Thomas Piketty Statement in Book - Where is the evidence?

[f252863]

"When the rate of return on capital exceeds the rate of growth of output and income, as it did in the nineteenth century and seems quite likely to do again in the twenty-first, capitalism automatically generates arbitrary and unsustainable inequalities that radically undermine the meriocratic values on which democratic societies are based."


What is arbitrary about saving your money and earning a return higher than the GDP growth of your country?

What is arbitrary about inheritance? I want my kids to have everything I own when I die, this isn't an arbitrary decision.

What the hell is an unsustainable inequality? All around us we have evidence of permanent inequality in wealth, intelligence, looks, athletic ability, health, etc.

Capitalism is based on pure meriocratic values, what is he talking about? Other than inheritance (which is a red herring) how is wealth unearned if it is done so legally and without cronyism? Does Piketty think my kids don't deserve an inheritance? I worked hard all my life and lived frugally so I could provide my children a better life and he wants to tax that away?

 

[oldfart]

"When the rate of return on capital exceeds the rate of growth of output and income, as it did in the nineteenth century and seems quite likely to do again in the twenty-first, capitalism automatically generates arbitrary and unsustainable inequalities that radically undermine the meriocratic values on which democratic societies are based."


What is arbitrary about saving your money and earning a return higher than the GDP growth of your country?

What is arbitrary about inheritance? I want my kids to have everything I own when I die, this isn't an arbitrary decision.

What the hell is an unsustainable inequality? All around us we have evidence of permanent inequality in wealth, intelligence, looks, athletic ability, health, etc.

Capitalism is based on pure meriocratic values, what is he talking about? Other than inheritance (which is a red herring) how is wealth unearned if it is done so legally and without cronyism? Does Piketty think my kids don't deserve an inheritance? I worked hard all my life and lived frugally so I could provide my children a better life and he wants to tax that away?

Your obvious clownish behavior forfeited your right to be taken seriously on this issue several posts ago. Some of your questions taken on their own are worthy of responses, but not to you, as you are obviously a complete political hack.

 

[f252863]

"When the rate of return on capital exceeds the rate of growth of output and income, as it did in the nineteenth century and seems quite likely to do again in the twenty-first, capitalism automatically generates arbitrary and unsustainable inequalities that radically undermine the meriocratic values on which democratic societies are based."


What is arbitrary about saving your money and earning a return higher than the GDP growth of your country?

What is arbitrary about inheritance? I want my kids to have everything I own when I die, this isn't an arbitrary decision.

What the hell is an unsustainable inequality? All around us we have evidence of permanent inequality in wealth, intelligence, looks, athletic ability, health, etc.

Capitalism is based on pure meriocratic values, what is he talking about? Other than inheritance (which is a red herring) how is wealth unearned if it is done so legally and without cronyism? Does Piketty think my kids don't deserve an inheritance? I worked hard all my life and lived frugally so I could provide my children a better life and he wants to tax that away?

Your obvious clownish behavior forfeited your right to be taken seriously on this issue several posts ago. Some of your questions taken on their own are worthy of responses, but not to you, as you are obviously a complete political hack.

Ad hominem attack. I did an excellent job obviously as you had to resort to the lowest form of debate right from the start.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Good grief!! Who believes this crap?!

 

[f252863]

Good grief!! Who believes this crap?!

Disagree with someone who has socialist leanings and they will exhibit the following behaviors in lieu of actually debating your points:

1. You are a country bumpkin, look at my academic credentials.
2. Adopt a position you don't have, then attack it.
3. Flight response.."I'm not wasting my time on you".
and so on...

I once met in person a detractor of mine who used #1 line of attack. He came to my house and was shocked to learn that I speak several languages, had lived in many countries all over the world, and own/read an extensive book collection. He gravitated to the shelves and was surprised once more to find C.S. Lewis next to Christopher Hitchens, Marx next to Ayn Rand, Keynes next to Mises.

I grew up as an unabashed liberal in every sense of the world. In looking back I was a perfect specimen of the liberal education system. Every course (without exception) was a exercise in indoctrination. Environmentalism, robber barons, greed, slavery, inequality, etc., all the usual themes. No allowance made for countervailing thought. No Mises, Rand, Hayek, Jefferson (outside of Sally Hemmings), Madison, Aristotle (no, no, we must have Plato), Spencer or Friedman.

It was only until I began to read on my own outside the "approved" lexicon that I began to question a lot of the teachings that I had swallowed verbatim.

