Piketty: Cargo Cult Economics

[PoliticalChic]

The latest hero for the Left is French economist Thomas Piketty.
"...Obama White House Rolled Out The Red Carpet For Him..."
Who Is Thomas Piketty And Why Has The Obama White House Rolled Out The Red Carpet For Him? - Hunter Lewis - Page 1





The reason for said the Left's 'crush' is that Mr. Piketty has handed liberals a "coherent framework that justifies the discomfort that they probably already felt about the wealth gap."
Thomas Piketty Capital: How America?s liberals fell for a French economist.

What do they mean?
They mean that Piketty gives the Obamunists some sort of basis for their attack on the free-market, "income inequality."

Of course, the more astute realize that "income inequality" is really just an attempt to change the conversation from ObamaCare.





If one would like to see an article that makes fear of the 'income inequality' the joke that it is, well, consider reading the thread right here:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/351375-income-inequality-so-what.html






But, if a more credentialed view is required, Professor Mark R. Rank, a leading national expert on poverty and a professor at the George Warren Brown School of Social Work, does a thorough job of it.

Dr. Rank refers to Piketty's view as "cargo cult economics'..."any of various Melanesian religious groups characterized by the belief that material wealth (as money or manufactured goods) can be obtained through ritual worship."
Cargo cult - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary





1. " Economics is much more akin climatology than to real science. It is larded with theories that are simply not falsifiable.... can work backwards from a known point but are unable to predict an outcome, and adherence to fads and a good publicist are more important to success than actually being accurate.

a. "... the basic idea is that if the government creates something that is associated with a vibrant middle class then a vibrant middle class will spring from that program.... right in the middle of boarded up store fronts some governmental agency had plopped down an “arts center.”

The idea being that somehow funding an arts center in a mostly deserted downtown would revive the downtown area because affluent downtowns all have arts centers." Obamacare Meets Reality. Reality Wins. | RedState

b. In short, cargo cult economics is the seizing upon an indicator of a successful outcome (say, a community arts center) and using that factor as a way of creating a successful outcome.






2. The book that is all the rage on the left is a dense economic tome called Capital in the 21st Century by a French and Marxist economics professor called Thomas Piketty. It epitomizes cargo cult economics well blended with the vice of greed and a disregard for the whole “thou shalt not covet” thing....

3. Piketty purports to trace the history of the concentration of wealth since the 18th century, which really can’t be done for lack of data and rational points of comparison, and claims that capitalism inevitably produces a divide between those who have capital (capitalists) and those who work for wages (the proletariat)… stop me if you’ve heard this one before.

a. .... he also sees anyone with property or savings as a threat to democracy. "
Thomas Piketty, Wealth Inequality and Cargo Cult Economics | RedState

...after all, "You didn't build, save, earn that......"







Considering all of Obama's other failures, this love affair with Piketty.....

....just one more.

 

[editec]

There are many exacmples of delusional thinking surrounding economics

The invisible hand of the market is a good example


The self correcting nature of the market another excellent example.

Cargo Cultism STILL another example.

People dearly WISH that economics was like a hard science.

It isn't.

Economics is merely a way of describing the system of distribution of goods and services.

The SYSTEM is arbitrary and entirely a manmade social system.

I note that both lefties and righties have a sort of childlike faith that there are RULES in economics that are inviolate.

They are confusing economics with physics, I think.

It's WISHFUL thinking to imagine that we have a set of rules for economics that if obeys will being us wealth.

The cosmos doesn't work that way.

 

[PoliticalChic]

There are many exacmples of delusional thinking surrounding economics

The invisible hand of the market is a good example


The self correcting nature of the market another excellent example.

Cargo Cultism STILL another example.

People dearly WISH that economics was like a hard science.

It isn't.

Economics is merely a way of describing the system of distribution of goods and services.

The SYSTEM is arbitrary and entirely a manmade social system.

I note that both lefties and righties have a sort of childlike faith that there are RULES in economics that are inviolate.

They are confusing economics with physics, I think.

It's WISHFUL thinking to imagine that we have a set of rules for economics that if obeys will being us wealth.

The cosmos doesn't work that way.

I'm certain you realize how your post applies to Obama's assault on the free market via the "Income Inequality" pretense.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Pay careful attention to the kind of thinking that Obama and his ilk find acceptable.

These folks hate any who earn their money.....no matter the level at which that earning is done.

