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

‘No Empirical Evidence’ for Thomas Piketty’s Inequality Theory

blogs.wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 90 posts

Re: ‘No Empirical Evidence’ for Thomas Piketty’s Inequality Theory

#21

Post by notahacker »

chakkop wrote: post #8

I'm curious - does anyone else think that the equality that matters is equality in material outcomes? I think that would be such a boring world. The real equality that matters is equality in dignity as human beings, equality before the law, equality in our respect to each other. I think the developed world has made monumental strides on these fronts, which are spreading around the world too. (Even though, of course,…

Piketty isn't really talking about "inequality in material incomes" so much as a theory that a small proportion of dynasties tends to accuulate such a large proportion of national resources that the economy ceases to operate like a competitive market and becomes a means for those holding the majority of the wealth to extract rent from those holding the diminishing remainder. That can be a problem even if you find some inequality unproblematic or even regard some level of inequality as morally necessary to reward endeavour and ingenuity and encourage economic growth, and is a problem for progress in the future even if the baseline standard of living in developed countries is very acceptable by historical standards.

There are of course limitations to how accurate his theory is, not least because much of public policy has been designed to avoid it happening.

Re: ‘No Empirical Evidence’ for Thomas Piketty’s Inequality Theory

#22

Post by chakkop »

regularfry wrote: post #11
chakkop wrote: post #8

I'm curious - does anyone else think that the equality that matters is equality in material outcomes? I think that would be such a boring world. The real equality that matters is equality in dignity as human beings, equality before the law, equality in our respect to each other. I think the developed world has made monumental strides on these fronts, which are spreading around the world too. (Even though, of course,…

The danger is where inequality in rates of improvement in material outcomes leads to inequality in moral outcomes. To borrow some rather loaded language, the more the 1% can buy themselves legal advantage, the more unjust the world becomes. If the rate of legal advantage is affected by the absolute difference between the 1% and the 99% (which I'd argue is demonstrably true - beyond a certain point you've got regulato…

I think the historical record is against this. Specifically: before the liberal revolution--the liberal idea that all humans are equal, which was truly revolutionary--it would have been unimaginable for a member of the peasantry to even claim equality with some lord, let alone build a legal case and have it heard. Again, it's far from perfect today, but better on many fronts. I imagine that differences will continue (they're unavoidable) but the mechanisms to cope with injustice will get better.

Re: ‘No Empirical Evidence’ for Thomas Piketty’s Inequality Theory

#23

Post by chakkop »

notahacker wrote: post #21
chakkop wrote: post #8

I'm curious - does anyone else think that the equality that matters is equality in material outcomes? I think that would be such a boring world. The real equality that matters is equality in dignity as human beings, equality before the law, equality in our respect to each other. I think the developed world has made monumental strides on these fronts, which are spreading around the world too. (Even though, of course,…

Piketty isn't really talking about "inequality in material incomes" so much as a theory that a small proportion of dynasties tends to accuulate such a large proportion of national resources that the economy ceases to operate like a competitive market and becomes a means for those holding the majority of the wealth to extract rent from those holding the diminishing remainder. That can be a problem even if you find som…

Nearly every assumption in this argument of Piketty's is flawed. Is it only the rich that have capital? What about human capital? What about creative destruction--the entry of new market players? Don't the rich (and their children) often squander their capital? More to the point: look at the evidence of the many rich people around us. Did they build this wealth by banking on r > g, or by putting idea upon idea and creating something new?

Re: ‘No Empirical Evidence’ for Thomas Piketty’s Inequality Theory

#24

Post by oneloop »

chakkop wrote: post #8

I'm curious - does anyone else think that the equality that matters is equality in material outcomes? I think that would be such a boring world. The real equality that matters is equality in dignity as human beings, equality before the law, equality in our respect to each other. I think the developed world has made monumental strides on these fronts, which are spreading around the world too. (Even though, of course,…

When I talked about these things, I make the distinction between "equality" and "equality of opportunities".

Re: ‘No Empirical Evidence’ for Thomas Piketty’s Inequality Theory

#25

Post by dredmorbius »

chakkop wrote: post #8

I'm curious - does anyone else think that the equality that matters is equality in material outcomes? I think that would be such a boring world. The real equality that matters is equality in dignity as human beings, equality before the law, equality in our respect to each other. I think the developed world has made monumental strides on these fronts, which are spreading around the world too. (Even though, of course,…

"Money, as Mr Hobbes says, is power."

Adam Smith, An Inquiry Into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations

https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Wealth_of_Nations/Book_...

A significant nature, and cause, of wealth is power. Smith wrote at length on both elements.

One might surmise this is a strong reason it matters.

