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

Thomas Piketty’s plan to fix the economy

newrepublic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 51 posts

Re: Thomas Piketty’s plan to fix the economy

#11

Post by 0x8BADF00D »

seibelj wrote: post #7
neilwilson wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Absolutely nothing stops a group from creating a non-profit, electing a board of trustees that appoints managers" We have done. They're called nations. Other nations are available. You're not forced to stay in the one you are born in. That's enshrined in the United nations charter on human rights.

The nation is quite unlikely to radically increase taxes and outlaw private property. Why not create this system yourself among like-minded people?

They tried that in Waco. Didn’t work out so well for them. It turns out that you can’t really escape the tyranny of the government. Might as well suck it up, and have strong property rights. At least that is a check on government tyranny.

Re: Thomas Piketty’s plan to fix the economy

#12

Post by neilwilson »

0x8BADF00D wrote: post #11
seibelj wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The nation is quite unlikely to radically increase taxes and outlaw private property. Why not create this system yourself among like-minded people?

They tried that in Waco. Didn’t work out so well for them. It turns out that you can’t really escape the tyranny of the government. Might as well suck it up, and have strong property rights. At least that is a check on government tyranny.

How is it? Who grants these 'rights' and who enforces them?

Distributed enforcement always ends up being who has the most and sharpest pointy sticks. Centralised enforcement is called "government"

Pick your poison.

Re: Thomas Piketty’s plan to fix the economy

#13

Post by neilwilson »

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #9
neilwilson wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Absolutely nothing stops a group from creating a non-profit, electing a board of trustees that appoints managers" We have done. They're called nations. Other nations are available. You're not forced to stay in the one you are born in. That's enshrined in the United nations charter on human rights.

> That's enshrined in the United nations charter on human rights. Good luck turning up at $country’s port of entry with that as your only immigration document.

That's a straw man isn't it.

The UN charter enshrines your right to leave a nation. And that's all it enshrines.

It's more the port of exit that is the issue.

Re: Thomas Piketty’s plan to fix the economy

#14

Post by TheSpiceIsLife »

neilwilson wrote: post #13
TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's enshrined in the United nations charter on human rights. Good luck turning up at $country’s port of entry with that as your only immigration document.

That's a straw man isn't it. The UN charter enshrines your right to leave a nation. And that's all it enshrines. It's more the port of exit that is the issue.

Fair point. Being stateless may very well be an improvement.

Re: Thomas Piketty’s plan to fix the economy

#15

Post by mcntsh »

missedthecue wrote: post #2

I am still unable to fathom why he thinks inequality is a problem in and of itself. Hunger, famine, war, disease, we all understand are bad because they have negative consequences on real human lives. Jeff Bezos owning 12% of Amazon does not make me any worse off and if he owned 11% instead it would not make my life any better. Now there are certain things that can that can contribute to people accumulating excessive…

> I am still unable to fathom why he thinks inequality is a problem in and of itself. Hunger, famine, war, disease, we all understand are bad because they have negative consequences on real human lives. Jeff Bezos owning 12% of Amazon does not make me any worse off and if he owned 11% instead it would not make my life any better.

Massive income inequality impacts social and economic mobility within a society. If 1% of the population owns 40% of the wealth, it means a disproportional amount value labor provides is going to a small group of people.

Re: Thomas Piketty’s plan to fix the economy

#16

Post by mcv »

neilwilson wrote: post #6
missedthecue wrote: post #2

I am still unable to fathom why he thinks inequality is a problem in and of itself. Hunger, famine, war, disease, we all understand are bad because they have negative consequences on real human lives. Jeff Bezos owning 12% of Amazon does not make me any worse off and if he owned 11% instead it would not make my life any better. Now there are certain things that can that can contribute to people accumulating excessive…

The worst thing is that it is not the inequality of wealth that matters. It's the inequality of power. What Piketty and others of this philosophical movement believe is that taking money away from people is the same as removing power. They are going to be disappointed. Power is a capital item, not a revenue item. Money gets you the contacts with the right people. Lack of money doesn't remove them. Plus, of course, th…

Lack of money absolutely does remove them. Billionaires like Murdoch and the Koch brothers have had a massive detrimental effect on US politics (and British, in the case of Murdoch). Without the capital they control, they wouldn't have anywhere near that kind of impact.

Not every billionaire uses their money for that kind of power, but some do, and it hurts democracy when they do. In fact, it's even been argued that legitimate philanthropy is undemocratic, because it's rich people deciding which problems society will fix, rather than a democratic process.

