The Left is Trying to Stir up Emotions with Thomas Pikkety

[f252863]

They are falling over themselves gushing about his massive "tome", every page of which is validation of their confirmation bias.

In reading articles I have noticed the hysterical preemptive tone that he left has projected on the rights reaction to Capital. They are "angry", "worried", "scared to death".
I'm laughing.

Piketty is just another socialist who wants to engineer society as an academic with no responsibility for the effect of his ideas. Theory and practice are altogether very different, that is why you rarely (if ever) see an economist leading a nation.

The notion that you should tax income above 500,000 at 80% is not only morally bankrupt but also would do a great deal of damage to growth and living standards.

If I were earning 1 million a year and wanted to grow my business, what would happen? Instead of 800,000 being put into productivity, it would be wasted on handouts.

 

[emilynghiem]

Ever notice they don't want to give away 80% of THEIR income?

And even HALF of that, even 40% tax rate would amount to slavery:
where 3/5 of your salary (60%) is your own labor,
and 2/5 automatically goes to govt (40%).

So we'd be back to the days of being 3/5 free and 2/5 slave!

They are falling over themselves gushing about his massive "tome", every page of which is validation of their confirmation bias.

In reading articles I have noticed the hysterical preemptive tone that he left has projected on the rights reaction to Capital. They are "angry", "worried", "scared to death".
I'm laughing.

Piketty is just another socialist who wants to engineer society as an academic with no responsibility for the effect of his ideas. Theory and practice are altogether very different, that is why you rarely (if ever) see an economist leading a nation.

The notion that you should tax income above 500,000 at 80% is not only morally bankrupt but also would do a great deal of damage to growth and living standards.

If I were earning 1 million a year and wanted to grow my business, what would happen? Instead of 800,000 being put into productivity, it would be wasted on handouts.

 

[bodecea]

Never heard of him.

 

[georgephillip]

"That capitalism is unfair has been said before. But it is the way Thomas Piketty says it – subtly but with relentless logic – that has sent rightwing economics into a frenzy, both here and in the US.

"His book, Capital in the Twenty-first Century, has shot to the top of the Amazon bestseller list. Carrying it under your arm has, in certain latitudes of Manhattan, become the newest tool for making a social connection among young progressives.

"Meanwhile, he is been condemned as neo-Marxist by rightwing commentators.

"So why the fuss?"

Why do some on the right think inequality is a good thing for an economy?

Thomas Piketty's Capital: everything you need to know about the surprise bestseller | Books | The Guardian

 

[f252863]

"That capitalism is unfair has been said before. But it is the way Thomas Piketty says it – subtly but with relentless logic – that has sent rightwing economics into a frenzy, both here and in the US.

"His book, Capital in the Twenty-first Century, has shot to the top of the Amazon bestseller list. Carrying it under your arm has, in certain latitudes of Manhattan, become the newest tool for making a social connection among young progressives.

"Meanwhile, he is been condemned as neo-Marxist by rightwing commentators.

"So why the fuss?"

Why do some on the right think inequality is a good thing for an economy?

Thomas Piketty's Capital: everything you need to know about the surprise bestseller | Books | The Guardian

I don't even know where to start.


"Piketty thinks progressive taxation, larger inheritance taxes and a tax on overall wealth would do the trick, and give labor earnings a chance to keep pace with returns from the treasure hordes of the super rich."

Where is the logic here? A dictator in Zimbabwe employed the same concept when he gave away farms belonging to white landowners. The result was catastrophic.

You have two people. One is a "common" laborer with few skills, the other is a businessman/entrepreneur. The businessman invests his/her money in a new venture which generates wealth, employment and innovation. How is taking away money from someone who is productive and giving it to someone who isn't (by comparison) good for the economy?

Watch the movie Harrison Bergeron, that is what forced equality looks like.

Tear down those who achieve, reward those who don't. Promote failure, not success.

Brilliant philosophy.

 

[BlackFlag]

I would love to see a poll of nationwide Dems about whether they've heard of this Pikkety fellow

 

[f252863]

I would love to see a poll of nationwide Dems about whether they've heard of this Pikkety fellow

Hard to avoid, his name is plastered all over CNN, NYT, Huffington, USA Today, Washington Post and a host of other stations/newspapers.

 

[georgephillip]

"That capitalism is unfair has been said before. But it is the way Thomas Piketty says it – subtly but with relentless logic – that has sent rightwing economics into a frenzy, both here and in the US.

