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

A review of Thomas Piketty’s “Capital and Ideology”

bostonreview.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 218 posts

Re: A review of Thomas Piketty’s “Capital and Ideology”

#51

Post by leetcrew »

karatestomp wrote: post #24
save_ferris wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I always assume most are just oblivious, given the fact that the Democratic Party still tries to identify as a worker-first party. That’s rapidly changing with the rise of the modern progressive movement, DSA and the like. Part of the problem is the two-party system, which essentially ensures that control remains between the Dems and GOP. This is why so many presidential elections wind up being contests of the least-…

It’s also why some positions that should be fairly common are effectively impossible to express. For single payer healthcare, against the death penalty, and anti-abortion? You have no good candidates. Pro union, but also for stronger anti-illegal-immigration measures? Ditto. And so on.

I'm not sure we need a label for every single combination of positions. your first example could just be a religious liberal/progressive. the second probably describes a lot of blue collar trump supporters, although the man himself would probably not make an explicitly pro-union statement.

Re: A review of Thomas Piketty’s “Capital and Ideology”

#52

Post by thaumasiotes »

worik wrote: post #34
simonh wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a fascinating book and deservedly highly influential, but please also read some of the rebuttals and counter-points for a good understanding of the issues.

The fundamental point (r>g) is irrefutable. It may be possible to claim that inequality does not matter. In the absence of poverty that may be possible, but when the richest country in the world (USA) has a health system that leas out ~20% of the population and one of the poorest (Cuba) has a gold plated health system, that is a hard claim to make.

> The fundamental point (r>g) is irrefutable.

There's a really easy refutation of that point: it is literally impossible over any major span of time, because r is a component of g. If r were to grow systematically faster than g, it would end up dominating everything else, with the result that g = r.

Re: A review of Thomas Piketty’s “Capital and Ideology”

#53

Post by pyb »

hardtke wrote: post #9
dorchadas wrote: post #3

I'm currently working my way through Capital in the Twenty-First Century . It's been really eye-opening about how bad inequality actually is. I suggest everyone read it, and I'm excited to read his new one soon after.

The thing I took away from Capital in the Twenty-First Century was his conjecture that the post-WWII (until about 1990) period was one of the few times in history that prosperity was widely shared with workers. The era that I consider to be normal (since I lived it) is in fact very abnormal.

pg makes a similar argument here : http://www.paulgraham.com/re.html

Re: A review of Thomas Piketty’s “Capital and Ideology”

#54

Post by karatestomp »

leetcrew wrote: post #51
karatestomp wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s also why some positions that should be fairly common are effectively impossible to express. For single payer healthcare, against the death penalty, and anti-abortion? You have no good candidates. Pro union, but also for stronger anti-illegal-immigration measures? Ditto. And so on.

I'm not sure we need a label for every single combination of positions. your first example could just be a religious liberal/progressive. the second probably describes a lot of blue collar trump supporters, although the man himself would probably not make an explicitly pro-union statement.

We need finer-grained party platforms—so, more of them—so issues that might otherwise advance easily don’t become hostages to wedge issues. But for that we have to make structural changes so more than two parties can stably exist at once—or else so that no parties can stably exist long, I guess.

Re: A review of Thomas Piketty’s “Capital and Ideology”

#55

Post by jmilloy »

lifty wrote: post #31
defterGoose wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The narrative about capital providing opportunity for many is largely a myth IMHO. While this may have been true when companies reinvested in their products and people, in the age of stock buybacks and leveraged takeovers, capital seems to serve more as simply a tool for accumulation; permanently removing value from the economy for the benefit of a very few.

That's why I don't like to call the current system capitalism. I find Varoufakis' description more apt: socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor. Or put in another way, privatised gains and socialised losses.

I think I understand what "socialism for the rich" is supposed to mean, but I don't understand how it relates to socialism.