 

[Rshermr]

Good grief!! Who believes this crap?!

Disagree with someone who has socialist leanings and they will exhibit the following behaviors in lieu of actually debating your points:

1. You are a country bumpkin, look at my academic credentials.
2. Adopt a position you don't have, then attack it.
3. Flight response.."I'm not wasting my time on you".
and so on...

I once met in person a detractor of mine who used #1 line of attack. He came to my house and was shocked to learn that I speak several languages, had lived in many countries all over the world, and own/read an extensive book collection. He gravitated to the shelves and was surprised once more to find C.S. Lewis next to Christopher Hitchens, Marx next to Ayn Rand, Keynes next to Mises.

I grew up as an unabashed liberal in every sense of the world. In looking back I was a perfect specimen of the liberal education system. Every course (without exception) was a exercise in indoctrination. Environmentalism, robber barons, greed, slavery, inequality, etc., all the usual themes. No allowance made for countervailing thought. No Mises, Rand, Hayek, Jefferson (outside of Sally Hemmings), Madison, Aristotle (no, no, we must have Plato), Spencer or Friedman.

It was only until I began to read on my own outside the "approved" lexicon that I began to question a lot of the teachings that I had swallowed verbatim.

Nah. It is simply that you have proven yourself to be an idiot. Asking questions is fine. But so is not taking you seriously.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

Good grief!! Who believes this crap?!

Disagree with someone who has socialist leanings and they will exhibit the following behaviors in lieu of actually debating your points:

1. You are a country bumpkin, look at my academic credentials.
2. Adopt a position you don't have, then attack it.
3. Flight response.."I'm not wasting my time on you".
and so on...

I once met in person a detractor of mine who used #1 line of attack. He came to my house and was shocked to learn that I speak several languages, had lived in many countries all over the world, and own/read an extensive book collection. He gravitated to the shelves and was surprised once more to find C.S. Lewis next to Christopher Hitchens, Marx next to Ayn Rand, Keynes next to Mises.

I grew up as an unabashed liberal in every sense of the world. In looking back I was a perfect specimen of the liberal education system. Every course (without exception) was a exercise in indoctrination. Environmentalism, robber barons, greed, slavery, inequality, etc., all the usual themes. No allowance made for countervailing thought. No Mises, Rand, Hayek, Jefferson (outside of Sally Hemmings), Madison, Aristotle (no, no, we must have Plato), Spencer or Friedman.

It was only until I began to read on my own outside the "approved" lexicon that I began to question a lot of the teachings that I had swallowed verbatim.

Nah. It is simply that you have proven yourself to be an idiot. Asking questions is fine. But so is not taking you seriously.

I get it. You are trying to prove how prescient the aforementioned post is, aren't you?

 

[Rshermr]

Disagree with someone who has socialist leanings and they will exhibit the following behaviors in lieu of actually debating your points:

1. You are a country bumpkin, look at my academic credentials.
2. Adopt a position you don't have, then attack it.
3. Flight response.."I'm not wasting my time on you".
and so on...

I once met in person a detractor of mine who used #1 line of attack. He came to my house and was shocked to learn that I speak several languages, had lived in many countries all over the world, and own/read an extensive book collection. He gravitated to the shelves and was surprised once more to find C.S. Lewis next to Christopher Hitchens, Marx next to Ayn Rand, Keynes next to Mises.

I grew up as an unabashed liberal in every sense of the world. In looking back I was a perfect specimen of the liberal education system. Every course (without exception) was a exercise in indoctrination. Environmentalism, robber barons, greed, slavery, inequality, etc., all the usual themes. No allowance made for countervailing thought. No Mises, Rand, Hayek, Jefferson (outside of Sally Hemmings), Madison, Aristotle (no, no, we must have Plato), Spencer or Friedman.

It was only until I began to read on my own outside the "approved" lexicon that I began to question a lot of the teachings that I had swallowed verbatim.

Nah. It is simply that you have proven yourself to be an idiot. Asking questions is fine. But so is not taking you seriously.

I get it. You are trying to prove how prescient the aforementioned post is, aren't you?

jesus, if the two of you combine your iq's, you would almost have normal numbers.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

I am already convinced. You don't have to keep selling.

 

[Rshermr]

I am already convinced. You don't have to keep selling.

Ah. Good. You know you are a congenital idiot. progress.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

Yes, I already know that you are a legend in your own mind.

