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

71–80 of 118 posts

Re: Thomas Piketty’s Radical Plan to Redistribute Wealth

#71

Post by epgui »

tharne wrote: post #59
epgui wrote: post #51

I often really like this community, but I have found people here especially prone to falling to the "meritocracy trap". ie.: believing they are mostly where they are because of ability, worthiness or hard work, rather than mostly luck. That's really unfortunate, and results in a lot of non-self-aware political bickering.

I often really like this community, but I have found people here especially prone to falling to the "no-dissapointment-in-my-life-is-ever-my-fault trap". ie.: believing that they are where they are due to vast and well-executed systemic conspiracies rather than mistakes, missteps, or a simple lack of motivation or ability. That's really unfortunate, and results in a lot of non-self-aware political bickering.

The difference between my comment and yours is that the meritocracy trap is a real thing that has been the subject of scholarly works. Also, I speak not from a place of disappointments, but rather from a place of great privilege. I am extremely lucky to be where I am (and yes, I worked hard for it too).

For an overview and references, see:

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_meritocracy

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy#Meritocracy_trap

Re: Thomas Piketty’s Radical Plan to Redistribute Wealth

#72

Post by jhgjhgjhg »

pydry wrote: post #69
endisneigh wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's say you taxed unimproved land at 1000%. What's the result? No one will hold it. OK, great you say. The government won't develop it. It'll sit there, owned by the government, unimproved. Great. What has been accomplished exactly? Georgism is not the solution. Relaxing zoning laws and bureaucracy is. Private money already wants to develop their unimproved land if it's economical to do so. If it's not, taxing them…

I dont believe anybody has ever suggested taxing it above 100%. 100% is the level whereby 100% of the profit a landlord makes will be due to the quality of the improvements and 0% will be due to land speculation. A landlord owning a shitty building in a hot location will lose money. Hopefully a lot. That is by design. They sell up, somebody demolishes it and builds something better and denser and therefore makes a pr…

No post body was provided.

Re: Thomas Piketty’s Radical Plan to Redistribute Wealth

#73

Post by pydry »

endisneigh wrote: post #70
pydry wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I dont believe anybody has ever suggested taxing it above 100%. 100% is the level whereby 100% of the profit a landlord makes will be due to the quality of the improvements and 0% will be due to land speculation. A landlord owning a shitty building in a hot location will lose money. Hopefully a lot. That is by design. They sell up, somebody demolishes it and builds something better and denser and therefore makes a pr…

> All the private money in the world isnt convincing land owners in San Francisco to demolish and build apartment blocks to accomodate demand. This has nothing to do with tax. Just change the laws. smh. Plenty of people want to develop their land in San Francisco. Here's one example: https://reason.com/2018/02/21/san-francisco-man-has-spent-4-... Again, private money already wants to develop. Taxation is not necessar…

It has everything to do with tax - specifically prop 13 which DEtaxed land and led to California's ridiculously inefficient land use.

Those property owners with $3 million houses will do everything in their power to prop their value up. That means inhibiting high density development. That means pretending a laundromat is "historic".

With a 100% LVT their houses arent worth $3 million theyre worth exactly as much as an equivalent house in Omaha.

There is no point in NIMBYing to inhibit housing with stupid shit like pretending a laundromat is a historic building. Inhibiting development wont drive up property prices. Change those laws and others will be abused.

But those people with $3 million houses will do ANYTHING to prevent an LVT.

Re: Thomas Piketty’s Radical Plan to Redistribute Wealth

#74

Post by endisneigh »

pydry wrote: post #73
endisneigh wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> All the private money in the world isnt convincing land owners in San Francisco to demolish and build apartment blocks to accomodate demand. This has nothing to do with tax. Just change the laws. smh. Plenty of people want to develop their land in San Francisco. Here's one example: https://reason.com/2018/02/21/san-francisco-man-has-spent-4-... Again, private money already wants to develop. Taxation is not necessar…

It has everything to do with tax - specifically prop 13 which DEtaxed land and led to California's ridiculously inefficient land use. Those property owners with $3 million houses will do everything in their power to prop their value up. That means inhibiting high density development. That means pretending a laundromat is "historic". With a 100% LVT their houses arent worth $3 million theyre worth exactly as much as a…

you make absolutely no sense. the so-called power the NIMBYs have was given to them by the government.

