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

261–270 of 325 posts

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

#261

Post by drieddust »

aminok wrote: post #195
gilgongo wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While the idea of government intervention in the free market is classically dismissed by right-wing politics, the reality of the past 40 years has been heavy intervention by US and many other Western governments. However, unlike the forms of left-wing intervention that free-market thinkers decry, this intervention takes the form of tax breaks, bail-outs and guarantees against market failures by governments to industr…

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.

> A tax break is not government intervention..

It is, a big corporation should not be served a bread buttered on both sides. Tax break is a form of risk mitigation. Corporations are supposed to be awarded tax break to allow them to take risks and move us forward. Does it really happen?[1].

I am not sure why a big group whose over all interest is to preserve status quo should be allowed tax break and keep on earning billions in return. Why they should not be allowed to die if they are can't compete?

[1] https://www.ted.com/talks/mariana_mazzucato_government_inves...

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

#262

Post by aninhumer »

aminok wrote: post #257
aninhumer wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where "violating human rights" apparently means "not using government violence to enforce exclusive control of resources by individuals". I'm not against capitalism as an economic system, but I find this moralising of its means rather than its end to be very distasteful.

First of all, without the principle, human economic activity would simply be impossible. In fact, it is the most central principle of all human rights. Without homesteading, we cannot own our own bodies. Appropriation of natural resources is the process by which we assert a right over the bodily material that food (originally unclaimed natural resources) turns into. Second, if the government merely stopped protecting…

>without the principle, human economic activity would simply be impossible.

Nonsense, non-captialist societies may have been less effective, but they were obviously still engaged in economic activity. Unless you define economic activity to mean "trade within a property system" in which case it's a meaningless tautology.

> Without homesteading, we cannot own our own bodies. Appropriation of natural resources is the process by which we assert a right over the bodily material that food (originally unclaimed natural resources) turns into.

That seems like an unnecessarily morbid way to derive the kind of morality you're talking about. (Seriously, we can only have rights because we turned food we owned into our flesh?) I prefer to define my morality in terms of people not property.

>But communism advocates the government being the primary instrument by which people aggressively prevent others from existing as independent economic agents

By which you mean, prevent them from withholding resources from other people.

Again, I'm not saying Communism is good, I just object to the way you're arguing that the problem is breaking some arbitrary principles you like, rather than the very real suffering it caused.

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

#263

Post by aminok »

drieddust wrote: post #254
aminok wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Do you have any references? http://taxfoundation.org/article/what-would-piketty-s-80-per... >As far as Law and Violence is concerned, I agree voilence to some degree may be involved. So what is your alternative? No Law every man/group for himself? The violence of Law should be applied exclusively against those who violate the human rights of others. It should not be used to take property from one group to give to an…

Quoting from the article you are referring to: > He recommends a global wealth tax and, for the United States, top income tax rates of 80 percent on income above $500,000 or $1 million to combat inequality and 50 or 60 percent on income above about $200,000 to combat inequality and grow the government. First of all I haven't read the book yet so can't comment on the numbers.This limit can very well be a million or a…

>This limit can very well be a million or a few millions.

An income tax rate of 80 percent on any income bracket is extremely heavy according to my definition of a 'heavy tax', as is a tax amounting to 2-10% of the value of privately owned assets. His proposal is of the typical disastrous socialist variety that show an utter misunderstanding of how capital is formed.

>You are circumventing the basic question. From where property came from? Did individual said "Let there be property" and property came into existence?

You didn't ask that question. I answered it here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12829401

>No, property is a result of individual's or an organized group's utilization of natural or human resources.

Acquiring property is a result of an individual utilizing their own property, or the human resources that others freely give them, in a manner that generates value.

Piketty's proposal is to violate people's human rights. The fact that it's done through taxation rather than communist-style expropriation of the means of production doesn't change that.

>We are discussing taxation of higher income not some petty transaction between individual player. However,

The principle doesn't change because the values involved increase. A sound principle is universal, and not arbitrarily stop being morally applicable due to considerations relating to the sum involved. There is no sound principle for a tax on income or private property.

>if we take your argument to its logical conclusion and imagine a billion dollar Multi-National making the same argument that I am just bartering few thousand tonnes of clay with few hundred tonnes of seashell so we aren't responsible for soil erosion and extinction of species.

