Markov chains are exactly what I thought of when he started on the topic of dynamic vs static in inequality. It's not really that a high-brow concept.
But it is one that you need to already have been educated about. The author seems to be assuming that all their readers have CS degrees or have read a certain narrow slice of technical content elsewhere. It's bad writing for a generalist platform like Medium.
CS degree? I was completely sure Markov chains were high school material
This guy's writing style is insufferable. Basically, 'let me introduce an abstract, technical concept, criticize the reader for not knowing it, and then not define it until halfway through the article' Dropping words like 'Markov Chain' in a Medium post without any context or explanation just makes the author seem like he wants us to think he's smart.
If anything I find his writing more sympathetic to a layperson. He consistently likes to disparage those he thinks portray false intellectualism and academia (whenever you see IYI in his writing it means Intellectual Yet Idiot).
That's another thing I was hoping he'd define sooner or later in the article.
However, if this was extracted from a book it makes a little more sense.
But it is one that you need to already have been educated about. The author seems to be assuming that all their readers have CS degrees or have read a certain narrow slice of technical content elsewhere. It's bad writing for a generalist platform like Medium.
CS degree? I was completely sure Markov chains were high school material
Anecdotally, they were at my high school in the US.
I don't have anything to add to the blog post itself, but I find the complaints about the writing style pretty strange, especially to HN. I never even try to read New Yorker articles anymore, which get shared and upvoted here so abundantly: lazy, wordy writing that concentrates on people instead of concepts, tries to reason about important things through emotions instead of logic and in general tries to be prose inst…
This is anything but straight. New Yorker is also not straight, but hackers are not the intended audience of New Yorker articles. Normal people prefer stories about people to conceptual discussions. FWIW I think there's some good reason for this. Discussions purely about high minded concepts over the lives and experiences of individuals tend to wind their way inexorably toward stupidity or irrelevance. When you're discussing policy making, all that really matters is how it affects people. That's not to say you can't use anecdote to mislead, but that's a different class of sin.
It is shocking that people continue to cite Piketty. His results have been more or less shot down completely - his measurements are unstable (taken), and insofar as he has shown r > g, this is primarily due to middle class household wealth (rognlie). Further, his results are only within country and don't apply globally (c.f. Milanovic). But his results are just so convenient and sound so cool. How can we discard them…
The central thesis of Piketty's Capital [1] is that inequality is a core feature of capitalism. He backs this with meticulous research[2] into centuries of wealth, income, and tax data. You can argue about what is the "right" level of inequality or with the policy recommendations (that massive government interventionism via a global tax on wealth is required). However, the results and data are solid. [1]: https://www…
"capitalism"
That word is the problem. It means something different for every person. To you it means one thing, to him it means another. When people criticize capitalism their arguments are always convincing because you project your own negative connotations into the word.
Taleb's style is generally... insufferable, but it's a good way to remind yourself that how nice someone's writing is isn't necessarily a sign of how good their ideas here. He takes great joy, for better or for worse, in pointing out critics who call him arrogant and pretentious rather than criticize his ideas.
I couldn't get to his idea to criticise.
Its worth persevering. Taleb is incredibly influential among professional risk-takers.
It is shocking that people continue to cite Piketty. His results have been more or less shot down completely - his measurements are unstable (taken), and insofar as he has shown r > g, this is primarily due to middle class household wealth (rognlie). Further, his results are only within country and don't apply globally (c.f. Milanovic). But his results are just so convenient and sound so cool. How can we discard them…
Cites for critique of Picketty's methodology please?
The central thesis of Piketty's Capital [1] is that inequality is a core feature of capitalism. He backs this with meticulous research[2] into centuries of wealth, income, and tax data. You can argue about what is the "right" level of inequality or with the policy recommendations (that massive government interventionism via a global tax on wealth is required). However, the results and data are solid. [1]: https://www…
"capitalism" That word is the problem. It means something different for every person. To you it means one thing, to him it means another. When people criticize capitalism their arguments are always convincing because you project your own negative connotations into the word.
Well said. It always pains me to see people criticising capitalism for easy points, when despite its flaws it has brought us an age of unprecedented equality and prosperity. That's not to say it's necessarily the best "system" for the future, but tearing it down because it is the Establishment and tearing down the Establishment is cool is counterproductive.
Markov chains are exactly what I thought of when he started on the topic of dynamic vs static in inequality. It's not really that a high-brow concept.
But it is one that you need to already have been educated about. The author seems to be assuming that all their readers have CS degrees or have read a certain narrow slice of technical content elsewhere. It's bad writing for a generalist platform like Medium.
Markov Chain is a pretty elementary concept. Anyone interested in having a serious discussion of economics should at least have a passing familiarity with it.