous of you to think you know better than the team of PhDs at the Fed

I just want to say I disagree with this. I'm going to claim that the only difference between the armchair-economists and the PhDs who set the policy is that the policy-wonks actually get to implement their bullshit, while the armchair-economist is powerless to affect anyone.

Also, how is your claim that a consumption tax and 0% corporate tax not the very pomposity your object to?

Re: Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the 21st Century, in 20 minutes (2014) [video]

#86

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. I'm not sure what the difference is between a consumption tax and a sales tax. The corporate tax should be 0%. No, I'm not kidding; hear me out. Corporations aren't people; they don't ever actually pay taxes. People pay taxes. Yes, I know corporations are legal entities, but they're owned and managed by people, somewhere down the line. Those are the pe…

found that increases in corporate tax were almost entirely born by non-management employees and consumers.

This seems tautological to me. Of course increases in corporate tax are born by non-management employees and consumers. Take Management + Non-management + Customers as a group, then Management represent approximately 0% of this group. Also, Non-management + Customers aren't in a position to change the flow of money through the corporation to shield themselves from changes to taxation.

For the majority of corporations their income comes from consumer spending. In those cases it's always the consumer who pays.

Re: Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the 21st Century, in 20 minutes (2014) [video]

#87

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…

No they cannot engage in speech, because they do not have mouths.

Only people have mouths. A corporation is not a person, it is a group of people. And those people are the ones who pay taxes and engage in speech. Corporations do not exist, outside of them being a representation for the owner behind them.

Re: Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the 21st Century, in 20 minutes (2014) [video]

#88
post #75

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…

One thing that always puzzles me about r > g is that it's comparing a first derivative to a second derivative. How can this be meaningful? To explain further, r is return on investment, which approximately means rate of growth of wealth of capital. That is, it is a the first derivative of a stock, or equivalently a flow. g is the rate of growth of income, where income itself is a flow. So it's the second derivative o…

It's a shorthand for talking about how the ownership of everything (both current stocks and claims on future production) is being distributed between workers and capitalists. When r > g, the share of ownership of capital (by growth in capital) is growing faster than the continuous stream of claims on future production (which is what money is, and what makes up income). If capital is liquid, it can be converted into a claim on future production. That's how the units are made compatible.

Re: Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the 21st Century, in 20 minutes (2014) [video]

#89

I wish more people could have Thomas Piketty's balanced view on capitalism. Too often it is treated as some sort of game where you have to pick sides whether you are for or against capitalism. Especially in America there seems to be a kneejerk reaction to any calls for regulations or moderations of the effects of the free market. Usually it is dismissed without further discussion with "look what happened in the east…

Communism isn't some "radical" boogeyman, it's just a process to eliminate inequality. (Why should there be any inequality at all?) We don't need to be diminutive about relatively different ideas; that's unhelpful at best.

Re: Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the 21st Century, in 20 minutes (2014) [video]

#90

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…

"Things are better than they've ever been, on average." Sure but that isn't how human psychology works. Especially in rich countries, where basic needs are met, inequality start playing a much greater role with respect to happiness. Inequality has always been an important factor. The poor in France probably had it better than people in the stone age or medieval times when they made their revolution. Some can be said…

only acceptable lifestyle for a normal person is simply far more expensive than most can afford

This is the ginormously over-sized glowing fluorescent pink elephant in the room.

"Fix the economy" isn't going to work because the economy isn't a thing you can take in for repair. The Economy is a confusing thing because we talk about it like it's a noun, but it's really a verb: The Economy is something humans do, like sport or recreation.

The US needs to do some deep re-thinking about what it values. I'm in Australia and we seem to be doing a fairly good job of adopting the US model, despite there being some, in my opinion, better models to choose from.

Post reply on HN