And watch the punishments he suggests be visited on workers and earners!




4. ".... corporate executives are his special bête noire, Mr. Piketty is also deeply troubled by the tens of millions of working people—a group he disparagingly calls “petits rentiers”—whose income puts them nowhere near the “one percent” but who still have savings, retirement accounts and other assets. That this very large demographic group will get larger, grow wealthier and pass on assets via inheritance is “a fairly disturbing form of inequality.” He laments that it is difficult to “correct” because it involves a broad segment of the population, not a small elite that is easily demonized.


a. .... Piketty urges an 80% tax rate on incomes starting at “$500,000 or $1 million.” This is not to raise money for education or to increase unemployment benefits... he does not expect such a tax to bring in much revenue, because its purpose is simply “to put an end to such incomes.”


It will also be necessary to impose a 50%-60% tax rate on incomes as low as $200,000 to develop “the meager US social state.”


... an annual wealth tax as high as 10% on the largest fortunes and a one-time assessment as high as 20% on much lower levels of existing wealth. He breezily assures us that none of this would reduce economic growth, productivity, entrepreneurship or innovation." Book Review: 'Capital in the Twenty-First Century' by Thomas Piketty - WSJ.com





It it clear now, what another Marxist meant by "You didn't build that!"
It means "I can take it away from you."


How long before we hear "Up against the wall, mother......"




So....who denied that Liberals aren't the descendants of the Bolsheviks?

 

[PoliticalChic]

5. It certainly is easy to see why Democrats/Liberals/Progressives would find affinity with the Marxist economics professor, Thomas Piketty, as I will show here.



But it is even more significant as proof of what Whittaker Chambers wrote in his book "WITNESS," that liberals are/were incapable of ever effectively fighting Communism because they did not see anything in Communism that was antithetical to their own beliefs. In short, Liberals are Communists and Communists are Liberals.



"The book ' Capital in the 21st Century' by the French and Marxist economics professor Thomas Piketty..... rests on several mutually supporting principles:
 Social and economic mobility do not exist.
 Economic expansion does not exist.
 You are allowed to have money and property in the type and the amount the state is willing to allow.
 Being paid according to the values you bring to an organization is unfair.
 People will work just as hard for very little money as a lot of money.
Thomas Piketty, Wealth Inequality and Cargo Cult Economics | RedState



The Obama folks love, love, love Piketty's thesis!



See what Chambers was getting at?

 

[PoliticalChic]

6. Well, how does Professor Piketty suggest that Obama and folks of his variety battle the earners, and savers, and those who accumulated assets?

And what, if anything, is wrong with the Piketty analysis?




"....Piketty proposes, among other things, a far-fetched plan for the global taxation of wealth -- a call to radically redistribute the fruits of capitalism to ensure the system’s survival.

..... In nineteenth-century France, the flow of inheritances represented about 20–25 percent of national income during a typical year. According to Piketty’s calculations, the Western world is headed toward a roughly comparable situation. The relatively thrifty and wealthy baby boomers will soon begin to die off in greater numbers, and inheritance as a source of income disproportionately benefits the families of the very wealthy.


... Piketty’s concern about inherited wealth also seems misplaced. Far from creating a stagnant class of rentiers, growing capital wealth has allowed for the fairly dynamic circulation of financial elites. Today, the Rockefeller, Carnegie, and Ford family fortunes are quite dispersed, and the benefactors of those estates hardly run the United States,...


.... the success of certain immigrant groups suggests that cultural factors play a more significant role in mobility than does the capital-to-income ratio,...."
Tyler Cowen | Thomas Piketty's Vision of a Global Wealth Tax | Foreign Affairs




What???


How could a Marxist possibly be wrong???




Uh, oh.....Somebody better tell Obama: maybe they did build that.

 

[PoliticalChic]

7. For guys like Piketty, and Obama, their view is absorbed from living at the corner of Dark and Gloomy.....gee, no economic mobility, the rich just getting richer and taking over, the economy keeps going down the tubes due to that income inequality stuff....


But....how accurate is Piketty's view of America's income inequality, i.e., lack of social and economic mobility, etc.?


What if he is simply wrong.....then, so is Obama.






"Far from having the 21st-century equivalent of an Edwardian class system, the United States is characterized by a great deal of variation in income:
More than half of all adult Americans will be at or near the poverty line at some point over the course of their lives; 73 percent will also find themselves in the top 20 percent, and 39 percent will make it into the top 5 percent for at least one year.
Perhaps most remarkable, 12 percent of Americans will be in the top 1 percent for at least one year of their working lives.