But I used clay as my example because it is abundant.

If we are going to change the fundamental premise of the example, and assume a scarce natural resource is being appropriated, then society could certainly charge a fee for the act of appropriating the natural resource.

Let's say that each tonne of iron ore extracted from the crust costs society $10.00 in diminishment of natural resources, and in environmental damage. Let's say society charges an iron ore miner $50 to extract a tonne of iron ore, to compensate for these costs.

Now if the iron ore miner pays the fee, mines the ore, smelts the iron, and fashions the iron into an incredible machine, you have absolutely no right to what the machine produces. An income tax is not a tax on using scarce natural resources, or a charge for damaging the environment. It is robbery against someone successfully generating economic value. It is a human rights violation.

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

#264

Post by aninhumer »

aminok wrote: post #260
aninhumer wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And sure, these are reasonable answers, but they're starting to show complexity, and people aren't necessarily going to agree that they're obviously fair.

Society is complex, and trying to explain a principle and its application in all possible permutations will require an indepth explanation, but the overall concept is coherent and straightforward. I wouldn't call it ambiguous. Regarding people disagreeing: people also didn't agree that ending ritual sacrifice and slavery were fair, but I don't believe many reasonable people would disagree on the general outlines of w…

Well for what it's worth, I think property is an effective economic system which should be utilised to the extent that it leads to good outcomes. I think arguing about a philosophical notion of property rights is ultimately pointless if a system that enforces them doesn't lead to better outcomes than one that flagrantly violates them.

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

#265

Post by aminok »

aninhumer wrote: post #264
aminok wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Society is complex, and trying to explain a principle and its application in all possible permutations will require an indepth explanation, but the overall concept is coherent and straightforward. I wouldn't call it ambiguous. Regarding people disagreeing: people also didn't agree that ending ritual sacrifice and slavery were fair, but I don't believe many reasonable people would disagree on the general outlines of w…

Well for what it's worth, I think property is an effective economic system which should be utilised to the extent that it leads to good outcomes. I think arguing about a philosophical notion of property rights is ultimately pointless if a system that enforces them doesn't lead to better outcomes than one that flagrantly violates them.

I guess we can agree to disagree on that. I think if we step out of the philosophical, it's clear what private property rights are at the level of principle. True, there is a lot of disagreement in relation to specific cases, but I think that's due to superficial understandings people have about these cases, and that once the complexities of the given situation are elucidated, there would mostly be agreement on what a person has private property rights to.

As for outcomes, knowing what we know about incentives and how they affect the behavior of economic agents, and extrapolating the effect of the evolutionary processes of the market, it's inconceivable to me that violating private property rights would result in better outcomes in relation to increasing economic output over the long-run, than protecting them.

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

#266

Post by sangnoir »

ignasl wrote: post #192
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…

"capitalism capitalism capitalism" - Absolutely all countries are capitalistic including USSR and North Korea. The only difference is who controls the capital. To be for or against capitalism is the same as to be for or against the wind. Ironically in free market capitalism capital actually belongs to people and the more left leaning the country is the more capital and power belongs to some of the selected few who go…

How does your theory explain Nordic countries vs the UK/US? They are more to the left and yet more equitable.

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

#267

Post by humanrebar »

stale2002 wrote: post #87
stinkytaco wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Groups of people have the right to speak collectively.

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

#268

Post by aninhumer »

aminok wrote: post #265
aninhumer wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well for what it's worth, I think property is an effective economic system which should be utilised to the extent that it leads to good outcomes. I think arguing about a philosophical notion of property rights is ultimately pointless if a system that enforces them doesn't lead to better outcomes than one that flagrantly violates them.

I guess we can agree to disagree on that. I think if we step out of the philosophical, it's clear what private property rights are at the level of principle. True, there is a lot of disagreement in relation to specific cases, but I think that's due to superficial understandings people have about these cases, and that once the complexities of the given situation are elucidated, there would mostly be agreement on what…

My impression is that completely unhindered property rights lead to ever amplifying inequality, as those who own capital are more able to earn money than those who do not.

I think a Capitalist system needs to be paired with a wealth redistribution mechanism to damp that amplification, such that inequality can only ever be maintained by constant effort.