"His book, Capital in the Twenty-first Century, has shot to the top of the Amazon bestseller list. Carrying it under your arm has, in certain latitudes of Manhattan, become the newest tool for making a social connection among young progressives.

"Meanwhile, he is been condemned as neo-Marxist by rightwing commentators.

"So why the fuss?"

Why do some on the right think inequality is a good thing for an economy?

Thomas Piketty's Capital: everything you need to know about the surprise bestseller | Books | The Guardian

I don't even know where to start.


"Piketty thinks progressive taxation, larger inheritance taxes and a tax on overall wealth would do the trick, and give labor earnings a chance to keep pace with returns from the treasure hordes of the super rich."

Where is the logic here? A dictator in Zimbabwe employed the same concept when he gave away farms belonging to white landowners. The result was catastrophic.

You have two people. One is a "common" laborer with few skills, the other is a businessman/entrepreneur. The businessman invests his/her money in a new venture which generates wealth, employment and innovation. How is taking away money from someone who is productive and giving it to someone who isn't (by comparison) good for the economy?

Watch the movie Harrison Bergeron, that is what forced equality looks like.

Tear down those who achieve, reward those who don't. Promote failure, not success.

Brilliant philosophy.

Start here:
When the rate of return on capital outpaces the rate of economic growth over generations, a small minority of investors will produce inherited wealth that will always grow faster than the earned wealth of a majority of productive workers.

 

[Rshermr]

"That capitalism is unfair has been said before. But it is the way Thomas Piketty says it – subtly but with relentless logic – that has sent rightwing economics into a frenzy, both here and in the US.

"His book, Capital in the Twenty-first Century, has shot to the top of the Amazon bestseller list. Carrying it under your arm has, in certain latitudes of Manhattan, become the newest tool for making a social connection among young progressives.

"Meanwhile, he is been condemned as neo-Marxist by rightwing commentators.

"So why the fuss?"

Why do some on the right think inequality is a good thing for an economy?

Thomas Piketty's Capital: everything you need to know about the surprise bestseller | Books | The Guardian

I don't even know where to start.


"Piketty thinks progressive taxation, larger inheritance taxes and a tax on overall wealth would do the trick, and give labor earnings a chance to keep pace with returns from the treasure hordes of the super rich."

Where is the logic here? A dictator in Zimbabwe employed the same concept when he gave away farms belonging to white landowners. The result was catastrophic.

You have two people. One is a "common" laborer with few skills, the other is a businessman/entrepreneur. The businessman invests his/her money in a new venture which generates wealth, employment and innovation. How is taking away money from someone who is productive and giving it to someone who isn't (by comparison) good for the economy?

Watch the movie Harrison Bergeron, that is what forced equality looks like.

Tear down those who achieve, reward those who don't. Promote failure, not success.

Brilliant philosophy.

Yup. Like Reagan. Lowered taxes, crated a recession with the second highest ue rate since the great Republican depression of 1929. Raised taxes and spent stimulatively, drove the ue rate back down.

Problem with Reagan is that he did not understand where to lower taxes over time. Which led to the beginning of the greatest redistribution of wealth in our history, from the middle class to the wealthy.

 

[Rshermr]

I would love to see a poll of nationwide Dems about whether they've heard of this Pikkety fellow

Hard to avoid, his name is plastered all over CNN, NYT, Huffington, USA Today, Washington Post and a host of other stations/newspapers.

And every bat shit crazy con web site in existence calling him a socialist. Dipshit.

 

[oldfart]

They are falling over themselves gushing about his massive "tome", every page of which is validation of their confirmation bias.

In reading articles I have noticed the hysterical preemptive tone that he left has projected on the rights reaction to Capital. They are "angry", "worried", "scared to death".
I'm laughing.

Piketty is just another socialist who wants to engineer society as an academic with no responsibility for the effect of his ideas. Theory and practice are altogether very different, that is why you rarely (if ever) see an economist leading a nation.

The notion that you should tax income above 500,000 at 80% is not only morally bankrupt but also would do a great deal of damage to growth and living standards.

If I were earning 1 million a year and wanted to grow my business, what would happen? Instead of 800,000 being put into productivity, it would be wasted on handouts.

Keep telling yourself that. Having a dumb opponent always makes things easier.

I notice you have nothing to say about his work, which it is unlikely you have read. You obviously have never studied economics and it shows. So keep it up.

 

[oldfart]

Never heard of him.

Obviously. You will.

 

[oldfart]

"That capitalism is unfair has been said before. But it is the way Thomas Piketty says it – subtly but with relentless logic – that has sent rightwing economics into a frenzy, both here and in the US.