If money only provided luxury, people would have less problems with this inequality. And people would probably be less interested in amassing more wealth than they can consume.

Re: Thomas Piketty’s plan to fix the economy

#17

Post by mcv »

missedthecue wrote: post #10
neilwilson wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The worst thing is that it is not the inequality of wealth that matters. It's the inequality of power. What Piketty and others of this philosophical movement believe is that taking money away from people is the same as removing power. They are going to be disappointed. Power is a capital item, not a revenue item. Money gets you the contacts with the right people. Lack of money doesn't remove them. Plus, of course, th…

Though he might handwave at this notion of "power imbalance", you and I both fully understand that this is not the core issue driving his philosophy. Someone making $120k a year can afford to hire a lobbyist in their state legislature. Should no one make $120k? If there were no billionaires would the so called "power imbalance" be restored? Does someone with $900 million not have the power of someone with $1 billion?…

People in Washington (or elsewhere) who wield a lot of power without being rich, wield that power because it has been delegated to them. They are accountable for that power. Rich people are not, but probably should be.

The problem isn't merely the concentration of power, it's the concentration of unaccountable power. This is also why people are upset about secret courts and lack of congressional oversight over secret services: it withdraws accountability from an institute wielding power.

Re: Thomas Piketty’s plan to fix the economy

#18

Post by ChrisLomont »

mcntsh wrote: post #15
missedthecue wrote: post #2

I am still unable to fathom why he thinks inequality is a problem in and of itself. Hunger, famine, war, disease, we all understand are bad because they have negative consequences on real human lives. Jeff Bezos owning 12% of Amazon does not make me any worse off and if he owned 11% instead it would not make my life any better. Now there are certain things that can that can contribute to people accumulating excessive…

> I am still unable to fathom why he thinks inequality is a problem in and of itself. Hunger, famine, war, disease, we all understand are bad because they have negative consequences on real human lives. Jeff Bezos owning 12% of Amazon does not make me any worse off and if he owned 11% instead it would not make my life any better. Massive income inequality impacts social and economic mobility within a society. If 1% o…

Labor doesn’t create all value.

Re: Thomas Piketty’s plan to fix the economy

#19

Post by kdtsh »

ChrisLomont wrote: post #18
mcntsh wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I am still unable to fathom why he thinks inequality is a problem in and of itself. Hunger, famine, war, disease, we all understand are bad because they have negative consequences on real human lives. Jeff Bezos owning 12% of Amazon does not make me any worse off and if he owned 11% instead it would not make my life any better. Massive income inequality impacts social and economic mobility within a society. If 1% o…

Labor doesn’t create all value.

Where does value come from besides labour? If gold was everywhere, it wouldn’t be as valuable as it is - but it’s not, you have to dig it out of the ground and it can be hard to find; the labour input into the process of producing gold is what gives gold its value. A silicon rock is about as useful as any other rock, but the labour which goes into fabricating it into useful components is what gives it its value. A hammer is useless without an arm to swing it. Even when that arm is attached to a semi-autonomous machine, its sole purpose is to reduce the time expenses by human labour on some material - this devalues human labour in the abstract (not a bad thing of course, in fact crucial for our social and technological development), but at the end of the day the process reduces entirely to human labour producing value.

Re: Thomas Piketty’s plan to fix the economy

#20

Post by credit_guy »

missedthecue wrote: post #2

I am still unable to fathom why he thinks inequality is a problem in and of itself. Hunger, famine, war, disease, we all understand are bad because they have negative consequences on real human lives. Jeff Bezos owning 12% of Amazon does not make me any worse off and if he owned 11% instead it would not make my life any better. Now there are certain things that can that can contribute to people accumulating excessive…

It's very easy to make the logical leap that increasing inequality is equivalent to "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer". And most people don't necessarily have a problem with "the rich get richer" part, but they do object to "the poor get poorer".

It is a leap though. Bezos, Gates, Musk, Buffet, Page, Brin, Zuckerberg all started as regular people and became ultra-rich through their work and ideas.

But it's not a complete fallacy either. If you are a real estate owner in New York City, your assets continue appreciating at a good pace, well above inflation, and you have a vested interest in NIMBY, which does indeed restrict social mobility.

Social mobility, or social mobility opportunity are harder to measure though, so a lot of people are ok with using the inequality as a proxy. I do agree with you that it's an imperfect proxy, and focusing on it can have negative side-effects.

Post reply on HN