The top 1 percent,,.... is such an unstable group that it makes no sense to write, as so many progressives do, about what has happened to its income over the past ten year or twenty years, because it does not contain the same group of people from year to year.


... the turnover among the super-rich (the top 400 taxpayers in any given year) is 98 percent over a decade — that is, just 2 percent of that elusive group remain there for ten years in a row.



Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics finds that among the allegedly privileged 1 percent, inherited wealth accounts for only 15 percent of household holdings, a smaller share than it does among middle-class families."
National Review Online | Print





Of course, none of the above data about the super rich applies if your name is 'Kennedy.'




8. So....as Piketty is so abysmally incorrect about economics, and is held in such high esteem by Obama and his ilk.....what can we derive from this lesson?







Let me suggest the wisdom of this old aphorism:

"The 13th chime of a clock, not only does it make no sense, but it calls into question the validity of the 12 chimes that preceded it."



Someone want to explain to Obama about how wrong all of his 'chimes' are?

 

[regent]

The social sciences are called the soft sciences for a reason. There are so many facets to economics and all the facets have to be in a row for a prediction to even come close. Add to the basic economic facets the sub-facets and one has a real problem. But the most questionable of any factor in the social sciences is the human one.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The social sciences are called the soft sciences for a reason. There are so many facets to economics and all the facets have to be in a row for a prediction to even come close. Add to the basic economic facets the sub-facets and one has a real problem. But the most questionable of any factor in the social sciences is the human one.

Is this post some sort of explanation, or apology, for Obama's infatuation with Piketty's Marxist views?


If so.....be sure to dash off a note to the White House immediately.

Isn't that what you would say?

 

[Moonglow]

If you read on what the French economist says, he states that he is not really clear on all the number crunching will lead with his economic philosophy...

 

[boedicca]

PC, you'll enjoy this read:

Word Problem No. 1: It’s lunchtime for Mrs. Piketty’s second-grade class. Bobby has 20 Gummi Worms, and Jenny has 20 SweeTarts. Bobby and Jenny both like Gummi Worms and SweeTarts, but both like SweeTarts a little bit more, so Jenny trades three of her SweeTarts for four of Bobby’s Gummi Worms. Both are happy with this trade, so they do it again. Question: How many pieces of candy do the two students end up with for dessert?

Word Problem No. 2: Mrs. Piketty is unhappy with the inequality in her second-grade classroom. Jenny’s 20 SweeTarts are valued much more highly than are Bobby’s 20 Gummi Worms, trading at a rate of 3:4. To even things out, Mrs. Piketty gives Bobby a voucher for seven SweeTarts. Question: How many pieces of candy do the two students end up with for dessert?

Word Problem No. 3: Mrs. Piketty’s attempt to solve the problem of inequality in her classroom has yielded unsatisfactory results. Bobby has his 20 Gummi Worms, and Jenny has her 20 SweeTarts, and SweeTarts still trade for Gummi Worms at a rate of 3:4. So Mrs. Piketty enacts some new policies. First, she hires Bobby as a hall monitor and decrees that hall monitors receive a minimum income of at least ten SweeTarts or the equivalent value in Gummi Worms. Also, she decrees that the high price of SweeTarts — three of them cost four Gummi Worms — is oppressive, but she’s not an all-the-way-to-the-wall outright red, either, more of a social-democrat type with a subscription to The Nation, so she simply enacts some counteracting price supports for Gummi Worms, decreeing that they cannot be traded at a price less than 13/15th of a SweeTart. She enlists Mrs. Yellen from the next classroom over to provide zero-interest financing for the purchase of up to five SweeTarts per lunch period, increases Bobby’s voucher allowance to nine SweeTarts per lunch period, and offsets that on her budget with a “fairness” tax of two SweeTarts per lunch period on Jenny, who is the sole member of her tax bracket. Question: How many pieces of candy do the two students end up with for dessert?