 

[Rshermr]

Yes, I already know that you are a legend in your own mind.

No, no no, no. Not at all. Now you said I spoke condescendingly to you. But that is a totally different thing. That is not because I see myself as a legend. Not it all. It is just that you set a VERY low bar.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

You speak condescendingly to everyone.

Go pound sand.

 

[The Rabbi]

"When the rate of return on capital exceeds the rate of growth of output and income, as it did in the nineteenth century and seems quite likely to do again in the twenty-first, capitalism automatically generates arbitrary and unsustainable inequalities that radically undermine the meriocratic values on which democratic societies are based."

Some eviednce any of that is true would be nice. What is arbitrary about some people doing better than others because they are smarter?
Pickety is a moron. No wonder he is a chief influence on this White House.

 

[DGS49]

The expression, "unsustainable inequalities" has some rather sinister connotations. Is he suggesting that those at the bottom will revolt?

Here are some facts of life. People with superior intelligence and capabilities tend to marry one another, and produce offspring that are like themselves, only moreso (having the added benefit of a bit of family wealth). Same things happen in subsequent generations.

People of inferior capabilities tend to reproduce (not necessaryly marry) with people of similar capabilities, producing offspring like themselves, only moreso.

And we wonder why "inequality" is increasing?

Why? It should be obvious.

 

[oldfart]

"When the rate of return on capital exceeds the rate of growth of output and income, as it did in the nineteenth century and seems quite likely to do again in the twenty-first, capitalism automatically generates arbitrary and unsustainable inequalities that radically undermine the meriocratic values on which democratic societies are based."

Some eviednce any of that is true would be nice.

That is what the book is about; the results of his research. My copy is on back order. When it comes in, I'll be glad to discuss it with you. Until then I rely on excerpts, reviews, and previously published work by Piketty or Saez on the same topic. I've given a condensed version of their use of inheritance tax data in Britain, France and the United States going back 100-200 years. You can respond to that, or we can wait a couple of weeks for Harvard Press to catch up. Your choice.

 

[oldfart]

The expression, "unsustainable inequalities" has some rather sinister connotations. Is he suggesting that those at the bottom will revolt?

No. I will skip the Ayn Rand diatribe and answer your question though. "Unsustainable" to an economist means a process that if not modified leads to a system collapse, i.e. is statically or dynamically unstable. Austrian economists have been in the forefront of depicting economic processes that they believe will inevitably lead to total economic collapse. They constantly warn of the dangers of inflation, for example, inevitably leading to Weimar results.

"Zimbabwe I tell you! Zimbabwe!" is a frequent refrain. I generally recall you making that exact argument in the past. If I have confused you with another, please set me straight so I can extend a proper specific apology.

My rumination is that Piketty's argument will turn out to be that any system redistributing income and wealth toward the top in the other conditions he specifies in the book (no offsetting public policy to reverse such redistribution; a marginal efficiency of capital greater the than the real rate of growth) will, because of the differential marginal propensities to consume among classes, result in lessened aggregate demand. In a demand constrained economy (as opposed to a resource constrained economy such as during wartime) such systematic reductions in aggregate demand will result in the type of secular stagnation posited by Alvin Hansen over 70 years ago and resurrected by Larry Summers in a major address six months ago.

I don't think we need to wait for Piketty's book to emerge from backorder to have that discussion, which is what I hoped to trigger. If someone wants to assess Piketty's evidence, then we have a few weeks to wait. And by all means, given the peculiar data practices uncovered in the recent works of A & A and R & R, careful scrutiny of the actual research methodology of any work is well justified.

But that doesn't stop us from discussing what I have outlined in this post, if anyone is interested. Let me know what you think.

 

[The Rabbi]

The expression, "unsustainable inequalities" has some rather sinister connotations. Is he suggesting that those at the bottom will revolt?

No. I will skip the Ayn Rand diatribe and answer your question though. "Unsustainable" to an economist means a process that if not modified leads to a system collapse, i.e. is statically or dynamically unstable. Austrian economists have been in the forefront of depicting economic processes that they believe will inevitably lead to total economic collapse. They constantly warn of the dangers of inflation, for example, inevitably leading to Weimar results.

"Zimbabwe I tell you! Zimbabwe!" is a frequent refrain. I generally recall you making that exact argument in the past. If I have confused you with another, please set me straight so I can extend a proper specific apology.

