Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

bostonreview.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 218 posts

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

#141

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

mytailorisrich wrote: post #134
bisRepetita wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

The Enlightenment never really worked this through. In fact modern economics hijacks a lot of humanist rhetoric (including the idea of rationality and human rights) and glues it rather awkwardly onto concepts that are actually derived from monarchy - specifically individual sovereignty, and a kind of individualised version of divine right which elevates unlimited individual economic freedom-to-profit as the highest possible good.

It's actually a bit of a mess, conceptually and practically.

Property is really not a simple concept. Most people think of it as "Stuff I own" which reduces the argument to "I don't want the government stealing my house or my furniture," which sounds trivially obvious.

In fact all claims on property are complex - see also IP, stocks, and so on - and personal ownership is always a trade-off between individual benefits and socialised/externalised costs. This doesn't just apply to extreme situations like a war economy, or impounding the proceeds of crime - it's inherent in the practice itself.

You won't find much about that in orthodox economics.

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

#142

Post by lliamander »

fulafel wrote: post #107
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

Tl;dw documentary, but that's not a very common interpretation. That was the time when the nordic countries built their succesful system that's in place today and is widely held in high regard.

> Tl;dw documentary, but that's not a very common interpretation.

Perhaps, but something still has to explain why the nordic countries are considerably less socialist than they were in the 70's.

> That was the time when the nordic countries built their succesful system that's in place today and is widely held in high regard.

The argument in the documentary is that the wealth and success was built prior to the period of social democracy, and that abandoning the system was the necessary step to avoid collapse.

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

#143

Post by roenxi »

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…

> This is the kind of weird, morally unacceptable reasoning about property rights that you will run into if you accept property as a all-powerful, unconstestable principle.

The average person has no ability to connect past and future. Most people, when tested, struggle to connect yesterday with today. Typical people don't save enough, don't plan and don't risk assess. If society gives an inch on property rights as an all-powerful, uncontestable principle then how exactly are we supposed to give people who plan ahead enough power to influence the flow of society?

For example, we're currently facing what is probably a 1:100 year pandemic. There are specialists out there (actuaries, some entrepreneurs, some doctors) who are comfortable with thinking about 1:100 year pandemics. If property rights were truly unbreachable, those people would quite happily build up a strategic supply of masks, tinned food, etc, etc ready for deployment in a crisis. Their families would make out like bandits once every hundred years; we'd be minting people as wealthy as Croesus. They don't do that. Because it would be stupid to. Because in a crisis, property rights break down a bit and it would be quickly identified that they don't 'need' supplies for 100,000 people and they would be pressured to give up supplies at an economically irrational price.

Nigh unconstestable property rights and the ability to act like a bastard in the short term are critical tools for linking the past and the future. Break that at your peril. I know 95% of people don't care about that link as much as they'd like to; but the 5% who use it are the people who accomplish literally all the infrastructure creation and planning. You won't miss it until it is gone; even then most people don't seem to understand what is happening if the communist failures we see every decade or so are any guide.

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

#144

Post by uk_programmer »

clairity wrote: post #35
nemo wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> "[the Labor Theory of Value is] an idea long since thoroughly discredited." that's quite a claim to make without any backing ("everything is nothing" is not particularly useful). i've read some of the main critiques [0], but none thoroughly discredits it. yes, the critiques show flaws, but not fatal ones. so what's the fatal flaw? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticisms_of_the_labour_theor...

The labour theory of value is easily discredited. The market determines the value i.e. what people are willing to pay for something.

The labour theory of value is simply describing the cost of producing something. Whether people are willing to buy it as that price (which would be same as selling it at cost) is an entirely different matter.

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

#145

Post by dublinben »

alehul wrote: post #136
HappySweeney wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

The abolition of ICE is only tangentially related to relaxing immigration restrictions or "open borders." ICE is a domestic law enforcement agency which persecutes and deports people who are already in the country. It wasn't even created until 2002.

The borders are policed and enforced by Customs and Border Protection (CBP), specifically Border Patrol.

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

#146

Post by nemo »

alehul wrote: post #136
HappySweeney wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

ICE is not the Border Patrol. They are a separate agency that mostly operates far from the border.

So far as I can tell the wish for the abolition of ICE is primarily tied a desire to eliminate an unrestrained, rogue, abusive policing org that's showed serious cruelty and abuses of civil liberties. I'm ok with eliminating ICE since they play such a harmful role such as they exist today, their leadership and members should all be fired with many jailed.

If people were calling to abolish the Border Patrol that could be construed as supporting open borders. Calling to abolish ICE is calling out corruption, abuse, and injustice in our immigration enforcement far from the border.

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

#147

Post by empiricus »

roenxi wrote: post #143
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…

> This is the kind of weird, morally unacceptable reasoning about property rights that you will run into if you accept property as a all-powerful, unconstestable principle. The average person has no ability to connect past and future. Most people, when tested, struggle to connect yesterday with today. Typical people don't save enough, don't plan and don't risk assess. If society gives an inch on property rights as an…

Currently you are not allowed to make a big profit from selling masks, you can only donate them if you have huge quantities :(

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

#148

Post by lliamander »

sprafa wrote: post #122
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

This documentary from the first 4 minutes looks very low effort. You can gather any number of “experts” on any given topic to give you any form of a story you’d like to tell... Also the “social democracy” you talk about is still there. University education is still free. Social democratic programs have not been completely destroyed.

>This documentary from the first 4 minutes looks very low effort.

Don't know exactly what you mean by that, but OK.

> You can gather any number of “experts” on any given topic to give you any form of a story you’d like to tell...

Trivially true. Are the arguments sound? Are the basic facts correct? Those are the questions that matter.

> Also the “social democracy” you talk about is still there.

Arguable, but in any case certainly not to the degree it was in the 70's. Why?

> University education is still free. Social democratic programs have not been completely destroyed.

And yet the documentary claims that there is still a very high-level of student debt in Sweden. Not because of the education, but in order to subsist while going to college.

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

#149

Post by dublinben »

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…

Open borders aren't only favored by socialists. Perhaps you would be interested in an explicitly capitalist, libertarian argument for the economic benefits of free immigration: https://www.cato.org/policy-report/januaryfebruary-2019/myth...

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

#150

Post by bisRepetita »

roenxi wrote: post #143
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…

> This is the kind of weird, morally unacceptable reasoning about property rights that you will run into if you accept property as a all-powerful, unconstestable principle. The average person has no ability to connect past and future. Most people, when tested, struggle to connect yesterday with today. Typical people don't save enough, don't plan and don't risk assess. If society gives an inch on property rights as an…

This sounds like the "meritocracy" argument.

To consider your example, in the current crisis, there are plenty of people who did not link anything from past to present, but who do show up in hospitals evry day, help people and save lives. They have a much bigger impact on society than the smart planner who could link past and present, but they see no rewards for it. Property rights do very little for those people. See how first responders of 9/11 got treated as another example.

I am afraid that incentivising property rights to absurd levels such as protecting slave-owners through compensation, or protecting people stock-piling masks does not do much for society, even in the long run.

There are ways to do it in an organised, moderate, law-abiding, rational and fair way though. To me, using words like "communism" is just a red-herring to avoid a rational discussion.

Post reply on HN