Answers: (1.) 40; (2.) 40; (3.) 40. There are only 40 pieces of candy, and rules, vouchers, taxes, zero-interest loans, redistribution, and mandates do not magic more pieces of candy into existence. If Jenny does not like the trading price imposed by Mrs. Piketty, she can keep all of her SweeTarts, while Bobby gets none. If Mrs. Piketty sends out her second-grade tactical SWAT unit to seize Jenny’s SweeTarts and put some serious asset-forfeiture and social-by-God-justice up in her smug little 1-percenter face, Jenny can still leave her SweeTarts at home, eating them before or after school, and maybe even save them up in the hopes that her third-grade teacher next year will not be a howling moonbat. Faced with that inconvenient reality, Mrs. Piketty may demand the repatriation of these SweeTart assets and denounce Jenny as an “economic traitor,” but she does not have any real power outside her classroom. Plus, Jenny and her SweeTarts are sort of popular, and she’s a pretty good student to boot, and so there are other classrooms that would just love to have her, with Mr. Lee’s nicely air-conditioned classroom across the hall offering some very attractive laissez-faire policies vis-à-vis SweeTarts and confectionery gains in general....

Welcome to the Paradise of the Real | National Review Online

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear PC: I like the political cartoon that shows Obama refusing to "redistribute the votes" he has collected. I think that says it all.

This is like asking people who want no restrictions on immigration to open up their doors and houses to anyone who wants to come in.

How can you be against border controls, yet have a lock on your door and control over whom you let into your house or not? Silly.

This is like a process of mass public education.

I believe in redistributing the "wealth of knowledge"
knowledge of laws, land and govt management, and access to programs
for developing direct hands on experience on the job.

Equally distribute the knowledge, and the flow of resources and
ability to manage people will follow.

6. Well, how does Professor Piketty suggest that Obama and folks of his variety battle the earners, and savers, and those who accumulated assets?

And what, if anything, is wrong with the Piketty analysis?




"....Piketty proposes, among other things, a far-fetched plan for the global taxation of wealth -- a call to radically redistribute the fruits of capitalism to ensure the system’s survival.

..... In nineteenth-century France, the flow of inheritances represented about 20–25 percent of national income during a typical year. According to Piketty’s calculations, the Western world is headed toward a roughly comparable situation. The relatively thrifty and wealthy baby boomers will soon begin to die off in greater numbers, and inheritance as a source of income disproportionately benefits the families of the very wealthy.


... Piketty’s concern about inherited wealth also seems misplaced. Far from creating a stagnant class of rentiers, growing capital wealth has allowed for the fairly dynamic circulation of financial elites. Today, the Rockefeller, Carnegie, and Ford family fortunes are quite dispersed, and the benefactors of those estates hardly run the United States,...


.... the success of certain immigrant groups suggests that cultural factors play a more significant role in mobility than does the capital-to-income ratio,...."
Tyler Cowen | Thomas Piketty's Vision of a Global Wealth Tax | Foreign Affairs




What???


How could a Marxist possibly be wrong???




Uh, oh.....Somebody better tell Obama: maybe they did build that.

 

[PoliticalChic]

If you read on what the French economist says, he states that he is not really clear on all the number crunching will lead with his economic philosophy...

He sure seems clear enough on the punishments his ilk would dole out to workers, earners and savers.

 

[PoliticalChic]

PC, you'll enjoy this read:

Word Problem No. 1: It’s lunchtime for Mrs. Piketty’s second-grade class. Bobby has 20 Gummi Worms, and Jenny has 20 SweeTarts. Bobby and Jenny both like Gummi Worms and SweeTarts, but both like SweeTarts a little bit more, so Jenny trades three of her SweeTarts for four of Bobby’s Gummi Worms. Both are happy with this trade, so they do it again. Question: How many pieces of candy do the two students end up with for dessert?

Word Problem No. 2: Mrs. Piketty is unhappy with the inequality in her second-grade classroom. Jenny’s 20 SweeTarts are valued much more highly than are Bobby’s 20 Gummi Worms, trading at a rate of 3:4. To even things out, Mrs. Piketty gives Bobby a voucher for seven SweeTarts. Question: How many pieces of candy do the two students end up with for dessert?

