Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

boingboing.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 325 posts

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

#121

Post by tcbawo »

ebalit wrote: post #79
tomcam wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where in the USA is the market not regulated?

I don't think GP meant that the market should have rules but that capitalism should be regulated (as an organism is) to maintain inequality at the sweet spot where it is efficient, instead of letting it rise and getting fever.

We've lost long-form and investigative journalism as a counter-balance, but we've gained ubiquitous surveillance and crowd-sourcing social media. Traditional corruption is much easier to see. "White collar" corruption runs rampant.

There will be a period of adjustment as our institutions adapt, die, or new institutions arise. I am optimistic as long as the powers that be favor the creation of wealth rather than appropriation.

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

#122

Post by WalterBright »

jernfrost wrote: post #76

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…

Again and again? Uprisings and revolutions occur in unfree countries. (And in the US, the armed revolt happened in the slave states!)

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

#123

Post by Mikeb85 »

bko wrote: post #4

Suppose r > g as Picketty claims. What would be the implications? One I could think of is that rather than investing in human labor (e.g. education), it would make more sense to invest in capital (e.g. stock market) since that would yield you higher returns. Also, all the talk about wealth inequality uses percentages like the top 10%. However, the top 10% is not stable. In fact, the turnover is very high, much higher…

> One I could think of is that rather than investing in human labor (e.g. education), it would make more sense to invest in capital (e.g. stock market) since that would yield you higher returns

Keep in mind that, in economics, capital includes machinery - anything that can be owned and generate passive income. So robots, computers, machines - all fall under capital. Anyone that lives in today's world can clearly see that labour is being replaced by machines. So capital's share of income absolutely (r) is growing faster than labour's share of income, represented by (g).

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

#124

Post by WalterBright »

quadrangle wrote: post #105
hash-set wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, tell that to the millions of dead left in its wake.

There have been nowhere near enough actual trials of communism to conclude anything fully. The core examples were all poorer countries with various problems, corruption… To reject communism as a concept over the atrocities of Stalin et al is as reasonable as rejecting capitalism because the U.S. was built on slavery and the genocide of first peoples. The atrocities were real, and they did connect to economics, but to…

Review "The Black Book of Communism" for a catalog of the death and misery from communist countries, over and over.

Voluntary communes and Kibbutzen have failed as well - none have been capable of operating without subsidy.

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

#126

Post by turar »

4WIW wrote: post #115
broke_wagon wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Maybe on paper; in practice, communism has been a process of structuring inequality differently: the criteria is how good are you in serving your current leader/mentor/sponsor and how lucky/good are you in choosing your next one. While this criteria exists in all systems, it is the most defining one in communism and other authoritarian systems.

Communism isn't inherently authoritarian.

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

#127

Post by turar »

darawk wrote: post #109
DarkLinkXXXX wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If deaths caused by leaders purporting to advance communist ideals can be attributed to communism, then how many have died at the hands of those purporting to advance capitalist ideals? Would it be reasonable to attribute these deaths to capitalism as well? I really don't these type of conclusions are a positive contribution to economic discourse.

Are there significant examples of that in history? I would be looking only at governments causing the deaths of their own citizens. I don't think it'd be fair to count foreign wars there. EDIT: Just to be clear, i'm not implying that they do not exist. Genuinely don't know of any and would be curious if you do.

Pinochet's Chile for example.

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

#128

Post by Mikeb85 »

idanb wrote: post #100
hash-set wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The answer to that isn't more taxes and regulations. Government has completely failed us. The answer is for the people to get off their butts and do something about the problem.

Agreed - something fundamental really needs to change. I'm most worried that it'll come as a result of this election to some degree. I don't think people are supporting Trump because they like him, but I think that they've almost got no choice but someone that might (even if totally by accident) blow up the system. I think this will be totally nuts, but then again - if he loses I fear things may get violent.

> I don't think people are supporting Trump because they like him, but I think that they've almost got no choice but someone that might (even if totally by accident) blow up the system.

They're supporting Trump because they've been failed by the status quo, and Trump has, at the very least, recognised that, versus the establishment who just pretend everything is OK.

His 'fixes' for the economy aren't the typical progressive economic fixes, but rather populist ideas like strong-arming corporations into keeping American jobs or keeping money in the US which, while not necessarily drastically reducing inequality, will have the result of at least giving some of the working class a boost. Globalism absolutely has allowed many working class jobs to be outsourced to areas of cheaper labour.

Whatever you think Trump is, he's a result of the sentiment of his supporters. He's the least-ideological Republican candidate in recent history (which is why Ted Cruz campaigned on the idea that Trump isn't a 'conservative').

> if he loses I fear things may get violent.

Things are already violent. Look at the news, riots in multiple US cities. Violent protests everywhere. Mass swaths of unemployed people who resort to crime. These are all the result of failed economic policies.

You're right though - if the status quo continues, the violence that's occurring today likely will escalate.

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

#129

Post by turar »

hash-set wrote: post #95
broke_wagon wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah, tell that to the millions of dead left in its wake.

You're confusing communism with totalitarianism.

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

#130

Post by geogra4 »

darawk wrote: post #109
DarkLinkXXXX wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If deaths caused by leaders purporting to advance communist ideals can be attributed to communism, then how many have died at the hands of those purporting to advance capitalist ideals? Would it be reasonable to attribute these deaths to capitalism as well? I really don't these type of conclusions are a positive contribution to economic discourse.

Are there significant examples of that in history? I would be looking only at governments causing the deaths of their own citizens. I don't think it'd be fair to count foreign wars there. EDIT: Just to be clear, i'm not implying that they do not exist. Genuinely don't know of any and would be curious if you do.

bengal famine, laotian genocide
Post reply on HN