|
rscott posted:why are you guys responding to the guy who thinks minecraft IRL is the solution to the world's problems Minecraft has a substantially more realistic economic model than this guy.
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 00:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 4, 2024 00:51 |
|
|
rscott posted:why are you guys responding to the guy who thinks minecraft IRL is the solution to the world's problems Its more fun than listening to a guy pretending that capitalism can be reformed into a non-assfuck the non-rich system.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 00:15
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:Minecraft has a substantially more realistic economic model than this guy. Haha you really think an economy which can exploit people and create infinite money is in any way realis- Oh. Oh.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 00:17
|
|
|
Is there a recording of the speech online anywhere yet? I caught most of it, but missed the first 15 minutes or so, so I'd like to see that and share it around with friends as well.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 19:44
|
|
|
Also interested in a recording, was pretty late in the UK.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 23:59
|
|
|
It'll be on youtube according to their site but it could take a while to upload a whole seminar.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 01:04
|
|
|
Rap Record Hoarder posted:He and Krugman are both terrible speaking in front of a crowd, I really don't get how you can be a public figure and be so bad at public speeches. My guess is because the intent for them wasn't to become public figures. Krugman became an economist first and only later started writing opinion pieces. By the time you're in your 40-50's I imagine its a lot more difficult to pick up good public speaking habits.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 17:41
|
|
|
And even when you do public speaking as part of your job, there's sometimes very little incentive to improve. Anyone who's had a lovely professor or two knows what I'm talking about.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2014 03:24
|
|
|
I am always afraid of buying this book and leaving it unfinished 2 chapters in. Anybody wants to form a book club and read a chapter every 2 weeks?
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 03:15
|
|
|
I'm about 250 pages in, and this book is pretty great. There is a substantial explanation of why the 1950-1980 period is such a historical anomoly. There is also a very strong argument for the instability of the K/I ratio. The best part, though, is Piketty bringing up basically every mainstream economist you know and saying "This dude was wrong, he didn't have enough/any data to back his theories up." Piketty has all the data he needs, painstakingly collected, organized, and analyzed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 03:52
|
|
|
The summary says that this current system of capital and wealth concentration is unsustainable. What does "unsustainable" mean here? There have been incredibly unequal societies that lasted for very very long amounts of time. Naively, it might be more accurate to describe a more equitable distribution of wealth as "unsustainable" (not that that's a good thing).
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 04:42
|
|
|
Yeah, if anything, we're reverting to the historical norm.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 04:48
|
|
|
ShadowHawk posted:The summary says that this current system of capital and wealth concentration is unsustainable. What does "unsustainable" mean here? There have been incredibly unequal societies that lasted for very very long amounts of time. Naively, it might be more accurate to describe a more equitable distribution of wealth as "unsustainable" (not that that's a good thing). The reason it's unsustainable is because only so much wealth exists. The very wealthy are demanding more and more of it but there isn't much else to take. The working class requires a certain level of "wealth" to merely exist as if you impoverish a person enough they starve to death. Otherwise, people that are desperately poor and hungry tend to become unruly. History has shown, time and time again, that people living in crushing poverty and economic impression get rebellious as gently caress. If nothing else crime rates and social instability rise, which eventually begins to affect the very rich that were taking everything in the first place. You also run into instability issues when the wealthy class has more and more trouble taking from those with less than them and begin to start fighting over each others' fortunes more. When the rest of society is so crushingly poor that they can barely afford to eat the only thing the obscenely rich have to such money from is each other. I know he writes comedy but I think Terry Pratchett probably has one of the best views on this sort of thing I've ever seen. In the books the Patrician, a former assassin named Havelock Vetinari, rolled in and took over the city and got everybody to quit fighting by "making them see that it wasn't a matter of fighting for more of the pie but taking your small slice of the pie then working with everybody else to make the pie bigger." What we're seeing right now is that the very rich own literally everything and control America economically. They're trying to make the pie bigger while not letting anybody have any of the new pie slices. It's leading to increased poverty and increased instability, as well as increased homelessness and less education. This is something that I actually saw the fallout of happening when I worked at Walmart when the economy tanked. The people that had been there a long time were getting increasingly irritated with the company as the benefits were getting worse, the pay was stagnating or declining, and the company was systematically getting rid of anybody that was being paid well that wasn't management. Work hours available were slashed across the board, people were set up to fail then punished for it, and full time employees were replaced with part time ones. Whereas when I started there the workers were generally pretty happy and motivated (it isn't amazing, of course, but the one janitor was making like $14 an hour, had full benefits, and they'd give him every last shred of overtime he asked for) when I left it was a dismal, horrible place to work. When you start arbitrarily canning anybody that's been there for more than 10 years and cut everybody's hours to the bone, but require them to do the same amount of work in less time for less money, productivity just flat out tanks. Really, the wealthy are ultimately shooting themselves in the foot by deliberately impoverishing everybody else.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 06:03
|
|
|
Any French readers reading the Pilketty book in the mother tongue? My French isn't half bad but I'm pretty sure it's nowhere near good enough to grasp this book.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 11:55