EDIT: And while you may be right, I think being unable to conceive of ways in which you may be wrong speaks poorly of your imagination.

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

#269

Post by aminok »

aninhumer wrote: post #262
aminok wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First of all, without the principle, human economic activity would simply be impossible. In fact, it is the most central principle of all human rights. Without homesteading, we cannot own our own bodies. Appropriation of natural resources is the process by which we assert a right over the bodily material that food (originally unclaimed natural resources) turns into. Second, if the government merely stopped protecting…

>without the principle, human economic activity would simply be impossible. Nonsense, non-captialist societies may have been less effective, but they were obviously still engaged in economic activity. Unless you define economic activity to mean "trade within a property system" in which case it's a meaningless tautology. > Without homesteading, we cannot own our own bodies. Appropriation of natural resources is the pr…

>Nonsense, non-captialist societies may have been less effective, but they were obviously still engaged in economic activity.

There has never been an economic system that has has zero defence for private property rights (in the abstract sense of one having exclusive rights to that which they appropriate from the natural world or receive from another legitimate owner). The soviet union had small privately owned farms. North Korea has black markets that are widely tolerated by authorities. But even at a more basic level, having an exclusive right to the food that the state gives you is an exercise of private property rights. Economic existence would not be possible with zero observance of economic independence between individuals.

>That seems like an unnecessarily morbid way to derive the kind of morality you're talking about. (Seriously, we can only have rights because we turned food we owned into our flesh?)

I see it in an opposite way. I see property as really our own person. I use the term 'property' because that is better understood. But morally, I think it's more appropriate to see the things we own as an extension of our person, and not as a separate class of matter we call property.

>By which you mean, prevent them from withholding resources from other people.

Withholding resources you created through your own effort, or acquired through private trade trade, is self-defense in my opinion. I think this is common sense and consistent with how we commonly define rights.

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

#270

Post by aminok »

aninhumer wrote: post #268
aminok wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess we can agree to disagree on that. I think if we step out of the philosophical, it's clear what private property rights are at the level of principle. True, there is a lot of disagreement in relation to specific cases, but I think that's due to superficial understandings people have about these cases, and that once the complexities of the given situation are elucidated, there would mostly be agreement on what…

My impression is that completely unhindered property rights lead to ever amplifying inequality, as those who own capital are more able to earn money than those who do not. I think a Capitalist system needs to be paired with a wealth redistribution mechanism to damp that amplification, such that inequality can only ever be maintained by constant effort. EDIT: And while you may be right, I think being unable to conceiv…

I don't believe that inequality justifies violence to force people to give up the currency they receive in private trade (to pay an income tax).

I also don't believe that inequality is a natural outcome of a market economy. The market will favor efficiency above all things, because it is an iterative process that rewards good utilizers/investors of capital with greater allocations of capital, and it is not efficient for 5 people to own and direct as much capital as 150 million people. More individual owners of capital means much more attention being given in the management of each unit of capital, resulting in higher returns on it.

The sources of income inequality need to be found in the government either not fulfilling its responsibility to manage the commons in the interest of the public, or in authoritarian prohibitions that disproportionately harm the less wealthy and the poor.

Free-market inhibiting factors that could be contributing to income disparity:

* high fixed-costs for participating in business. Fixed costs, unlike variable costs, punish small businesses. Regulations are known in the economics field as a source of fixed costs. A very basic example: you can't offer stock in your company on a stock exchange without having millions of dollars to pay lawyers. This excludes millions of small businesses from one of the best sources of capital: the public stock market. More on regulations causing an upward distribution of income: Working Paper: The Upward Redistribution of Income: Are Rents the Story?: http://cepr.net/publications/reports/working-paper-the-upwar...

* high market transaction costs as a result of regulations and taxes. Why do high market transaction costs contribute to income disparity? Because non-market transactions internal to an organization are not subject to the costs imposed by regulations and taxes. This will result in large corporations having a competitive advantage over small ones that rely on market transactions for a greater portion of their activity. For example, a large corporation doesn't need to pay a sales tax to have its accounting department do an accounting job for it. A small corporation that pays an external company to do it does.

Post reply on HN