A review of Thomas Piketty’s “Capital and Ideology” • Hacker News Board

Re: A review of Thomas Piketty’s “Capital and Ideology”

#41

Post by marcosdumay » Thu, Mar 26, 2020, 7:41 PM UTC

specialist wrote: post #23

clairity wrote: post #4

> "[hyper-capitalism] is defined by unlimited international capital mobility to evade regulation and taxation at the national level, alongside definite limits on the ability of labor to act in the same autonomous way." such inequities imbalance the power between labor and capital, which then destabilizes the social structures resting on these economic (and political) foundations. power is a highly dynamic, and as a r…

I'd like all belligerants to pick a target Gini Coefficient number. Then we manage to that number. Whoever is in power will push the balance towards their number. I'm just so exhausted by all the rhetoric, kabuki, ideology, dogma, propaganda. Arguing about the placement of the deck chairs as the Titanic sinks.

We probably should do that. It would be a great governance and political variable.

We have targets for inflation and employment already, writing a Gini coefficient into law (in my country such thing would go into the Constitution) and forcing the government to chase it would be great.

Re: A review of Thomas Piketty’s “Capital and Ideology”

#42

Post by zwkrt » Thu, Mar 26, 2020, 7:42 PM UTC

worik wrote: post #34

simonh wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a fascinating book and deservedly highly influential, but please also read some of the rebuttals and counter-points for a good understanding of the issues.

The fundamental point (r>g) is irrefutable. It may be possible to claim that inequality does not matter. In the absence of poverty that may be possible, but when the richest country in the world (USA) has a health system that leas out ~20% of the population and one of the poorest (Cuba) has a gold plated health system, that is a hard claim to make.

Similar comparisons can be made between the US and otherwise ostsensibly 'poor' countries that provide free education.

Re: A review of Thomas Piketty’s “Capital and Ideology”

#43

Post by worik » Thu, Mar 26, 2020, 7:42 PM UTC

What is your definition of capitalism?

Re: A review of Thomas Piketty’s “Capital and Ideology”

#44

Post by champagneben » Thu, Mar 26, 2020, 7:43 PM UTC

tehjoker wrote: post #21

codingslave wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've always viewed it as paradoxical that the left is both: 1.) For the welfare of the worker, social programs, universal healthcare, "standard of living" 2.) Open borders immigration, free trade, outsourcing, and other ultra capitalist policies.

Open borders is anti-capitalist because it allows labor to move with the same liberty as capital, so it can help reduce the ability of capitalists to find deals. Without other policies it is atomizing and ineffective, but there is a good moral argument for it in that invisible lines shouldn't hamper freedom of movement for people. Nations are fake. The socialist left is against free trade and outsourcing. Period. We…

> Open borders is anti-capitalist because it allows labor to move with the same liberty as capital, so it can help reduce the ability of capitalists to find deals.

What? I seriously don't understand this. Find what deals? How does it make it harder?

> Nations are fake.

In what sense? Surely, given the opportunity, most people would prefer to live in Sweden as opposed to Liberia. Most would pick US citizenship over, say, Vietnamese.

Re: A review of Thomas Piketty’s “Capital and Ideology”

#45

Post by scylla » Thu, Mar 26, 2020, 7:45 PM UTC

refurb wrote: post #33

specialist wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd like all belligerants to pick a target Gini Coefficient number. Then we manage to that number. Whoever is in power will push the balance towards their number. I'm just so exhausted by all the rhetoric, kabuki, ideology, dogma, propaganda. Arguing about the placement of the deck chairs as the Titanic sinks.

Gini coefficient is a very blunt measure of inequality. You could have two countries, one with more equality, but a lower standard of living for the middle class and one country with higher inequality, but a much better standard of living for the middle class. The 2nd (with higher inequality) is obviously preferred.

> The 2nd (with higher inequality) is obviously preferred.

Is this really obvious to modern left?