"His book, Capital in the Twenty-first Century, has shot to the top of the Amazon bestseller list. Carrying it under your arm has, in certain latitudes of Manhattan, become the newest tool for making a social connection among young progressives.

"Meanwhile, he is been condemned as neo-Marxist by rightwing commentators.

"So why the fuss?"

Why do some on the right think inequality is a good thing for an economy?

Thomas Piketty's Capital: everything you need to know about the surprise bestseller | Books | The Guardian

I don't even know where to start.


"Piketty thinks progressive taxation, larger inheritance taxes and a tax on overall wealth would do the trick, and give labor earnings a chance to keep pace with returns from the treasure hordes of the super rich."

Where is the logic here? A dictator in Zimbabwe employed the same concept when he gave away farms belonging to white landowners. The result was catastrophic.

You have two people. One is a "common" laborer with few skills, the other is a businessman/entrepreneur. The businessman invests his/her money in a new venture which generates wealth, employment and innovation. How is taking away money from someone who is productive and giving it to someone who isn't (by comparison) good for the economy?

Watch the movie Harrison Bergeron, that is what forced equality looks like.

Tear down those who achieve, reward those who don't. Promote failure, not success.

Brilliant philosophy.

If you want to argue the economics, why not respond on one of the threads that spell out Piketty's argument? As it is, you are arguing against a position you know nothing about, a curious way to approach a debate.

 

[oldfart]

I would love to see a poll of nationwide Dems about whether they've heard of this Pikkety fellow

Actually most economists, left or right, are familiar with his work over the last 15 years. That's why there is the buzz. Frankly I don't give a shit about what political hacks, right or left, know or think about economists.

 

[f252863]

"That capitalism is unfair has been said before. But it is the way Thomas Piketty says it – subtly but with relentless logic – that has sent rightwing economics into a frenzy, both here and in the US.

"His book, Capital in the Twenty-first Century, has shot to the top of the Amazon bestseller list. Carrying it under your arm has, in certain latitudes of Manhattan, become the newest tool for making a social connection among young progressives.

"Meanwhile, he is been condemned as neo-Marxist by rightwing commentators.

"So why the fuss?"

Why do some on the right think inequality is a good thing for an economy?

Thomas Piketty's Capital: everything you need to know about the surprise bestseller | Books | The Guardian

I don't even know where to start.


"Piketty thinks progressive taxation, larger inheritance taxes and a tax on overall wealth would do the trick, and give labor earnings a chance to keep pace with returns from the treasure hordes of the super rich."

Where is the logic here? A dictator in Zimbabwe employed the same concept when he gave away farms belonging to white landowners. The result was catastrophic.

You have two people. One is a "common" laborer with few skills, the other is a businessman/entrepreneur. The businessman invests his/her money in a new venture which generates wealth, employment and innovation. How is taking away money from someone who is productive and giving it to someone who isn't (by comparison) good for the economy?

Watch the movie Harrison Bergeron, that is what forced equality looks like.

Tear down those who achieve, reward those who don't. Promote failure, not success.

Brilliant philosophy.

Start here:
When the rate of return on capital outpaces the rate of economic growth over generations, a small minority of investors will produce inherited wealth that will always grow faster than the earned wealth of a majority of productive workers.

1. Inherited wealth is often squandered. Pikkety makes the ridiculous assumption that kids who inherit wealth from their family keep and build upon it. Show me the evidence.
2. Wealth accumulation leads to growth, giving the money away to less productive people lowers growth.

You read his formula and accept it without even bothering to question the assumptions?

 

[f252863]

"That capitalism is unfair has been said before. But it is the way Thomas Piketty says it – subtly but with relentless logic – that has sent rightwing economics into a frenzy, both here and in the US.

"His book, Capital in the Twenty-first Century, has shot to the top of the Amazon bestseller list. Carrying it under your arm has, in certain latitudes of Manhattan, become the newest tool for making a social connection among young progressives.

"Meanwhile, he is been condemned as neo-Marxist by rightwing commentators.

"So why the fuss?"

Why do some on the right think inequality is a good thing for an economy?

Thomas Piketty's Capital: everything you need to know about the surprise bestseller | Books | The Guardian

I don't even know where to start.


"Piketty thinks progressive taxation, larger inheritance taxes and a tax on overall wealth would do the trick, and give labor earnings a chance to keep pace with returns from the treasure hordes of the super rich."

