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

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

#131

Post by orthecreedence » Thu, Mar 26, 2020, 9:12 PM UTC

nemo wrote: post #18

0x262d wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Looking through some of the comments, I want to add that Piketty talks much more clearly about these topics and makes better points than most consensus economists, pundits, etc, so I'm glad people are reading him rather than eg NYT columnists. But I think people who find this sort of thing interesting would find marxism's analysis of the economy much more interesting and convincing. Start with Wage Labour And Capital…

Anyone interested in Marx should read Bertrand Russel's critiques of Marxism and his analysis of the Manifesto with an honest mind. The Hegelianism behind Marxism is a tool that can prove both that the Kingdom of Prussia in the 1760s was a reflection of God's will, as well as giving Marx the idea that he had a scientific approach to history that let him predict the future. Any tool of reasoning that can prove anythin…

> [LTV is] an idea long since thoroughly discredited

Not really? It has neither been proven nor disproven, not because of unsoundness in theory, but because of lack of ability to measure the data needed to (dis)prove it (http://bnarchives.yorku.ca/308/2/20101200_cockshott_nitzan_b...).

On top of this, sure Marx made some bad predictions, but the breadth of his work was not predicting the future or describing what a socialist economy looks like, but the analysis of capitalism and the social relations that form around it. This analysis is still extremely relevant, regardless of his value theory. Sure some people cling to it and pretend all parts of Capital are still relevant even though things have changed drastically, but that doesn't negate all of Marx's work or ideas.

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

#132

Post by lukifer » Thu, Mar 26, 2020, 9:13 PM UTC

Kalium wrote: post #70

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…

I've witnessed two modes at work here. One is elites deciding that since their sympathies are in the right places, they must know what the concerns of the working class are. Since they're better educated, they're also clearly best equipped to address those concerns! The other is highly educated people feeling economically unprivileged and concluding that this now means they are the working class and what's in their i…

> The other is highly educated people feeling economically unprivileged and concluding that this now means they are the working class

Well said. I cringe a little whenever I hear a complaint like "we're the first generation who won't be as well off as our parents", usually from educated young adults who've never known what it's like to have your utilities shut off, or not know where your next week of meals is coming from.

I don't mean to trivialize issues like health care costs, student debt, or general economic anxiety; those problems are real, and go far beyond finger-wagging admonitions to "stop wasting money on lattes and experiences". But there's absolutely a conflation by many young college graduates that because they face uphill economic challenges (relative to their middle-class norms), that they must be in the same category as the hand-to-mouth working class. To the extent that creates political solidarity, great; but quite often, it belies selfishness and entitlement, with no awareness of, or gratitude for, much better they have it than the majority of the planet.

(Full disclosure: I have a bit of a grudge against twenty-somethings at the moment, for talking a big game, and then failing to show up to the primaries this year.)

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

#133

Post by amatthew » Thu, Mar 26, 2020, 9:22 PM UTC

refurb wrote: post #104

bisRepetita wrote: post #101

I am reading Capital & Idelogy currently. I find interesting how Piketty challenges the view of property rights. Many think it is something completely natural, sacred. But he shows it is actually ideology. It is not "the nature of things". As I understand it in the book, property is not, and should not be seen as, a 100% inalienable human right. If it was so, it would be completely fair that slave-owners in Haiti and…

Of course property rights are ideology. Anything to do with society and how it's organized is ideological. I think we ended up with private property because the alternatives have been tried and they are worse (e.g. tragedy of the commons).

I mean, Elinor Ostrom won a Nobel Prize for saying that there are loads of great alternatives besides choosing between property rights and the tragedy of the commons.

https://econ.ucsb.edu/~tedb/Courses/UCSBpf/readings/OstromSJ...

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

#134

Post by mytailorisrich » Thu, Mar 26, 2020, 9:24 PM UTC

bisRepetita wrote: post #123

refurb wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course property rights are ideology. Anything to do with society and how it's organized is ideological. I think we ended up with private property because the alternatives have been tried and they are worse (e.g. tragedy of the commons).

