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

171–180 of 325 posts

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

#171

Post by Xixi »

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.

The great famine of 1876 [1] in Bengal is a possible example. I'm not very familiar with it, but it seems that exports of grains were at an all time high while an estimated 5.5 million people starved to death. Grains were allocated to maximise revenue, and feeding the poor was not the most lucrative option. Of course reality is more complicated than this short paragraph, but this tragedy doesn't reflect well on laissez-faire...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_of_1876%E2%80%937...

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

#172

Post by witty_username »

BobTheCoder wrote: post #162
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…

I agree people seem to be either "the free market solves all problems" or "capitalism is slavery and must be destroyed" (but don't focus on an actual viable alternative). I'm chipping away on my own alternative which is a bit of a hybrid. Competition and inequality between individuals but not between groups within society. https://opensocialism.com/tldr-for-software-people is a good intro for IT people.

Ignoring human envy and jealousy, what is wrong with inequality between groups?

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

#173

Post by witty_username »

ap22213 wrote: post #153
loki49152 wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

By that description, it sounds like a Bogeyman [1] to me. Anyway, I live in a mostly Capitalist system, and it's also authoritarian. The only thing that seems to keep it from spiraling into complete evil is that a democratic Leviathan [2] happens to rule over it. (Of course, the capitalism is always in a constant assault for control). What's funny to me is that I have several neighbors who fervently describe themselv…

> What's funny to me is that I have several neighbors who fervently describe themselves as pro-capitalist libertarians. Yet, when I'm out of coffee or I need my driveway plowed, they do it for free. Why is that? Probably because we are all friends and have common culture and mutual trust.

Even if there is no money involved, you may repay such favors in the future when they ask you. So it's more like borrowing a favor.

> why can't we all have a society where we all act as neighbors

Why can't we have that within capitalism? What does "act as neighbor" even mean? Does it helping one another for free? That already occurs for small tasks.

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

#174

Post by BobTheCoder »

eevilspock wrote: post #169
BobTheCoder wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree people seem to be either "the free market solves all problems" or "capitalism is slavery and must be destroyed" (but don't focus on an actual viable alternative). I'm chipping away on my own alternative which is a bit of a hybrid. Competition and inequality between individuals but not between groups within society. https://opensocialism.com/tldr-for-software-people is a good intro for IT people.

I applaud the effort, and I wish more people focused on a first principles approach to fixing society as you do. But I strongly disagree with some of your claims, and stopped reading as a result: "Software people are in a great position to design a new system" What makes you believe this? Many people, myself included (and I write software), think software people would be poor at this. People, society and culture aren…

> What makes you believe this? Many people, myself included (and I write software), think software people would not be so great at this, because society isn't code. Social and emotional intelligence are critical.

I think there are in general 3 areas of information that are useful when contributing to the development of a societal system. Those being:

* Research (History / modern economic research)

* The Cutting Edge (Technology / modern business, project and team management / open source model)

* Domain Knowledge (Specific and detailed knowledge of a particular domain)

Software people have 2 of the 3. Plus they can collaborate easily using the open source model. I think wikipedia is proof that great things can be done without requiring "experts" with a great collaboration model.

I also think that a lot of economics is not relevant if you are going for a "no free enterprise" based system.

> "We are great at being objective and not being caught up in the zealotry that is coupled with the classical systems of capitalism, communism etc."

> With all due respect, are you kidding?

No one is perfect and we aren't free from bias. However, a big part of our jobs is choosing between options eg. technologies. We strive to diminish our egos and bias to make good choices. I think this attribute is very useful for the topic of societal systems which tends to be extremely polarizing (eg. https://www.reddit.com/r/Anarcho_Capitalism/).

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

#175

Post by witty_username »

jabl wrote: post #48
VodkaHaze wrote: post #40

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…

I'm not sure about corporate law, but I think you'd have to pay your corporation to access the car; otherwise you're violating the fiduciary duty (and also piercing the corporate veil).

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

#176

Post by BobTheCoder »

witty_username wrote: post #172
BobTheCoder wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree people seem to be either "the free market solves all problems" or "capitalism is slavery and must be destroyed" (but don't focus on an actual viable alternative). I'm chipping away on my own alternative which is a bit of a hybrid. Competition and inequality between individuals but not between groups within society. https://opensocialism.com/tldr-for-software-people is a good intro for IT people.

Ignoring human envy and jealousy, what is wrong with inequality between groups?