> With a 100% LVT their houses arent worth $3 million theyre worth exactly as much as an equivalent house in Omaha.

and this is just wrong.

Re: Thomas Piketty’s Radical Plan to Redistribute Wealth

#75

Post by wizofaus »

tschwimmer wrote: post #44

Piketty always has insightful commentary on the topic and I'll definitely be checking out this book. I think we'll come to recognize that R > G is an important influencer for social stability and long term prosperity. That said, I do wonder if we're looking at inequality (or more specifically hierarchy) through the wrong lens. It seems like almost all independent societies naturally develop some sort of hierarchy (ch…

Have you read The Dawn of Everything?

Re: Thomas Piketty’s Radical Plan to Redistribute Wealth

#76

Post by rgrieselhuber »

endisneigh wrote: post #55
rgrieselhuber wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And who gets to decide what inequality is and why?

Good question - who should? Democratically decided upon I suppose?

And where do the people get their information to decide?

Re: Thomas Piketty’s Radical Plan to Redistribute Wealth

#77

Post by endisneigh »

rgrieselhuber wrote: post #76
endisneigh wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good question - who should? Democratically decided upon I suppose?

And where do the people get their information to decide?

Same way people get their information to decide now for anything democratically decided upon?

Re: Thomas Piketty’s Radical Plan to Redistribute Wealth

#78

Post by twblalock »

epgui wrote: post #71
tharne wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I often really like this community, but I have found people here especially prone to falling to the "no-dissapointment-in-my-life-is-ever-my-fault trap". ie.: believing that they are where they are due to vast and well-executed systemic conspiracies rather than mistakes, missteps, or a simple lack of motivation or ability. That's really unfortunate, and results in a lot of non-self-aware political bickering.

The difference between my comment and yours is that the meritocracy trap is a real thing that has been the subject of scholarly works. Also, I speak not from a place of disappointments, but rather from a place of great privilege. I am extremely lucky to be where I am (and yes, I worked hard for it too). For an overview and references, see: - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_meritocracy - https://en.wikipedia.org…

You are arguing against a strawman here. Nobody claimed we have a perfect meritocracy.

Re: Thomas Piketty’s Radical Plan to Redistribute Wealth

#79

Post by wizofaus »

twblalock wrote: post #67
zach_garwood wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Musk is a bad example, he didn't actually invent or develop those things you mentioned, he just acts as the figurehead. If he disappeared today, the only thing we would miss would be his hot Twitter takes.

Tesla would have gone out of business years ago if Musk hadn't been running it. His leadership of the company, his wealth, and his showmanship and thirst for publicity have been essential. So what if he wasn't one of the founders?

So imagine what sort of world we'd live in if all the would-be-Musks had access to even half the level of wealth or opportunity he did when growing up...

Re: Thomas Piketty’s Radical Plan to Redistribute Wealth

#80

Post by epgui »

twblalock wrote: post #78
epgui wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference between my comment and yours is that the meritocracy trap is a real thing that has been the subject of scholarly works. Also, I speak not from a place of disappointments, but rather from a place of great privilege. I am extremely lucky to be where I am (and yes, I worked hard for it too). For an overview and references, see: - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_meritocracy - https://en.wikipedia.org…

You are arguing against a strawman here. Nobody claimed we have a perfect meritocracy.

Nobody claimed this directly, but when you boil down most progressive policies to their naked objective, it comes down to redistribution in one form or another, taking from the rich and lifting everyone (most noticeably lifting the poor).

Most objections to progressive policies boil down to the idea that the more fortunate people deserve what they have, and that redistribution would make less fortunate people not work as hard. In other words, the world is unfair because of "hand-wavy general incentives".

I am aware that second paragraph was not a great steel-man, and there are many variants and nuances of these positions, but generally the implicit assumption is that we have good (I did not say perfect) vertical mobility, when in reality this is not usually the case.

Post reply on HN