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:If nothing else crime rates and social instability rise, which eventually begins to affect the very rich that were taking everything in the first place. The problem is that, in the modern world, it's far more easy for the wealthy to avoid these effects than it was, say, 100+ years ago. They can very easily travel to different parts of the world and also have the benefit of a mass media that more or less reflects their interests.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 16:45
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:The problem is that, in the modern world, it's far more easy for the wealthy to avoid these effects than it was, say, 100+ years ago. They can very easily travel to different parts of the world and also have the benefit of a mass media that more or less reflects their interests. The wealthy had easy travel in the past too. Not to mention how they owned mass media in the past. It is a common romantic fallacy that there was a time that the popular mass media existed and wasn't controlled by rich people - and it's simply never been true except for when press control was seized by governments in war or otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 17:02
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:The problem is that, in the modern world, it's far more easy for the wealthy to avoid these effects than it was, say, 100+ years ago. They can very easily travel to different parts of the world and also have the benefit of a mass media that more or less reflects their interests. To be clear I am saying that if there is sufficient political unrest in the United States, due to your policy programs, that you are associated with them and are now being targeted for retribution, I don't think it is some automatic given that you will be warmly embraced elsewhere. Similarly, it does not seem like a given that your financial information and accounts will be immune either. Your new 'host' might want 80% of your assets in exchange for a passport and the local equivalent of a green card.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 17:22
|
|
|
The ultra-rich already have overseas visas and passports. Most developed countries have expedited visa processes for foreigners willing to invest a set amount in the country e.g., Australia, Singapore.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 17:26
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:The ultra-rich already have overseas visas and passports. The question is not whether they'll be able to flee anywhere; the question is whether they'll be able to flee anywhere where they'll be able to completely escape the poors (that work for them and do absolutely everything for them.) There is no going Galt in this dystopian future. Dystram fucked around with this message at 18:00 on Apr 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 17:47
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:The wealthy had easy travel in the past too. Not to mention how they owned mass media in the past. Oh, absolutely. I'm not saying that things were dramatically different in the past; the rich have had ways of avoiding repercussions for their actions throughout all of recorded history. It's just that traveling is easier now and mass media and what we know about how to influence peoples' opinions, etc, is more sophisticated than it used to be*. It's not that things went from good to bad, but rather they went from bad to even worse. For example, where propaganda used to be more heavy-handed, there is now news media that makes people think that they came to conclusions on their own.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 18:55
|
|
|
I think these revenge fantasies about poor masses rising up and the rich having nowhere to run don't have much basis in reality.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 19:21
|
|
|
CarrKnight posted:I am always afraid of buying this book and leaving it unfinished 2 chapters in. Yeah, I'm tempted to put this up as a book barn book of the month but it's almost certainly too long.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 19:32
|
|
|
tbp posted:I think these revenge fantasies about poor masses rising up and the rich having nowhere to run don't have much basis in reality. Obviously they have a huge amount of temporal power and influence; so did the Tsar.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 19:40
|
|
|
Dystram posted:The question is not whether they'll be able to flee anywhere; the question is whether they'll be able to flee anywhere where they'll be able to completely escape the poors (that work for them and do absolutely everything for them.) There's no going Galt, ever, in any future. John Galt's little rebellion relied on technology that was literally magic that he managed to invent, well...somehow, Rand never really bothers explaining that bit...because he was just that goddamned individual. He was such a special, unique little snowflake that even the laws of physics didn't apply to him, man. If you just learn to free your mind and discard the propaganda fed to you by those dirty, stupid lieberals than you'd get it, man.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 19:52
|
|
|
Does the book explain what factors lead to the 1950-1980 anomaly?
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 20:00
|
|
|
FaustianQ posted:Does the book explain what factors lead to the 1950-1980 anomaly? Probably something to do with the whole rest of the industrial world having been leveled and owing America tons of money. VV Probably that too Real hurthling! fucked around with this message at 20:26 on Apr 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 20:22
|
|
|
Real hurthling! posted:Probably something to do with the whole rest of the industrial world having been leveled and owing America tons of money.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 20:23
|
|
|
FaustianQ posted:Does the book explain what factors lead to the 1950-1980 anomaly? Yes. As you can imagine, it is complicated. The story is slightly more pronounced in Europe, but America has a similar experience. 1. Destruction of K in the two world wars 2. Low overall savings rates throughout the 1920s, 30s, and 40s 3. Liquidation of colonial empires of Britain and France (the loss of British foreign capital was at least as great as the loss of French domestic capital as a result of two world wars) 4. Mixed economies (nationalization of industry and banking) and new regulatory regimes 5. Progressive taxation schemes 6. Policies explicitly directed at reducing the market value of assets and the economic power of their owners (rent controls, capital requirements) There's probably some stuff I'm missing, so I can check the book later. Several of these factors would be reversed over time, along with population growth changes, and Piketty argues we are entering a period of low growth that is more in line with the long run historical average.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 20:38
|
|
|
Grand Theft Autobot posted:Yes. As you can imagine, it is complicated. The story is slightly more pronounced in Europe, but America has a similar experience. I'm sure communication and transportation being more difficult certainly played a role.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 20:50
|
|
|
Dystram posted:I'm sure communication and transportation being more difficult certainly played a role. What do you mean?
