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

131–140 of 325 posts

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

#131

Post by shostack »

trapperkeeper79 wrote: post #20
eldavido wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm tempted to blame ultra-loose monetary policy, but I'm not so sure. I live in the Bay Area where house prices are also out of control, but I'm not sure why we focus on prices (rather than monthly debt payments) since what, 90% of the market is payment buyers? In any case, I do believe the current interest rate environment has distributional consequences that haven't been well-studied. It seems the biggest benefici…

Agreed. The question is what does a young person do? Take on an asset that is known to be overvalued or wait for the rate climate to change. As a data point, condos in Toronto (condos in Toronto are generally tiny and not the most desirable place to raise 2 kids) appreciated by 9-10% this year despite continuous bubble talk by various levels of govt. You and I both know this will not stop until rates rise; and they w…

Doesn't logic on trying to time the market apply here?

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

#132

Post by y80 »

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.

>in practice, communism has been a process of structuring inequality differently:

I'd agree with you if you're talking about Leninist states (i.e. the dominant socialist ideology of the 20th century), replacing the bourgeoisie with bureacrats kept the same fundamental exploitative relationship (however they did operate differently) and is precisely why these states failed. however Marxist-Leninism isn't the end-all be all of communist ideology. How does this argument hold up when confronted with the various anarcho-communist currents? It simply doesn't.

>While this criteria exists in all systems, it is the most defining one in communism and other authoritarian systems.

Again you're conflating the state building ideologies with all communist thought, which just betrays a fundamental misunderstanding and lack of knowledge about what communism is, especially since there a multitude of anti-authoritarian socialist currents and ideologies.

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

#133

Post by barney54 »

turar wrote: post #129
hash-set wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

You're confusing communism with totalitarianism.

Usually communism requires totalitarianism. I don't know of any examples where communism didn't require totalitarian as long as we are talking about the country level. But I'd like to hear some counter examples I'm not thinking of.

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

#134

Post by tasty_freeze »

WalterBright wrote: post #125
kashkhan wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Wealth is taxed by inflation.

Yes, if you hide it under your bed, or have it in some investment vehicle which isn't itself tied to inflation.

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

#135

Post by WalterBright »

tasty_freeze wrote: post #134
WalterBright wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wealth is taxed by inflation.

Yes, if you hide it under your bed, or have it in some investment vehicle which isn't itself tied to inflation.

If it is tied to inflation, then it is taxed on the "income" it generates.

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

#136

Post by turar »

barney54 wrote: post #133
turar wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're confusing communism with totalitarianism.

Usually communism requires totalitarianism. I don't know of any examples where communism didn't require totalitarian as long as we are talking about the country level. But I'd like to hear some counter examples I'm not thinking of.

No countries actually had communism, but if we're talking about socialism, then you're mostly right. My opinion is that there are many reasons for it, including:

- Those countries were poor and without sufficiently established democratic institutions.

- Those countries had to immediately mobilize to defend from richer capitalist countries (lead by the US) trying to undermine them in any possible way. Constant defense mode leads to totalitarianism.

That doesn't mean that socialism requires totalitarianism by nature.

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

#137

Post by yk »

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.

American civil war is probably the clearest example. That was a war to defend the private ownership of the means of production. Then there are atrocities committed by capitalist governments, for example the Tasmanian genocide. [1]

Since I am headed for bed, let me preemptively quote from the Georgia's declaration of seperation [2]:

>> The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_War#Characterisation_as_...

[2] http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/primarysources/dec...

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

#138

Post by nickff »

turar wrote: post #126
4WIW wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is a classic 'no true Scotsman' fallacy. If you would like to avoid the fallacy, you could make arguments such as 'more socialist systems are associated with _ positive outcome', or socialism is more moral because _. I lean strongly against socialism, but would prefer everyone made better arguments for their causes; G.A. Cohen is a good starting point for moral/ethical arguments in favor of socialism.

Update: parent comment was substantially changed since my comment was written. It originally said something to the effect of: 'but true socialism has never been implemented'. Perhaps I should have quoted it to avoid this confusion/deception.

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

#139

Post by nickff »

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…

How many more millions of test subjects must die before you accept the negative result?

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

#140

Post by loki49152 »

broke_wagon wrote: post #89
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…

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.

Communism is a very specific ideology with a well-known, well-documented content and intellectual history. It isn't "just a process" for anything.

Communism is evil because its ideology has no relationship with reality and will inevitably be a practical disaster anywhere it's implemented to the degree that it's implemented as a result. There's no escaping it any more than you can escape the laws of physics.

Post reply on HN