My rumination is that Piketty's argument will turn out to be that any system redistributing income and wealth toward the top in the other conditions he specifies in the book (no offsetting public policy to reverse such redistribution; a marginal efficiency of capital greater the than the real rate of growth) will, because of the differential marginal propensities to consume among classes, result in lessened aggregate demand. In a demand constrained economy (as opposed to a resource constrained economy such as during wartime) such systematic reductions in aggregate demand will result in the type of secular stagnation posited by Alvin Hansen over 70 years ago and resurrected by Larry Summers in a major address six months ago.

I don't think we need to wait for Piketty's book to emerge from backorder to have that discussion, which is what I hoped to trigger. If someone wants to assess Piketty's evidence, then we have a few weeks to wait. And by all means, given the peculiar data practices uncovered in the recent works of A & A and R & R, careful scrutiny of the actual research methodology of any work is well justified.

But that doesn't stop us from discussing what I have outlined in this post, if anyone is interested. Let me know what you think.

I hope your description isn't accurate. Because it's nonsense. For starters, there are no "classes" in America. Or rather classes are fluid. Most people will find themselves at one time or another in the top 1% of earners (this happened to me). So it isnt the same people all the time.
Second, the focus on consumption is typical leftist stuff. It is the basis of Keynes and FDR's response to the Great Depression. As well as Team Obama's policies. It is a failure. The Left obsessed about consumption or demand gaps through the 1920s and 1930s and tried to increase demand. Or something. It failed. Totally.

 

[oldfart]

The expression, "unsustainable inequalities" has some rather sinister connotations. Is he suggesting that those at the bottom will revolt?

No. I will skip the Ayn Rand diatribe and answer your question though. "Unsustainable" to an economist means a process that if not modified leads to a system collapse, i.e. is statically or dynamically unstable. Austrian economists have been in the forefront of depicting economic processes that they believe will inevitably lead to total economic collapse. They constantly warn of the dangers of inflation, for example, inevitably leading to Weimar results.

"Zimbabwe I tell you! Zimbabwe!" is a frequent refrain. I generally recall you making that exact argument in the past. If I have confused you with another, please set me straight so I can extend a proper specific apology.

My rumination is that Piketty's argument will turn out to be that any system redistributing income and wealth toward the top in the other conditions he specifies in the book (no offsetting public policy to reverse such redistribution; a marginal efficiency of capital greater the than the real rate of growth) will, because of the differential marginal propensities to consume among classes, result in lessened aggregate demand. In a demand constrained economy (as opposed to a resource constrained economy such as during wartime) such systematic reductions in aggregate demand will result in the type of secular stagnation posited by Alvin Hansen over 70 years ago and resurrected by Larry Summers in a major address six months ago.

I don't think we need to wait for Piketty's book to emerge from backorder to have that discussion, which is what I hoped to trigger. If someone wants to assess Piketty's evidence, then we have a few weeks to wait. And by all means, given the peculiar data practices uncovered in the recent works of A & A and R & R, careful scrutiny of the actual research methodology of any work is well justified.

But that doesn't stop us from discussing what I have outlined in this post, if anyone is interested. Let me know what you think.

I hope your description isn't accurate. Because it's nonsense. For starters, there are no "classes" in America. Or rather classes are fluid. Most people will find themselves at one time or another in the top 1% of earners (this happened to me). So it isnt the same people all the time.

I think you are asserting your conclusion and then refusing to look at facts. There is a good literature on mobility in economic groups (if you don't want to call them classes, it's OK with me, but at least be consistent. Don't deny they exist and then immediately start discussing their attributes!). Since this is central to Piketty's thesis, I suppose he will have data to present in the book. I'd rather not divert this thread, but if you want to discuss mobility at the very top, I have some notes on recent research in the area on the back of an envelope around here somewhere.....

Second, the focus on consumption is typical leftist stuff. It is the basis of Keynes and FDR's response to the Great Depression. As well as Team Obama's policies. It is a failure. The Left obsessed about consumption or demand gaps through the 1920s and 1930s and tried to increase demand. Or something. It failed. Totally.

Well if I translate your comment to say that most macroeconomic theory since Keynes has concentrated on the demand side to explain unemployment and inflation; then I agree.

 

[The Rabbi]

So your response is, He must know what he's talking about.
The truth is that there are no fixed classes here. It is an abstraction. Studies of the 3rd quintile of earners etc implicitly suggest it is the same people year after year. That is not true. It is an error, probably one made in the book.

You misunderstand my statement. You shouldn't be reading books as you will misunderstand them as well.