Word Problem No. 3: Mrs. Piketty’s attempt to solve the problem of inequality in her classroom has yielded unsatisfactory results. Bobby has his 20 Gummi Worms, and Jenny has her 20 SweeTarts, and SweeTarts still trade for Gummi Worms at a rate of 3:4. So Mrs. Piketty enacts some new policies. First, she hires Bobby as a hall monitor and decrees that hall monitors receive a minimum income of at least ten SweeTarts or the equivalent value in Gummi Worms. Also, she decrees that the high price of SweeTarts — three of them cost four Gummi Worms — is oppressive, but she’s not an all-the-way-to-the-wall outright red, either, more of a social-democrat type with a subscription to The Nation, so she simply enacts some counteracting price supports for Gummi Worms, decreeing that they cannot be traded at a price less than 13/15th of a SweeTart. She enlists Mrs. Yellen from the next classroom over to provide zero-interest financing for the purchase of up to five SweeTarts per lunch period, increases Bobby’s voucher allowance to nine SweeTarts per lunch period, and offsets that on her budget with a “fairness” tax of two SweeTarts per lunch period on Jenny, who is the sole member of her tax bracket. Question: How many pieces of candy do the two students end up with for dessert?

Answers: (1.) 40; (2.) 40; (3.) 40. There are only 40 pieces of candy, and rules, vouchers, taxes, zero-interest loans, redistribution, and mandates do not magic more pieces of candy into existence. If Jenny does not like the trading price imposed by Mrs. Piketty, she can keep all of her SweeTarts, while Bobby gets none. If Mrs. Piketty sends out her second-grade tactical SWAT unit to seize Jenny’s SweeTarts and put some serious asset-forfeiture and social-by-God-justice up in her smug little 1-percenter face, Jenny can still leave her SweeTarts at home, eating them before or after school, and maybe even save them up in the hopes that her third-grade teacher next year will not be a howling moonbat. Faced with that inconvenient reality, Mrs. Piketty may demand the repatriation of these SweeTart assets and denounce Jenny as an “economic traitor,” but she does not have any real power outside her classroom. Plus, Jenny and her SweeTarts are sort of popular, and she’s a pretty good student to boot, and so there are other classrooms that would just love to have her, with Mr. Lee’s nicely air-conditioned classroom across the hall offering some very attractive laissez-faire policies vis-à-vis SweeTarts and confectionery gains in general....

Welcome to the Paradise of the Real | National Review Online

What!!!!

No prison time for Bobby and/or Jenny?????


What kind of world is this?

 

[PoliticalChic]

PC, you'll enjoy this read:

Word Problem No. 1: It’s lunchtime for Mrs. Piketty’s second-grade class. Bobby has 20 Gummi Worms, and Jenny has 20 SweeTarts. Bobby and Jenny both like Gummi Worms and SweeTarts, but both like SweeTarts a little bit more, so Jenny trades three of her SweeTarts for four of Bobby’s Gummi Worms. Both are happy with this trade, so they do it again. Question: How many pieces of candy do the two students end up with for dessert?

Word Problem No. 2: Mrs. Piketty is unhappy with the inequality in her second-grade classroom. Jenny’s 20 SweeTarts are valued much more highly than are Bobby’s 20 Gummi Worms, trading at a rate of 3:4. To even things out, Mrs. Piketty gives Bobby a voucher for seven SweeTarts. Question: How many pieces of candy do the two students end up with for dessert?

Word Problem No. 3: Mrs. Piketty’s attempt to solve the problem of inequality in her classroom has yielded unsatisfactory results. Bobby has his 20 Gummi Worms, and Jenny has her 20 SweeTarts, and SweeTarts still trade for Gummi Worms at a rate of 3:4. So Mrs. Piketty enacts some new policies. First, she hires Bobby as a hall monitor and decrees that hall monitors receive a minimum income of at least ten SweeTarts or the equivalent value in Gummi Worms. Also, she decrees that the high price of SweeTarts — three of them cost four Gummi Worms — is oppressive, but she’s not an all-the-way-to-the-wall outright red, either, more of a social-democrat type with a subscription to The Nation, so she simply enacts some counteracting price supports for Gummi Worms, decreeing that they cannot be traded at a price less than 13/15th of a SweeTart. She enlists Mrs. Yellen from the next classroom over to provide zero-interest financing for the purchase of up to five SweeTarts per lunch period, increases Bobby’s voucher allowance to nine SweeTarts per lunch period, and offsets that on her budget with a “fairness” tax of two SweeTarts per lunch period on Jenny, who is the sole member of her tax bracket. Question: How many pieces of candy do the two students end up with for dessert?