Re: ‘No Empirical Evidence’ for Thomas Piketty’s Inequality Theory

#26

Post by legulere »

chakkop wrote: post #8

I'm curious - does anyone else think that the equality that matters is equality in material outcomes? I think that would be such a boring world. The real equality that matters is equality in dignity as human beings, equality before the law, equality in our respect to each other. I think the developed world has made monumental strides on these fronts, which are spreading around the world too. (Even though, of course,…

Extreme material inequality can't be explained by some people performing better, so it's pretty obvious that it is unjust. How can unjust distribution of the material wealth be moral?

How can you morally justify that some people have to work more than 40 hours per week to be able to barely scrape by, while others can just enjoy their lives luxuriously without working at all.

Oh and in fact, poor people in western societies today have it worse than 20, 30 years ago.

Re: ‘No Empirical Evidence’ for Thomas Piketty’s Inequality Theory

#27

Post by Simon321 »

chakkop wrote: post #22
regularfry wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The danger is where inequality in rates of improvement in material outcomes leads to inequality in moral outcomes. To borrow some rather loaded language, the more the 1% can buy themselves legal advantage, the more unjust the world becomes. If the rate of legal advantage is affected by the absolute difference between the 1% and the 99% (which I'd argue is demonstrably true - beyond a certain point you've got regulato…

I think the historical record is against this. Specifically: before the liberal revolution--the liberal idea that all humans are equal, which was truly revolutionary--it would have been unimaginable for a member of the peasantry to even claim equality with some lord, let alone build a legal case and have it heard. Again, it's far from perfect today, but better on many fronts. I imagine that differences will continue…

It used to be worse, so let's not try to improve it anymore?

Re: ‘No Empirical Evidence’ for Thomas Piketty’s Inequality Theory

#28

Post by regularfry »

chakkop wrote: post #22
regularfry wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The danger is where inequality in rates of improvement in material outcomes leads to inequality in moral outcomes. To borrow some rather loaded language, the more the 1% can buy themselves legal advantage, the more unjust the world becomes. If the rate of legal advantage is affected by the absolute difference between the 1% and the 99% (which I'd argue is demonstrably true - beyond a certain point you've got regulato…

I think the historical record is against this. Specifically: before the liberal revolution--the liberal idea that all humans are equal, which was truly revolutionary--it would have been unimaginable for a member of the peasantry to even claim equality with some lord, let alone build a legal case and have it heard. Again, it's far from perfect today, but better on many fronts. I imagine that differences will continue…

By what mechanism? I'd say that the historical record is specifically in support of this. Civilisations start out relatively equal, inequality increases over time as wealth concentrates in elites, then they collapse either to revolution or war, reset, and start again. What evidence do we have to support the idea that we should draw a line up and to the right?

Re: ‘No Empirical Evidence’ for Thomas Piketty’s Inequality Theory

#29

Post by T2_t2 »

forreal2 wrote: post #17

Many of these kind of "studies" need the author to have actually witnessed at least one or twice how a person, man,woman, children, opening a trash bag looking for food, and then they'd know how the face of a hungry human being looks like.

What would that fix?

A big part of modern, first world ideology is that we think the problem is caring. That if only we understood, or cared, the world would be better. People need to care and understand transgender people, or people who have lacked education, or poor people. That if only they cared, we could fix the problem.

Dr Martin Luther King jr gave one of the most needed, most important speeches of all time. He had an emotional desire for humanity, a dream. A dream that, in many ways, changed the world. Unfortunately, ever since that time every issue has been approached with the same emotional bedrock, a dream. Very little has involved a real PLAN, or real measurement.

Thing is, caring, empathy and understanding don't fix problems, they highlight them certainly, but they don't provide fixes. People seem to confuse those two ideas - highlighting and solving - and we keep highlighting, when solutions seem the more important need.

caring creates problems that hinder performance - that's why we don't have people that care about us perform surgeries on us, because their emotions don't help.

The problems the world faces don't need more emotion, they need a more objective, result driven, rational response that we measure and change in response to results. This video I think introduces a lot of these ideas well. http://www.theatlantic.com/video/index/474588/why-empathy-is...

Re: ‘No Empirical Evidence’ for Thomas Piketty’s Inequality Theory

#30

Post by Ygg2 »

chakkop wrote: post #22
regularfry wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The danger is where inequality in rates of improvement in material outcomes leads to inequality in moral outcomes. To borrow some rather loaded language, the more the 1% can buy themselves legal advantage, the more unjust the world becomes. If the rate of legal advantage is affected by the absolute difference between the 1% and the 99% (which I'd argue is demonstrably true - beyond a certain point you've got regulato…

I think the historical record is against this. Specifically: before the liberal revolution--the liberal idea that all humans are equal, which was truly revolutionary--it would have been unimaginable for a member of the peasantry to even claim equality with some lord, let alone build a legal case and have it heard. Again, it's far from perfect today, but better on many fronts. I imagine that differences will continue…

I'd say it's the opposite.

Humans are inherently equalist, unless they learn to not be equal.

Post reply on HN