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

Thomas Piketty’s Radical Plan to Redistribute Wealth

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–118 of 118 posts

Re: Thomas Piketty’s Radical Plan to Redistribute Wealth

#111

Post by bb88 »

whakim wrote: post #86
larsiusprime wrote: post #31

Just want to point out two things: 1) Rognlie[1] pointed out that Piketty's central premise -- that the returns to capital are growing faster than the overall growth rate of the economy -- falls apart when you properly account for asset class and depreciation. The accelerating returns are specifically to real estate , while the returns to capital (excluding real estate) are flat. 2) Tyler Cowen pointed this out on hi…

Actually, Piketty doesn't concede this point and makes the extremely important distinction between aggregate wealth and wealth distribution . What Rognlie does point out is the incredible importance of real estate in the growth of capital income - far more than Piketty originally credited it with in Capital in the Twenty-First Century . As Piketty points out in the interview, an explanation based around real estate l…

More importantly, Piketty studied this and wrote a paper on it. This is the quote from Piketty on [2] from OP:

"PIKETTY: If you look at the top of the wealth distribution, I don’t see a lot of real estate. I don’t think Matt Rognlie or anyone is saying that the huge rise in billionaire wealth in the US has anything to do with real estate. As far as I know, nobody has ever tried to put this theory on the table.

"I’m not saying real estate is not important. I think for middle-class assets and lower-middle-class and upper-middle-class assets — for the middle of the distribution — real estate is, of course, very important. The movement in real estate prices explains a lot of what’s going on, both in terms of aggregate value and distribution. I’m not saying it’s not important. It is very important.

"If you go back to our paper with Gabriel Zucman, which was published, now, almost 10 years ago in the Quarterly Journal of Economics in 2014, called “Capital is Back: Wealth-Income Ratios in Rich Countries, 1700–2010,” you will see, we have complete decomposition about the role of real estate in aggregate wealth accumulation, and it’s absolutely central for many countries over many periods of time."

Re: Thomas Piketty’s Radical Plan to Redistribute Wealth

#112

Post by moistly »

What we have now is obviously not working. We have serious homeless problems involving children. That is plainly the mark of a state that is failing its citizens. There is more wealth around than we have use for (see: space yachts, meme coins, NFTs), so instead of leaving it to slosh around in stupid risky ventures, move it into pro-social infrastructure and health/education support services. There is more than enough wealth abundance to uplift the most disadvantaged while still allowing the wealthiest to live out their fantasies.

Re: Thomas Piketty’s Radical Plan to Redistribute Wealth

#113

Post by epgui »

jschveibinz wrote: post #106
epgui wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's about a million different ways you could do a PhD on this subject: data on this question is not missing. Some search queries I recommend (just as a starting point): - "Factors in access to education" - "Access to education causal" - "Access to education in America" - "Access to education world data" - "Access to education developing countries" - "Public education and vertical mobility" - "Relationship between…

Here is a website for the ACLU that you can use as a reference. If you believe that any child is being denied access to education, the ACLU is a good place to go to get assistance in getting justice: https://www.aclu.org/other/your-right-equality-education

I don't think the reference you provided makes the point you think it makes. The ACLU states that their mission is to fight for better access to education. Nowhere do they say that their job is done.

Re: Thomas Piketty’s Radical Plan to Redistribute Wealth

#114

Post by ForHackernews »

flenserboy wrote: post #109
ForHackernews wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not saying you can't raise your children to be healthy long-term thinkers or whatever strawman nonsense this is. You just couldn't give them 100 million bucks. > Encourage long-term thinking, planning, and investment by taking away the fear that all this work will be taken away or have to be sold off for taxes. I see exactly zero evidence that our current practice allowing obscene generational wealth is encouragi…

You're blinded from seeing what could be done by the emotional reaction the $ signs are giving you. Look at the adjectives you have chosen — those are the bounds of your thought-space. Consider the first point: yes, you can make them "healthy long-term thinkers", but without resources — especially when those resources are expropriated for the value of those with far different or far less long-range aims for them — it…

It sounds like your thinking on this issue is confused by your own hatred of government and/or taxation. There would be absolutely nothing preventing wealthy people from building libraries or even putting their names on them.

Anyway, we are not going to agree: you think a handful of hyperwealthy families will be better for humanity in the long term; I think a broadly shared prosperity is better. I believe historical evidence is on my side, but that's a much longer discussion than I'm willing to have here.

Re: Thomas Piketty’s Radical Plan to Redistribute Wealth

#115

Post by flenserboy »

ForHackernews wrote: post #114
flenserboy wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're blinded from seeing what could be done by the emotional reaction the $ signs are giving you. Look at the adjectives you have chosen — those are the bounds of your thought-space. Consider the first point: yes, you can make them "healthy long-term thinkers", but without resources — especially when those resources are expropriated for the value of those with far different or far less long-range aims for them — it…

It sounds like your thinking on this issue is confused by your own hatred of government and/or taxation. There would be absolutely nothing preventing wealthy people from building libraries or even putting their names on them. Anyway, we are not going to agree: you think a handful of hyperwealthy families will be better for humanity in the long term; I think a broadly shared prosperity is better. I believe historical…

Thing is, I don't want it to be a handful of families who benefit from this, but as many as possible. Give people a chance to build and far more than you believe will take advantage of this to make something good. I don't care about "humanity", but about actual people — and I want as many of them to have a chance, and to not simply to be lumped into an undifferentiated mass, as possible.

Re: Thomas Piketty’s Radical Plan to Redistribute Wealth

#116

Post by exabrial »

epgui wrote: post #50
jhgfjhgfjgh wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are literally zero laws against setting up a competitor to Amazon or Walmart

Who said the barrier to doing that was the law?

You're correct: The barrier to entry involves vision, hard work, education, and willingness to do what other people are simply unmotivated or too lazy to do.

Re: Thomas Piketty’s Radical Plan to Redistribute Wealth

#117

Post by epgui »

exabrial wrote: post #116
epgui wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who said the barrier to doing that was the law?

You're correct: The barrier to entry involves vision, hard work, education, and willingness to do what other people are simply unmotivated or too lazy to do.

The most important barriers to competing with the named companies would be network effects and economies of scale, not motivation and a good attitude.

Re: Thomas Piketty’s Radical Plan to Redistribute Wealth

#118

Post by ForHackernews »

flenserboy wrote: post #115
ForHackernews wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sounds like your thinking on this issue is confused by your own hatred of government and/or taxation. There would be absolutely nothing preventing wealthy people from building libraries or even putting their names on them. Anyway, we are not going to agree: you think a handful of hyperwealthy families will be better for humanity in the long term; I think a broadly shared prosperity is better. I believe historical…

Thing is, I don't want it to be a handful of families who benefit from this, but as many as possible. Give people a chance to build and far more than you believe will take advantage of this to make something good. I don't care about "humanity", but about actual people — and I want as many of them to have a chance, and to not simply to be lumped into an undifferentiated mass, as possible.

To be clear: I'm proposing something like "no one can pass on more than $1m (or whatever number) inflation-adjusted dollars to their kids". Realistically, this policy would only affect a tiny fraction of extremely wealthy families. (Reminder for HN readers: the median household net worth is something like ~$70k)

If you say you care about actual people, you should care about giving more of them a chance, and worry less about protecting the non-existent property interests of the dead.

Post reply on HN