Answers: (1.) 40; (2.) 40; (3.) 40. There are only 40 pieces of candy, and rules, vouchers, taxes, zero-interest loans, redistribution, and mandates do not magic more pieces of candy into existence. If Jenny does not like the trading price imposed by Mrs. Piketty, she can keep all of her SweeTarts, while Bobby gets none. If Mrs. Piketty sends out her second-grade tactical SWAT unit to seize Jenny’s SweeTarts and put some serious asset-forfeiture and social-by-God-justice up in her smug little 1-percenter face, Jenny can still leave her SweeTarts at home, eating them before or after school, and maybe even save them up in the hopes that her third-grade teacher next year will not be a howling moonbat. Faced with that inconvenient reality, Mrs. Piketty may demand the repatriation of these SweeTart assets and denounce Jenny as an “economic traitor,” but she does not have any real power outside her classroom. Plus, Jenny and her SweeTarts are sort of popular, and she’s a pretty good student to boot, and so there are other classrooms that would just love to have her, with Mr. Lee’s nicely air-conditioned classroom across the hall offering some very attractive laissez-faire policies vis-à-vis SweeTarts and confectionery gains in general....

Welcome to the Paradise of the Real | National Review Online

When we send you's to the White House, can we send this puzzle in, too?


“ONCE UPON A time in the land of America, there lived triplet brothers named Tom, Dick, and Harry Class. They were 45 years old, had virtually the same aptitude (skill), and were raised in the same home. Each was married and had two children. All three were employed as carpenters making $25 per hour, working 50 weeks a year.

While they were almost identical in most respects, they had somewhat different preferences and values. For example, Tom, who worked 20 hours a week, had a different work ethic from his brothers, Dick and Harry, who each worked 60 hours per week. Neither Tom’s nor Dick’s wives worked, while Harry’s wife worked 40 hours per week as an office manager making $50,000 per year (the same hourly rate as her husband).

Tom and Dick spent all of their income, and were relying on Social Security to take care of them when they retired. Harry and his wife, on the other hand, saved most of her after-tax income over many years, gradually accumulating $300,000. They invested this money in bonds and real estate that produced $25,000 a year in interest and rental income. “The Inequity of the Progressive Income Tax | Hoover Institution


a. Obama: “ If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”
Which one… Tom, Dick, or Harry Class? From which one should we ‘redistribute”?
And, how much?

 

[f252863]

There are many exacmples of delusional thinking surrounding economics

The invisible hand of the market is a good example


The self correcting nature of the market another excellent example.

Cargo Cultism STILL another example.

People dearly WISH that economics was like a hard science.

It isn't.

Economics is merely a way of describing the system of distribution of goods and services.

The SYSTEM is arbitrary and entirely a manmade social system.

I note that both lefties and righties have a sort of childlike faith that there are RULES in economics that are inviolate.

They are confusing economics with physics, I think.

It's WISHFUL thinking to imagine that we have a set of rules for economics that if obeys will being us wealth.

The cosmos doesn't work that way.

You make bold statements without providing any examples or explanation. This is lazy thinking.

The invisible hand doesn't work? Business does not self regulate?

What is Yelp? What are Amazon reviews? What is that label on your appliance that says UL approved?

Business does a much better job of self regulating for a very simple and obvious reason. Cheating your customers will put you out of business in no time flat.

Government regulators?

1. Take bribes.
2. Have a conflict of interest, because more regulation = job security.
3. Do not have to account for their performance in the free market.
4. Operate as non-profit, no incentive to perform or improve.

Government regulators have been swamping banks with regulations for 100 years, and how many crises have we had?

 

[PoliticalChic]

9. OK...you Leftists win.
After all, you got 65 million Americans to vote for the socialist-Marxist.....it must mean that Piketty is right....
....or does it.




"Even if Piketty’s worst case scenario played out, the human and societal cost of his prescriptions would far outweigh the perceived advantages.

A society that penalizes the successful for no other reason than to cause pain is hardly a society worth creating much less living in.
In short, Piketty’s proposal is an exercise in cargo cult economics.

Piketty’s solution to the non-existent problem of wealth inequality would destroy not only wealth but economic mobility and risk taking. It would make us France."
Thomas Piketty, Wealth Inequality and Cargo Cult Economics | RedState




A collectivist nation is not built on the law, but on the idea that everyone has the right to take from any other folks that appear to have more material wealth than they.....'cause, you know, they 'didn't build that.'




10. As Winston Churchill observed:
“The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.”

 

[Rshermr]

9. OK...you Leftists win.
After all, you got 65 million Americans to vote for the socialist-Marxist.....it must mean that Piketty is right....
....or does it.