It isn't so much the inequality itself is bad, but rather having distinct groups that compete with each other. (Group inequality is an inevitable outcome of this but not the root issue). Group competition is bad simply because it is less efficient if your goal is for the maximum good for all people.

Say you have a valley and two tribes in it. If they fight for control of the valley they are expending resources in that competition. If they merge into one tribe then all resources can be spent on the good of all people.

https://opensocialism.com/open-socialism/arguments/the-free-... goes into these negatives in regards to capitalism.

Of course then there is the argument of 'but you can't get everyone to work together in the one group!' but with modern technology I think this is a solvable problem.

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

#177

Post by js8 »

jvm wrote: post #65
VodkaHaze wrote: post #2

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…

Rognlie also makes important critiques of Piketty's argument.[1] Piketty makes strong claims resting on declining labor share of capital. This is true, but is driven largely by an increase in owner-occupied rents in real estate, which suggests interpretations very different from Pikettys; namely that redistribution in the form of zoning and development restrictions has been the key driver rather than changes in the r…

This is perhaps a bit controversial, but I just can't take seriously any critique of Piketty that doesn't look at least 150 years back like he did. He (and his coworkers) did a lot of legwork on about 200-300 years of history, it's just amazing. You cannot dismiss his theory just on the basis of 50 years.

As you write: "redistribution in the form of zoning and development restrictions has been the key driver" - how do you know that without looking further back in time? It's like criticizing Galileo by saying "speed of fall of most objects is influenced by air resistance". It's a true statement, in a limited context (the Earth), but it doesn't disprove first Newton's law.

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

#178

Post by orasis »

quadrangle wrote: post #148
loki49152 wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The definition of evil is not based on being out of touch with reality. "Tragically flawed" would be a better term for what you are talking about.

I like to define "evil" as a cause whose effects compound negatively toward human wellbeing.

so I think their use of "evil" is fine.

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

#179

Post by crazy1van »

BobTheCoder wrote: post #176
witty_username wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ignoring human envy and jealousy, what is wrong with inequality between groups?

It isn't so much the inequality itself is bad, but rather having distinct groups that compete with each other. (Group inequality is an inevitable outcome of this but not the root issue). Group competition is bad simply because it is less efficient if your goal is for the maximum good for all people. Say you have a valley and two tribes in it. If they fight for control of the valley they are expending resources in tha…

> Group competition is bad simply because it is less efficient if your goal is for the maximum good for all people.

Humans are lazy and self interested. They work hard when they need to and competition provides the need. That goes for individuals as well as groups.

Would people try as hard to woo their future spouse if they were matched and promised to each other at birth? Why did my comcast service get faster and cheaper as soon as verizon entered my community?

Competition is painful, but it motivates us to be better.

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

#180

Post by ap22213 »

witty_username wrote: post #173
ap22213 wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By that description, it sounds like a Bogeyman [1] to me. Anyway, I live in a mostly Capitalist system, and it's also authoritarian. The only thing that seems to keep it from spiraling into complete evil is that a democratic Leviathan [2] happens to rule over it. (Of course, the capitalism is always in a constant assault for control). What's funny to me is that I have several neighbors who fervently describe themselv…

> What's funny to me is that I have several neighbors who fervently describe themselves as pro-capitalist libertarians. Yet, when I'm out of coffee or I need my driveway plowed, they do it for free. Why is that? Probably because we are all friends and have common culture and mutual trust. Even if there is no money involved, you may repay such favors in the future when they ask you. So it's more like borrowing a favor…

With regard to neighbors, there is hard-wired reciprocity involved. And, if one doesn't reciprocate, they may eventually be cut off from future generosity. On the other hand, many people genuinely get pleasure out of helping others. And, there are certain classes of people to whom special treatment is given - like the elderly and children.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not a communist, and I'm not completely against capitalism. Capitalism can be beneficial, especially in distributing resources. And, I understand and agree that capitalism is not a zero sum game (at least at the instant of the transaction). But, transactions are rarely equally beneficial. In fact, in the long run, transactions can actually harm one or more parties, especially those indirectly affected. And, based on my observations, it seems easiest to 'win at capitalism' via monopoly, deception, manipulation, trickery, and abusing intent.

Furthermore, what do we with those who are just unable to produce anything of value? it's implied that they just die.

So, generally, I'm not a fan of it (although I've also made a lot of money from it). But, what I dislike even more is the cop-out that it's somehow impossible for us to do better - that somehow 'natural laws' prevent it.

Post reply on HN