Re: A review of Thomas Piketty’s “Capital and Ideology”

#46

Post by wycy » Thu, Mar 26, 2020, 7:45 PM UTC

geodel wrote: post #7

" “the Democratic Party in the United States transitioned over half a century from the workers’ party to the party of the highly educated.” Elites’ distance from working-class interest, he contends, led the Democratic party and its ideological counterparts abroad to accede to a policy program betraying the values of social democracy: regressive taxation, elite domination of higher education systems, and forms of glob…

This is painfully true. This is pretty well captured by the completely out of touch sentiments in [0], written by the folks at Crooked Media (generally Democratic establishment people). The wealthy upper middle class sees the coronavirus quarantine as just a chill time to work from home on a laptop and drink wine.

These people are not ignoring the plights of the poorer working class; they are altogether completely blind of it. They know that 3 million people just filed for unemployment, but they only know about it as an abstract statistic. The human cost is entirely lost on them.

[0] https://crooked.com/articles/we-are-doing-fine-coronavirus/

Re: A review of Thomas Piketty’s “Capital and Ideology”

#47

Post by worik » Thu, Mar 26, 2020, 7:45 PM UTC

NeutralCrane wrote: post #38

tehjoker wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Open borders is anti-capitalist because it allows labor to move with the same liberty as capital, so it can help reduce the ability of capitalists to find deals. Without other policies it is atomizing and ineffective, but there is a good moral argument for it in that invisible lines shouldn't hamper freedom of movement for people. Nations are fake. The socialist left is against free trade and outsourcing. Period. We…

> Open borders is anti-capitalist because it allows labor to move with the same liberty as capital, so it can help reduce the ability of capitalists to find deals. Except like so much with socialism, the reality and the hypothetical are in stark contrast. You are arguing that in theory, open borders allow for laborers to take their value to wherever it will benefit them the most. But in reality, it not particularly e…

Given the structural inequalities between USA and Mexico "opening the boarders" is impractical.

Given the structural inequalities between USA and Mexico allowing free movement of capital between USA and Mexico enriches USA and impoverishes Mexico.

Re: A review of Thomas Piketty’s “Capital and Ideology”

#48

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Mar 26, 2020, 7:46 PM UTC

zwkrt wrote: post #42

worik wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fundamental point (r>g) is irrefutable. It may be possible to claim that inequality does not matter. In the absence of poverty that may be possible, but when the richest country in the world (USA) has a health system that leas out ~20% of the population and one of the poorest (Cuba) has a gold plated health system, that is a hard claim to make.

Similar comparisons can be made between the US and otherwise ostsensibly 'poor' countries that provide free education.

[deleted]

Re: A review of Thomas Piketty’s “Capital and Ideology”

#49

Post by NeutralCrane » Thu, Mar 26, 2020, 7:47 PM UTC

_0ffh wrote: post #15

hardtke wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing I took away from Capital in the Twenty-First Century was his conjecture that the post-WWII (until about 1990) period was one of the few times in history that prosperity was widely shared with workers. The era that I consider to be normal (since I lived it) is in fact very abnormal.

Yeah, I realised that too at some point. And I immediately formed a (maybe obvious) hypothesis about the timing.

I'm assuming you don't mean communism? Because even in the book he is fairly down on communism/socialism. It seemed to me the more likely (and unpleasant) hypothesis is that war/nationalism generates growth like nothing else. When the threat of war looms and patriotism is high, government investment in technology and society is also high, and corporations are more likely to be invested in their home country rather than spreading across international boundaries looking for the best ROI. And the rapid succession of WWI/WWII/Cold War basically ensured that environment existed for decades.

Re: A review of Thomas Piketty’s “Capital and Ideology”

#50

Post by worik » Thu, Mar 26, 2020, 7:47 PM UTC

defterGoose wrote: post #2

We need only believe in the possibility of a better, different future to act. We need only act to manifest it. Go vote. Go work on things that truly matter. Edit: If you have ideological differences please consider posting a reply rather than just downvoting.

Good advice.

But in the face of power imbalances ineffective.