"Even if Piketty’s worst case scenario played out, the human and societal cost of his prescriptions would far outweigh the perceived advantages.

A society that penalizes the successful for no other reason than to cause pain is hardly a society worth creating much less living in.
In short, Piketty’s proposal is an exercise in cargo cult economics.

Piketty’s solution to the non-existent problem of wealth inequality would destroy not only wealth but economic mobility and risk taking. It would make us France."
Thomas Piketty, Wealth Inequality and Cargo Cult Economics | RedState




A collectivist nation is not built on the law, but on the idea that everyone has the right to take from any other folks that appear to have more material wealth than they.....'cause, you know, they 'didn't build that.'




10. As Winston Churchill observed:
“The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.”

But then, you have proven that you are a con tool again with your normal bat shit crazy con web site quotes. And your total inability to argue an economic point of view. RedState??? Really???? RedState??? Jesus. Are you just trying to prove yourself irrelevant again????

Congratulations, you again are successful.

But on the bright side, nice to see you still know how to copy and paste. The stock and trade of a paid con tool.

 

[PoliticalChic]

9. OK...you Leftists win.
After all, you got 65 million Americans to vote for the socialist-Marxist.....it must mean that Piketty is right....
....or does it.




"Even if Piketty’s worst case scenario played out, the human and societal cost of his prescriptions would far outweigh the perceived advantages.

A society that penalizes the successful for no other reason than to cause pain is hardly a society worth creating much less living in.
In short, Piketty’s proposal is an exercise in cargo cult economics.

Piketty’s solution to the non-existent problem of wealth inequality would destroy not only wealth but economic mobility and risk taking. It would make us France."
Thomas Piketty, Wealth Inequality and Cargo Cult Economics | RedState




A collectivist nation is not built on the law, but on the idea that everyone has the right to take from any other folks that appear to have more material wealth than they.....'cause, you know, they 'didn't build that.'




10. As Winston Churchill observed:
“The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.”

But then, you have proven that you are a con tool again with your normal bat shit crazy con web site quotes. And your total inability to argue an economic point of view. RedState??? Really???? RedState??? Jesus. Are you just trying to prove yourself irrelevant again????

Congratulations, you again are successful.

But on the bright side, nice to see you still know how to copy and paste. The stock and trade of a paid con tool.

"Congratulations, you again are successful."

It is a constant for me.....

...and 'success,' the missing ingredient in your existence, is both what you crave, and what enrages you.

Right, worm?



If you get run over by a car, it shouldn't be listed under accidents.

 

[Rshermr]

9. OK...you Leftists win.
After all, you got 65 million Americans to vote for the socialist-Marxist.....it must mean that Piketty is right....
....or does it.




"Even if Piketty’s worst case scenario played out, the human and societal cost of his prescriptions would far outweigh the perceived advantages.

A society that penalizes the successful for no other reason than to cause pain is hardly a society worth creating much less living in.
In short, Piketty’s proposal is an exercise in cargo cult economics.

Piketty’s solution to the non-existent problem of wealth inequality would destroy not only wealth but economic mobility and risk taking. It would make us France."
Thomas Piketty, Wealth Inequality and Cargo Cult Economics | RedState




A collectivist nation is not built on the law, but on the idea that everyone has the right to take from any other folks that appear to have more material wealth than they.....'cause, you know, they 'didn't build that.'




10. As Winston Churchill observed:
“The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.”

But then, you have proven that you are a con tool again with your normal bat shit crazy con web site quotes. And your total inability to argue an economic point of view. RedState??? Really???? RedState??? Jesus. Are you just trying to prove yourself irrelevant again????

Congratulations, you again are successful.

But on the bright side, nice to see you still know how to copy and paste. The stock and trade of a paid con tool.

"Congratulations, you again are successful."

It is a constant for me.....

...and 'success,' the missing ingredient in your existence, is both what you crave, and what enrages you.

Right, worm?



If you get run over by a car, it shouldn't be listed under accidents.

So, cut and paste or childish attacks. That is the capability of PC. Sad but true.
But then, she has nothing else to do. And it pays a little. She is working on her book, "life as a paid conservative shill". Uses small words so her audience, other mindless cons, can hope to understand it. But then, for the greatest part, it is a simple thing. Just more cut and paste.