Where is the logic here? A dictator in Zimbabwe employed the same concept when he gave away farms belonging to white landowners. The result was catastrophic.

You have two people. One is a "common" laborer with few skills, the other is a businessman/entrepreneur. The businessman invests his/her money in a new venture which generates wealth, employment and innovation. How is taking away money from someone who is productive and giving it to someone who isn't (by comparison) good for the economy?

Watch the movie Harrison Bergeron, that is what forced equality looks like.

Tear down those who achieve, reward those who don't. Promote failure, not success.

Brilliant philosophy.

If you want to argue the economics, why not respond on one of the threads that spell out Piketty's argument? As it is, you are arguing against a position you know nothing about, a curious way to approach a debate.

I know his arguments. I also know he advocates an 80% income tax on the wealthy and an annual wealth tax of up to 10% on the super rich and says this will have no negative effects?

"Even more fantastically, this assault on private property and wages would supposedly have no meaningful negative side-effects. Piketty writes that “the evidence suggests that a rate [of tax] of the order of 80pc on incomes over $500,000 or $1m a year would not reduce the growth of the US economy but would, in fact, distribute the fruits of growth more widely while imposing reasonable limits on economically useless behaviour”."

Any economist knows this is true. England already went through this lesson in the 60s.

FYI, the marginal tax rate of 90% in the U.S. was an effective tax rate of about 35%. Few people know the difference.

 

[f252863]

I would love to see a poll of nationwide Dems about whether they've heard of this Pikkety fellow

Actually most economists, left or right, are familiar with his work over the last 15 years. That's why there is the buzz. Frankly I don't give a shit about what political hacks, right or left, know or think about economists.

You pick an economist that matches your political views, what a surprise.

My economist is Friedrich August Hayek who happens to disagree with T.P. and he won a Nobel prize (not that means anything).

Did Bernanke study economics? Was Bernanke completely wrong about the sub prime crisis?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

"That capitalism is unfair has been said before. But it is the way Thomas Piketty says it – subtly but with relentless logic – that has sent rightwing economics into a frenzy, both here and in the US.

"His book, Capital in the Twenty-first Century, has shot to the top of the Amazon bestseller list. Carrying it under your arm has, in certain latitudes of Manhattan, become the newest tool for making a social connection among young progressives.

"Meanwhile, he is been condemned as neo-Marxist by rightwing commentators.

"So why the fuss?"

Why do some on the right think inequality is a good thing for an economy?

Thomas Piketty's Capital: everything you need to know about the surprise bestseller | Books | The Guardian

I don't even know where to start.


"Piketty thinks progressive taxation, larger inheritance taxes and a tax on overall wealth would do the trick, and give labor earnings a chance to keep pace with returns from the treasure hordes of the super rich."

Where is the logic here? A dictator in Zimbabwe employed the same concept when he gave away farms belonging to white landowners. The result was catastrophic.

You have two people. One is a "common" laborer with few skills, the other is a businessman/entrepreneur. The businessman invests his/her money in a new venture which generates wealth, employment and innovation. How is taking away money from someone who is productive and giving it to someone who isn't (by comparison) good for the economy?

Watch the movie Harrison Bergeron, that is what forced equality looks like.

Tear down those who achieve, reward those who don't. Promote failure, not success.

Brilliant philosophy.

Start here:
When the rate of return on capital outpaces the rate of economic growth over generations, a small minority of investors will produce inherited wealth that will always grow faster than the earned wealth of a majority of productive workers.

When the rate of return on capital outpaces the rate of economic growth over generations,

The only solution is to give capital to the government, so they can destroy it.

 

[oldfart]

I know his arguments.

Then why didn't you state what you disagreed with and argue that? Instead you threw out a blanket ad hominem. That destroys your credibility totally.

FYI, the marginal tax rate of 90% in the U.S. was an effective tax rate of about 35%. Few people know the difference.

I am published in the field of economic history and have had a Treasury card for 35 years. Enlighten me.

 

[f252863]

I know his arguments.

Then why didn't you state what you disagreed with and argue that? Instead you threw out a blanket ad hominem. That destroys your credibility totally.

FYI, the marginal tax rate of 90% in the U.S. was an effective tax rate of about 35%. Few people know the difference.

I am published in the field of economic history and have had a Treasury card for 35 years. Enlighten me.

So? There are a lot of economists who don't subscribe to your views and they are published as well.

FYI, I am apolitical.

The problem with any "expert" in a given field is their innate political and/or emotional bias. You may be the worlds foremost expert but if you judgment is clouded by bias, it is worthless.