Live data from Hacker News

Why Are Economists Giving Piketty the Cold Shoulder? (2017)

bostonreview.net

51–60 of 143 posts

Re: Why Are Economists Giving Piketty the Cold Shoulder? (2017)

#51
> This dearth of reaction to such a critical work...

It's a five year old book, of course no one is talking about it specifically anymore. (And when it came out, everyone was talking about it.)

And "nobody is talking about inequality" is ridiculous. I've been to three major conferences in the last six months and there were multiple whole sessions on inequality. And not just income inequality. Educational, environmental even. It's not the only thing economists talk about, but far from "no one" is looking at it.

Re: Why Are Economists Giving Piketty the Cold Shoulder? (2017)

#52
post #35
post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have some problems with that same quote. The "disproportionate price appreciation of housing and the land it sits on" seems to me to be primarily a factor only in some (maybe most) large cities; outside those cities, price appreciation, perhaps excessive price appreciation, has occurred, but it's nothing like that in those few cities. My feeling is that, sure, the effect of real estate prices are large in real term…

Unless all the startup funding in the valley is going to pitch decks about real estate I don't see how your tldr follows.

Let's see a hypothetical:

Patrick Gonnagle went to Stanford and really likes living in the Bay area. He also invented the idea of facebook for dogs and made a crap-ton of money in the dotcom era. Nowadays, he spends most of his time trying to out-do his peers in the nuevo-crap-ton-o'-money crowd with his extensive collection of Pia Zadora's underpants.

The rest of the time, however, P-Gon (as he likes to be called) finds smart, idealistic, entertaining, and attractive young people, mostly from Stanford, and gives them large sums of money in exchange for a significant share of any future large sums of money their idealistic and entertaining activities will bring in.

The idealistic and smart people like to get advice, recognition, and affirmation from P-Gon, and he likes to keep an eye on his investments (not to mention the advantage of showing off his cadre of minions to his peer group). So, they all have to live, work, eat, etc. in close proximity. P-Gon lives at the top of the Transamerica pyramid (literally; he built his 12,000 sq ft bedroom on the very pointy top of it). Fortunately, the I&S folks are being showered in cash (well, not literally; P-Gon has a swimming pool full of giant tapioca balls and $1000 bills that he makes them do laps in (hence "funding round")), so they have plenty of money to pay for suitable hovels.

Lather, rinse, repeat for a couple of generations and you discover that rents are stupid ridiculous in the area of the giant fountain o' money. Which theoretically could be somewhat remedied, maybe, except that P-Gon doesn't want horrible brutalist high-rise apartment complexes blocking his view of the Tenderloin.

Re: Why Are Economists Giving Piketty the Cold Shoulder? (2017)

#53
post #3

Because, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!". Economists' careers as receivers of grants, policy advisors, members of prestigious think tanks and organizations, and pundits, depends on being good at promoting whatever aligns with the elite's interests. The scientific parts of economics are merely applied math (including game theory), and quite…

This comment manages to mix some elitist contempt of the arts with a whiff of conspiracy theory, while not saying anything of substance about Piketty’s work. Well done!

Thanks. You've managed to be personally insulting without adding anything of substance, to my comment, Piketty's work, or to the general question of why economists would shun it.

I've particularly enjoyed the "elitist contempt of the arts" part (whatever that means, since "contempt of the arts" is usually base, not elitist, not to mention the fact that I don't mention "the arts" at all), and the thought-stopper accusation of "conspiracy" (who dare think that scholars would ever align themselves to convenient output to benefit their careers and pockets, in this best of all possible worlds! As Gore Vidal once put it "Americans have been trained by media to go into Pavlovian giggles at the mention of 'conspiracy' because for an American to believe in a conspiracy he must also believe in flying saucers or, craziest of all, that more than one person was involved in the JFK murder"). Well done.

Re: Why Are Economists Giving Piketty the Cold Shoulder? (2017)

#54
post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To an extent, I suspect you're right. I further suspect that economists, as a field, will continue to claim that their models, metrics, theories, and policy advice are good, while complaining about the inexplicable rise of populism, right up until somebody sets up a guillotine in front of Goldman-Sachs. (Populism is easy to explain: the peasants are revolting.)

Populism is a major problem, and one which is based on unscrupulous politicians taking advantage of the ignorance and prejudice while promissing unrealisting and outright impossible solutions to problems that they missrepresent and even invent. And that has absolutely zero to do with science in general and economic models in particular. Time and again we see populist politicians fanning up the masses with anti-capita…

>Populism is a major problem, and one which is based on unscrupulous politicians taking advantage of the ignorance and prejudice while promissing unrealisting and outright impossible solutions to problems that they missrepresent and even invent.

