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

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

#211

Post by lliamander » Fri, Mar 27, 2020, 6:19 PM UTC

fulafel wrote: post #197

lliamander wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

It's probably true that there is some level of prosperity that's needed to bootstrap the system, but the economic situation was and is much different in the other nordic countries and the model still works well, and the period of SD has overseen very good economic performance. Claiming SD was abandoned is a pretty drastic interpretation. Strong unions, employee representation in company boards, high income transfers…

> but the economic situation was and is much different in the other nordic countries and the model still works well

Other nordic countries, like the market economy of Denmark[1]?

> Claiming SD was abandoned is a pretty drastic interpretation.

I think it would be pretty drastic to claim that the political situation has been largely unchanged from the 70s, which is the period of Social Democracy which Piketty is defending.

[1]https://www.investors.com/denmark-tells-bernie-sanders-to-st...

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

#212

Post by tehjoker » Fri, Mar 27, 2020, 7:56 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…

> Without other policies it is atomizing and ineffective,

However, since you asked, yes Mexicans, who have been abused would flood into the richer north. Socialism is ultimately about creating an equal society, not about preserving disparities between the rich and the poor. However, we would need policies to help preserve American's livelihoods, such as a Federal Jobs Guarantee otherwise open borders would be unpopular and damage living standards.

It's worth asking yourself why people born on one side of an invisible line deserve comfort and power and a baby born on the other side does not deserve to walk one foot north and find a better life.

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

#213

Post by viklove » Fri, Mar 27, 2020, 11:09 PM UTC

solveit wrote: post #185

viklove wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reason those medical professionals aren't paid better is because the money we spend on healthcare is going to pharmaceutical companies and hospitals, which eventually ends up in the hands of the private equity companies that own them. We've built a system that rewards those who accumulate the most wealth. Since we reward them, their wealth grants them more power (and more wealth) with a feedback loop. We've reach…

I agree with the last two paragraphs, but would quibble with the first. > The reason those medical professionals aren't paid better is because the money we spend on healthcare is going to pharmaceutical companies and hospitals, which eventually ends up in the hands of the private equity companies that own them. That's the result, but I think a big part of the reason that this is the case is because society (including…

> society

Not society. Just the wealthy. Why do they feel this way? Because that means they don't get that money. They set the rules, and they get to decide what we work on (through funding companies and buying lobbyists).

> If workers cannot use the fruits of their labour as leverage, of course capital wins.

That's why we need UBI, so workers can use their dollar as leverage and the billionaires don't get to decide what we're allowed to work on and what we're not allowed to work on.

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

#214

Post by fulafel » Sat, Mar 28, 2020, 7:45 AM UTC

lliamander wrote: post #211

fulafel wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's probably true that there is some level of prosperity that's needed to bootstrap the system, but the economic situation was and is much different in the other nordic countries and the model still works well, and the period of SD has overseen very good economic performance. Claiming SD was abandoned is a pretty drastic interpretation. Strong unions, employee representation in company boards, high income transfers…

> but the economic situation was and is much different in the other nordic countries and the model still works well Other nordic countries, like the market economy of Denmark[1]? > Claiming SD was abandoned is a pretty drastic interpretation. I think it would be pretty drastic to claim that the political situation has been largely unchanged from the 70s, which is the period of Social Democracy which Piketty is defend…

I don't know what your link was apart from the hints in the url (won't let me in) but in general in the nordic counries they don't call themselves socialist or socialism, that's true, it's an US phenomenon to use that phrasing. SD parties see the socialism hint in the name as vestigal and prefer to think their policy aims as merely pragmatic.

Yes of course things have changed a lot from the 70s, I agree about that, but the strong welfare state is alive and well, though is under attack, and has wide popular support.

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

#215

Post by based64 » Sat, Mar 28, 2020, 5:24 PM UTC

lone_post wrote: post #81

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…

Not just that, but both Democrats and Republicans are complicit in the abuse of the working class through massive - both expanded legal and willfully ignored illegal - immigration. The vast majority of new immigrants are low skill low wage workers and these workers drive down working class wages. Now immigrants are on the whole very hard working and persistent people. They are a self selected population of such peopl…

Bernie used to campaign, even in 2017, against immigration on behalf of the US Working class, calling it a Koch Brothers scheme to drive down wages.

Now he's pandering and calling for "A welcome America for all"

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

#216

Post by jabl » Sat, Mar 28, 2020, 7:01 PM UTC

mongol wrote: post #135

naravara wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Kje…

AFAIU Norberg is pretty far right [1] in Sweden, so not exactly how people there generally think.

[1] Not far right as in Nazism, but as in pro capitalism, state intervention is communism (boo hiss!).

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

#217

Post by specialist » Mon, Mar 30, 2020, 8:15 PM UTC

dantheman wrote: post #80

scylla wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The 2nd (with higher inequality) is obviously preferred. Is this really obvious to modern left?

No in fact the modern left doesn't care absolute realties but all about relative power.

This statement really challenged me. I had to consider if I agree.

My first response was that the lefties (catchall phrase for purpose of this reply) I know fret over fairness. To even frame discussions in terms of power is seen as distasteful and largely avoided.

Then I was reminded that many lefties, especially younger cohorts, talk about privilege. In Ezra Klein's interview with Will Wilkinson, they discuss "white privilege" in terms of power. And power is a topic Ezra Klein is far more comfortable discussing (compared to me).

In conclusion, I mosdef agree that we lefties have a more systems-based view, where the relative power of the belligerents are considered. Further, the themes of privilege, equality, bias, opportunity, fairness (as used by misc lefties sub-cohorts) as rhetoric are really talking about relative power.

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

#218

Post by lliamander » Tue, Mar 31, 2020, 9:03 PM UTC

fulafel wrote: post #214

lliamander wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but the economic situation was and is much different in the other nordic countries and the model still works well Other nordic countries, like the market economy of Denmark[1]? > Claiming SD was abandoned is a pretty drastic interpretation. I think it would be pretty drastic to claim that the political situation has been largely unchanged from the 70s, which is the period of Social Democracy which Piketty is defend…

I don't know what your link was apart from the hints in the url (won't let me in) but in general in the nordic counries they don't call themselves socialist or socialism, that's true, it's an US phenomenon to use that phrasing. SD parties see the socialism hint in the name as vestigal and prefer to think their policy aims as merely pragmatic. Yes of course things have changed a lot from the 70s, I agree about that, b…

Fair enough, and I'm not claiming that Sweden (or any nordic country) disbanded their welfare system.

My claim is that the Social Democracy that Piketty suggests we return (the kind that was present in the 70s/80s) was rejected by Sweden, and for very sound reasons, and that his positive view of those times should be taken with some degree of skepticism.