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 20:53
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Yeah, I'm tempted to put this up as a book barn book of the month but it's almost certainly too long. Yeah, it looks impervious. Still I might try this on my own and maybe post a chapter summary here every 2 weeks to see what people think.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 21:02
|
|
|
CarrKnight posted:Yeah, it looks impervious. Still I might try this on my own and maybe post a chapter summary here every 2 weeks to see what people think. It really isn't too bad. Me and about 6 other people are reading it for book club, and we're all at least to Part III after a couple of weeks.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 22:17
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Neither do the "the rich are just these ethereal demonic presences who are now completely untouchable by any conceit of we, the poor and unwashed," which seems to be an unstated assumption in a lot of talk about the matter, whether on the left ("ughhh we can never overcome or even mitigate the desires of the Riches") or the right ("Obama merely providing Wall Street a blowjob, as opposed to a blowjob with ball cupping, is tantamount to dishonor and will drive the finance sector away forever, we mean it!") I don't know. One scenario seems more plausible and less ahistorical than the other (i.e., the rich get away). What's your posited scenario where there's a worldwide pogrom against the rich.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 23:34
|
|
|
I'm not sure how many goons are fortunate enough to actually date and have careers, but it's becoming increasingly difficult to form and raise a family near a large city. And most jobs are near large cities. This, to me, suggests that capital concentration (and the attendant increase in prices on real estate/college/etc.) is already starting to erode the future of the middle class in a very real way. Are middle class careerists (or even wage earners) taking to the streets? No, they are simply settling for fewer children (or none), a single lifestyle, not owning a home, etc. People are already losing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 00:34
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Yeah, I'm tempted to put this up as a book barn book of the month but it's almost certainly too long. Where are you guys getting this book? I've tried two local bookstores, The Strand, Powell's and Amazon. All have it on backorder.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 09:38
|
|
|
Nessus posted:I wonder if the presence of the USSR had a role as well, mostly in the sense of "if we don't share at least a chunk of the pie, the Reds are actually objectively correct." Now there aren't any real Reds any more, so... If you look at the timing of the development of most social system post-war, it often happened in context of the Cold War or left-right politics that were heavily influenced by it. Even before the war "the economic question" an open issue, even in the US there was a significant Communist Party and notable populists during the Depression. It may be too simple to just say "the Soviets made them" but the harder edge of politics of the period and a far more robust left and far-left had to play a part (and yes many Communist parties did have links with the USSR for at least some of that period). By the late 1970s/1980s, the Soviet Union was already showing clear economic weakness and a reduce ability maintain the same pace with the West. In fact, several bloc nations were actually taking out Western loans and by the time Gorbachev started making market reforms the issue was largely put to bed and Western politics started lurching far more to the right and hasn't stopped. So the question is what is going to actually be a realistic political if not existential threat to the current system that would force a "Wealth tax"? As far as trade, the big difference was that the world was split into two blocs based on political lines and each nation's development depended on that context (and timing). Look at Japan and the United States' trade relationship after the war, and how in that that relationship not only achieved political goals but moved capital from the United States to Japan in a specific manner. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 11:08 on Apr 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 10:49
|
|
|
geegee posted:Where are you guys getting this book? I've tried two local bookstores, The Strand, Powell's and Amazon. All have it on backorder. My copy shipped from Amazon today. I put in the order when it was backordered but it only took two days or so to clear.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2014 01:03
|
|
|
Bob Solow is in support of Piketty: http://www.newrepublic.com/article/117429/capital-twenty-first-century-thomas-piketty-reviewed
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2014 02:34
|
|
|
Currently forty pages in and I'm in favor of further discussion. So far everything I've read is pretty rudimentary but I applaud Piketty for trying to incorporate people unfamiliar with economics.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2014 03:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 4, 2024 00:51 |
|
|
You'd basically need a revolution to institute anything like a 80% wealth tax, and whatever the rich had left would just be used to lobby the tax out of existence within ten years. However good his economic analysis that seems like a politically ignorant answer.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2014 08:19
|
|