Isn't that also what the elites (say, the 10%-ers) have historically also said for realistic and entirely possible solutions (like beheading the King and building a democratic state, or stopping segregation, or extending the vote to women, or adding labor protections, or welfare, and so on), that they felt were beneath them, because they were demanded by the populace and went against their interests as a class?

Every modern right has been established by struggles, parties, mass revolts, and so on, deemed "populist", "vulgar", "irresponsible", and "destructive" at the time by those opposing them.

Every single one of them.

Re: Why Are Economists Giving Piketty the Cold Shoulder? (2017)

#55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. Capital was years in the making and contained an unprecedented amount of historical empirical data to support its central thesis, and it gets ignored. Meanwhile, Reinhart-Rogoff, a fraudulent paper full of elementary statistical and programming errors that should’ve gotten its authors fired, was loudly paraded around as gospel by politicians on both sides of the Atlantic. Guess which one served elite interes…

It's outright stupid to pin the blame on what you perceive to be a problem on a single academic paper, even if it was authored by outstanding academics such as Reinhart or Rogoff. It's even stupider to argue that scientists should be fired for publishing a paper that goes against your political values.

> even if it was authored by outstanding academics such as Reinhart or Rogoff

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

> argue that scientists should be fired for publishing a paper that goes against your political values

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Re: Why Are Economists Giving Piketty the Cold Shoulder? (2017)

#56
post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To an extent, I suspect you're right. I further suspect that economists, as a field, will continue to claim that their models, metrics, theories, and policy advice are good, while complaining about the inexplicable rise of populism, right up until somebody sets up a guillotine in front of Goldman-Sachs. (Populism is easy to explain: the peasants are revolting.)

Populism is a major problem, and one which is based on unscrupulous politicians taking advantage of the ignorance and prejudice while promissing unrealisting and outright impossible solutions to problems that they missrepresent and even invent. And that has absolutely zero to do with science in general and economic models in particular. Time and again we see populist politicians fanning up the masses with anti-capita…

It relates to economic models insofar as said models are used to justify the persistence of certain inequalities in society. The existence of these inequalities can then be exploited by populists in their rhetoric.

Re: Why Are Economists Giving Piketty the Cold Shoulder? (2017)

#57
post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To an extent, I suspect you're right. I further suspect that economists, as a field, will continue to claim that their models, metrics, theories, and policy advice are good, while complaining about the inexplicable rise of populism, right up until somebody sets up a guillotine in front of Goldman-Sachs. (Populism is easy to explain: the peasants are revolting.)

Populism is a major problem, and one which is based on unscrupulous politicians taking advantage of the ignorance and prejudice while promissing unrealisting and outright impossible solutions to problems that they missrepresent and even invent. And that has absolutely zero to do with science in general and economic models in particular. Time and again we see populist politicians fanning up the masses with anti-capita…

Thing is populists tactics wouldn't get as much traction if the prejudice was not as bad, or worsening in the first place. Populism starts as a natural consequence of misery and lack of education, then becomes a cause that keeps reinforcing itself until the guillotine moment.

Solving the populism issue means tackling the root issues it feeds from first.

Re: Why Are Economists Giving Piketty the Cold Shoulder? (2017)

#58
post #3

Because, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!". Economists' careers as receivers of grants, policy advisors, members of prestigious think tanks and organizations, and pundits, depends on being good at promoting whatever aligns with the elite's interests. The scientific parts of economics are merely applied math (including game theory), and quite…

> Because, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!". Alternative hypothesis: they disagree. Disagreeing isn't ignoring. It isn't a conspiracy. It's just disagreement. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na%C3%AFve_realism_(psychology...

>Disagreeing isn't ignoring. It isn't a conspiracy. It's just disagreement.

I've read a lot of those "disagreements". Most of them are thinly veil-led attacks and facile dismissals, the kind that pass for criticism in mass media today.

Re: Why Are Economists Giving Piketty the Cold Shoulder? (2017)

#59
post #3

Because, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!". Economists' careers as receivers of grants, policy advisors, members of prestigious think tanks and organizations, and pundits, depends on being good at promoting whatever aligns with the elite's interests. The scientific parts of economics are merely applied math (including game theory), and quite…

Yay. Another bash on the actually hard sciences such as neuroscience and biology, you know, the sciences that have to contend with complexity.

Who said anything about them? Or complexity?

Re: Why Are Economists Giving Piketty the Cold Shoulder? (2017)

#60
post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yay. Another bash on the actually hard sciences such as neuroscience and biology, you know, the sciences that have to contend with complexity.

Who said anything about them? Or complexity?

you mention psychology, then go on the mention the hard sciences.
Post reply on HN