> Socialism is a political, social and economic philosophy encompassing a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership of the means of production and workers' self-management of enterprises. [wikipedia]

Re: A review of Thomas Piketty’s “Capital and Ideology”

#56

Post by jahaja »

nemo wrote: post #18
0x262d wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Looking through some of the comments, I want to add that Piketty talks much more clearly about these topics and makes better points than most consensus economists, pundits, etc, so I'm glad people are reading him rather than eg NYT columnists. But I think people who find this sort of thing interesting would find marxism's analysis of the economy much more interesting and convincing. Start with Wage Labour And Capital…

Anyone interested in Marx should read Bertrand Russel's critiques of Marxism and his analysis of the Manifesto with an honest mind. The Hegelianism behind Marxism is a tool that can prove both that the Kingdom of Prussia in the 1760s was a reflection of God's will, as well as giving Marx the idea that he had a scientific approach to history that let him predict the future. Any tool of reasoning that can prove anythin…

You know that Bertrand Russell was a socialist/communist right?

Re: A review of Thomas Piketty’s “Capital and Ideology”

#57

Post by nwienert »

rsync wrote: post #30
karatestomp wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s also why some positions that should be fairly common are effectively impossible to express. For single payer healthcare, against the death penalty, and anti-abortion? You have no good candidates. Pro union, but also for stronger anti-illegal-immigration measures? Ditto. And so on.

"Pro union, but also for stronger anti-illegal-immigration measures? Ditto." As an aside, and hoping you find this interesting: Ralph Nader, who was a serious presidential candidate as late as 2000, did embrace exactly that combination ... I believe he claimed that (relatively) open borders were ipso facto anti-union.

Yea if anything a republican will run on this next now that Trump has shifted the party around.

Re: A review of Thomas Piketty’s “Capital and Ideology”

#59

Post by nemo »

clairity wrote: post #35
nemo wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anyone interested in Marx should read Bertrand Russel's critiques of Marxism and his analysis of the Manifesto with an honest mind. The Hegelianism behind Marxism is a tool that can prove both that the Kingdom of Prussia in the 1760s was a reflection of God's will, as well as giving Marx the idea that he had a scientific approach to history that let him predict the future. Any tool of reasoning that can prove anythin…

> "[the Labor Theory of Value is] an idea long since thoroughly discredited." that's quite a claim to make without any backing ("everything is nothing" is not particularly useful). i've read some of the main critiques [0], but none thoroughly discredits it. yes, the critiques show flaws, but not fatal ones. so what's the fatal flaw? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticisms_of_the_labour_theor...

I think it'd worth reading that page again with an open mind. If you really read through that and thought that there are no fatal issues that's fine, I don't agree, though I doubt there's anything that anyone could say to change your mind.

But I will retract and restate. The Labor Theory of Value is taken seriously by Marxists because they require it, but in terms of expert opinion it's long since been rejected. If you don't care about expert opinion and are willing to listen to ideologues then you will find compelling feeling arguments for the whole shambolic mess that is Marxist ideology.

The Labor Theory of Value isn't a single flaw in Marxism, but one of dozens of serious points of incoherence. Marxism is an anti-empirical archaism of the Victorian era. Marxism is built on a dialectic that literally cannot reveal truth. Marxism makes many predictive claims that are false. Russell took apart the contradictions and irrationality of Hegelianism a long time ago and ended Hegelianism in the Anglo-American philosophical world because of it.

Re: A review of Thomas Piketty’s “Capital and Ideology”

#60

Post by NeutralCrane »

claudiawerner wrote: post #8

Although I haven't read Captial and Ideology , Piketty seems to be situated in a weird place, as I gathered by his previous book. He isn't critical of capitalism as such [0] - as economists like Sen, Roemer, Kliman and Veneziani are, but on the other hand he is aware of the transparent ideological forces which shape the way we view the economy and capital. The content of this book, between social, historical and econ…

> Piketty seems to be situated in a weird place, as I gathered by his previous book. He isn't critical of capitalism as such[0] - as economists like Sen, Roemer, Kliman and Veneziani are, but on the other hand he is aware of the transparent ideological forces which shape the way we view the economy and capital.

That weird place is simply social democracy. It seems to be unpopular because it is essentially the "centrism" of the capitalism/socialism debate, and everyone hates centrists these days.

Post reply on HN