41–50 of 70 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
I think the distinction between those who have "skin in the game" and those who survive on arbitrary indicators of prestige is an important one culturally , but especially as applied to Trump, I still think it's weird Taleb doesn't address any distance between perceived skin in the game and actual. Saying "Trump's a businessman who takes real risks, Krugman's just a writer who will never answer for mistakes" ignores…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
And yet, who do we admire in Silicon Valley? "Thought leaders". Guys like Ben Thompson of Stratechery, VCs with blogs, Elad Gil, etc.
I'm very torn about this. On one hand, the whole enterprise of being famous without taking any risk feels so dirty, and yet, it's so effective in today's world.
Who in their right mind would want to be a military leader, small-business owner, or elected politician, when you could be a VC, investment banker, journalist, or mid-level corporate executive? All of the upside, none of the risk! It feels "rational" in a way to want to have no skin in the game.
It was Taleb himself who said in the bed of Procrustes (another of his books) something like, "it's the sign of the loser to lament human nature without any attempt to exploit or profit from it". Does that apply here?
Another thought: is reputationism inevitable?
Taleb is a hardcore empiricist -- someone who values experience and firsthand knowledge over all. The problem is that we live in a global world, where knowledge, products, and ideas flow all over the place, and we can't have firsthand knowledge of all of it. So we rely on words, symbols, brands, and other "experts" to help us make sense of all of it. Perhaps inevitable, but it does take my smugness down a peg or two when thinking about medieval peasants consulting the local priest for advice. Maybe these reputationists today are the modern capitalist priestly class?
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"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.
People say this, yet when I have traveled in some of the poorest countries in the world (Zambia and Nepal for example) they seem a lot more capitalistic than Europe / the US. It seems to bring some people wealth at the expense of others.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"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.
Right. Which is why when I kill someone, I go to jail, and when George Bush attacks a country, the crickets chirp.
> tearing it down because it is the Establishment and tearing down the Establishment is cool is counterproductive.
More importantly, it's a straw man.
edit: if anyone is seriously debating that's a straw man, use your words.
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…
That simple claim would also not imply the conclusions you claim, namely that some global disincentive for saving is needed.
What specific claims must one refute to prove Piketty wrong? Or can one refute every claim, yet Piketty will still be part of the zeitgeist?
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…
You're definitely not getting away without providing a citation for that. In the couple months after Capital was published, I saw a couple attempts at refutation, including one in the Financial Times, but Piketty responded to all of them with convincing rebuttals. I would like to see this "complete shoot-down" you claim exists.
I will provide others when I'm not on mobile. You can also Google "Piketty rognlie" and it'll be near the top.