>I think we ended up with private property because the alternatives have been tried and they are worse (e.g. tragedy of the commons) I don't thinl it is all or nothing. Private property is overall a very good idea and principle, and Piketty says that too. But when someone sees property it as inalienable right, at any level, is a problem. For example, if one person talks about a tax based on wealth, two people can hav…

I think that the idea of private property as an inalienable right is rooted in the enlightenment and on the same level as human rights.

It is to protect individuals against spoliation by the state or powerful, and even to assert an even more basic right to own property at all. It obviously does not mean that property cannot be taken away from its owner but that this must follow a fair and lawful process.

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

#135

Post by mongol » Thu, Mar 26, 2020, 9:26 PM UTC

naravara wrote: post #121

mongol wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There can be too much of everything and there was too much of "social democracy" in the 70s. Author Astrid Lindgren had to pay more than 100 % tax and wrote the "childrens story" / opinion piece "Pomperipossa in Monismania" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pomperipossa_in_Monismania Next election the social democrats lost it for the first time in 40 years.

That doesn't sound like "too much Social Democracy" so much as a badly designed law that had a weird edge case.

It is not proof in itself, far from it, but it was very debated at the time as indication of social democracy having gone to far. The fact remains, social democrats lost power at this time. However the new ruling parties were unable to reform properly. True reform only started to happen about 10 years later, in the mid 1980s or so. Johan Norberg in the documentary mentions the (social democratic) finance minister Kjell-Olof Feldt as influencal in bringing change about. I agree with that.

Sweden today is very different from the 70s, politically.

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

#136

Post by alehul » Thu, Mar 26, 2020, 9:29 PM UTC

HappySweeney wrote: post #86

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 are only in favour by a scant few individuals, and is in no way a standard position of the left. This idea is a lie told by right-wing propagandists.

A substantial portion of Americans advocate for the abolition of ICE, most of whom are on the left. [1]

I'm not commenting on whether that's right or wrong, but it certainly suggests that the left favors open borders.

[1] https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/11/immigration-ice-ab...

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

#137

Post by cle » Thu, Mar 26, 2020, 9:30 PM UTC

refurb wrote: post #106

lliamander wrote: post #99

I was watching a documentary[1] about Sweden's shift away from social democracy in the 70's/80's time-frame that Piketty talks about. From the way it sounds, the program of social democracy nearly destroyed the country. I would take Piketty's nostalgia for those times with a grain of salt. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QcX6BUZlEw4

I have a theory that lessons learned by humanity are quickly forgotten after a few generations and thus we are condemned to trying the same old ideas (with slight tweaks) again until the current generation figures out they don't work.

Conversely, sometimes constraints and situations are different enough that "failed" ideas might succeed under the new constraints. The world is not a static place, and the environments in which many lessons were learned may not be relevant anymore.

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

#138

Post by take_a_breath » Thu, Mar 26, 2020, 9:31 PM UTC

refurb wrote: post #118

take_a_breath wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can never find this left block of "open borders" support. Can you provide some sources?

Really? It's pretty widely reported in the media.[1] [1] https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/democrats-double-...

One opinion article, in the Washington Examiner, doesn't equate to being "widely reported". The only links on that article send you to other op-eds by the same author. This isn't reporting.

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

#139

Post by dublinben » Thu, Mar 26, 2020, 9:33 PM UTC

frant-hartm wrote: post #96

hkmurakami wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One thing to remember is that everyone thinks they're "middle class". Even the corporate VP making half a million dollars thinks she's middle class.

If you stop working an can't live off your savings indefinitely you are middle class by definition.

That's the definition of working class. Middle class and working class are not the same thing, even if they significantly overlap.

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

#140

Post by defterGoose » Thu, Mar 26, 2020, 9:34 PM UTC

alejohausner wrote: post #126

defterGoose wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sadly true. Guess it's war then?

The Black Death and the world wars were catastrophes that led to greater equality. Peace and stability tend to favour the wealthy, and lead to greater inequality.

In exact analogy to a pack of hyenas taking down a pride of lions.