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

201–210 of 325 posts

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

#201

Post by aminok »

vanderZwan wrote: post #199
aminok wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A tax break is not government intervention.. And no, it hasn't been all 'right-wing' intervention, though I'd certainly agree that there has been a lot of that. There's been a ton of new 'left-wing' intervention in the form of growing welfare programs and authoritarian prohibitions on free association a la affirmative action, anti-private-discrimination laws, etc.

When you are a sculptor, you can (among other materials) use clay or marble. With clay, you start with nothing and fill up the space until you get the shape you desire. With marble, you start with a slab and cut out the bits until all that is left is the statue you desire. You're claiming that only one of these two things is sculpting, and the other is not.

The government doesn't own what we receive in private trade. Taxing what we earn is government intervention. This is the conventional understanding. What you're doing is what Orwell describes as doublespeak.

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

#202

Post by aminok »

loki49152 wrote: post #140
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.

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.

Communism is evil on a nightmarish scale because it advocates for violating an entire population's right to 1. their property, and to 2. engage in economic activity with other consenting adults.

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

#203

Post by aminok »

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.

You have no moral right to use violent force against someone to force them to give up their private property for the crime of having more than another person. The goal of eliminating resource inequality absolutely does not justify this violation.

It's totally absurd on so many levels.

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

#204

Post by vanderZwan »

aminok wrote: post #200
vanderZwan wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You reject an entire line of thinking before even reading into it, because you make assumptions about what you think a few key-words mean in a particular context.

You're assuming I didn't read it. Maybe you're psychologically projecting.

No, I'm concluding it because I have read it so know disconnected from reality your interpretation is.

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

#205

Post by drieddust »

aminok wrote: post #196
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 think anti-free-market ideologies like Piketty's are deeply authoritarian and violent. What does it mean to reject the free market? It means rejecting a right of a person to 1. keep what they receive in private trade, and to 2. engage in any voluntary interaction they wish with another consenting adult, especially if it involves the exchange of currency (god forbid!). As a corollary to this, it means prying into pe…

> I think anti-free-market ideologies like Piketty's are deeply authoritarian and violent.

I watched the whole video I didn't see him arguing with authority and violence. He said there can be other factors and he wants to open up a debate.

> As a corollary to this, it means prying into people's personal affairs to determine how much in income tax they owe ...

His argument is to have finanacial transparency which does not mean taxing everything.

As far as progressive taxation is concerned, Organised groups or individuals generate Income by exploiting resources which are either natural or is generated by other individuals. Towards what end they accumulate this wealth? To use within the social framework? So when they use that money won't it impacts society? so I actually fail to understand why they should not be income taxes?

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

#206

Post by vanderZwan »

aminok wrote: post #201
vanderZwan wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you are a sculptor, you can (among other materials) use clay or marble. With clay, you start with nothing and fill up the space until you get the shape you desire. With marble, you start with a slab and cut out the bits until all that is left is the statue you desire. You're claiming that only one of these two things is sculpting, and the other is not.

The government doesn't own what we receive in private trade. Taxing what we earn is government intervention. This is the conventional understanding. What you're doing is what Orwell describes as doublespeak.

> doublespeak

This is rich coming from someone equating financial intervention with violence.

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

#207

Post by aminok »

ap22213 wrote: post #197
lliamander wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. I don't wish to presume anything about you specifically, but I find that your neighbor's behavior only seems paradoxical to those…

Excuse my ignorance, but how can one then have a concept of property without implying the use of force?

Force in defense of property is self-defense. Force in pursuit of other people's property is aggression. Aggression is the problem, not force in general.

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

#208

Post by witty_username »

ap22213 wrote: post #180
witty_username wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 capita…

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

Capitalism doesn't stop a person from donating to those people. Indeed, that's what happens through the government.

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

#209

Post by aminok »

drieddust wrote: post #205
aminok wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think anti-free-market ideologies like Piketty's are deeply authoritarian and violent. What does it mean to reject the free market? It means rejecting a right of a person to 1. keep what they receive in private trade, and to 2. engage in any voluntary interaction they wish with another consenting adult, especially if it involves the exchange of currency (god forbid!). As a corollary to this, it means prying into pe…

> I think anti-free-market ideologies like Piketty's are deeply authoritarian and violent. I watched the whole video I didn't see him arguing with authority and violence. He said there can be other factors and he wants to open up a debate. > As a corollary to this, it means prying into people's personal affairs to determine how much in income tax they owe ... His argument is to have finanacial transparency which does…

He supports heavy taxes on private property. Tax laws are based on violence.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/enforcin...

>Enforcing the Law Is Inherently Violent

>A Yale law professor suggests that oft-ignored truth should inform debates about what statutes and regulations to codify.

Socialist ideology relies exclusively on aggressive violence.

>His argument is to have finanacial transparency which does not mean taxing everything.

Transparency is a euphemism for violating people's privacy.

>As far as progressive taxation is concerned, Organised groups or individuals generate Income by exploiting resources which are either natural or is generated by other individuals. Towards what end they accumulate this wealth?

"exploiting" is such a leftist buzzword. People in a market generate income by trading something of value that they generate for currency that others freely give them. Their income is what they receive through private trade. They come under no moral obligation to provide income to other co-nationalists simply as a consequence of making private trades.

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

#210

Post by witty_username »

21echoes wrote: post #181
witty_username wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> Ignoring [the mental state of the people being optimized for], what is wrong with inequality between groups? A bit cheeky, I know, but I don't think you can just write off emotional results of systems. But to answer in better faith: I think [Rawls's Veil of Ignorance thought experiment]( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil_of_ignorance ) is a good response here. In short (skipping how he arrives at the conclusion):…

Then the issue is poverty and not inequality.

If tomorrow everyone else had 1 billion real dollars and I had the same real dollars as now; it doesn't affect me.

Post reply on HN