Thomas Piketty Statement in Book - Where is the evidence?

[Rshermr]

The problem with income inequality is that it's unsustainable - both economically and politically. The returns on capital are increasing faster than the growth of economies.

Yeah people say that and then when pressed can't explain why not. Unless you think that 10 people will end up with all the money in the world while the rest of humanity rots in the gutter.

Note how this knownothing implies that the opposing POV is proposing preposterous statistics?

This is a modified example of trying to turn your opposition into a STRAW MAN.

You really are a thoughly dishonest poster, Lad.

I fault you for this, son, because it is obvious that you are smart enough to know perfectly well that you are lying by rhetorical subterfuge.

It is a simple thing. Conservative tools, those working for the really rich, are simply afraid of discussing the subject of this thread. Pure abject fear of the subject. So they change the subject and attack the messengers. But they will discuss nothing. Way too much fear.

 

[oldfart]

Schumpeter is a tough author. I picked up hsi Creative Destruction (intro by one of my old professors) and read only a few pages into it.
Wasn't Michael Belesiles also noted for extensive foot notes of his sources? Which then turned out to have been fabricated?

Schumpeter is definitely tough sledding and anyone who sticks out more than twenty pages when they don't have to (assigned class reading) is definitely earnest about earning their bones. My advice is to stick to his works written for a popular audience and explanations of his thought by other (mercifully more cogent and briefer!) authors.

I'm not familiar with Belesiles in particular, but trying to get away with references to obscure sources which are almost impossible to check is an old trick. Before large scale conversions to pdf, the only way to check was to find a library that had the book and get it on inter-library loan. In a lot of cases, especially PhD dissertations which often had only three library copies, it was damn near impossible. But you had to pick an "author" who would show up in real professional listings. These days, everything new is made into pdf and once it's out there thousands of electronic copies end up archived. Even if the library burns down, the e-books exist in backup.

 

[oldfart]

The implication being:

If you write a long book with reams of data, it must be right.

Some people need to attend a logic class. Universal truths are easily encapsulated in a paragraph or less.

Genovese was a first rate economic historian who wrote with a style that thoroughly laid out the evidence for his arguments; he was famous for it. My mention of him was an inside joke about Piketty's style which seems to be much the same. I think Kimura has at least heard of Genovese's style and would appreciate the reference.

Now if you want to talk about someone who did the same thing and took to the extreme of being unintelligible, you would have to read Joseph Schumpeter. In his "History of Economic Thought", he got to about page 3000 when he had the bad form to die. It took his widow 17 years to finish the book, and she had to skip a lot of topics he had outlined but for which his unfinished notes were inadequate to base a meaningful chapter on.

Theories that form the foundation for higher taxes on wealthy would be met with less skepticism if the recipients who promote such ideas didn't stand to be on the receiving end of their professed munificence.

This is an age old behavior of the statist, religion employed the very same tactics. Give us your money and we promise you a better future. Behind this exhortation is the use of language designed to be impervious to the layman. "Why should I give you my money?" says the "slow witted" farmer. The economist says "You don't understand our language, G = \frac{1}{n}\left ( n+1 - 2 \left ( \frac{\sum\limits_{i=1}^n \; (n+1-i)y_i}{\sum\limits_{i=1}^n y_i} \right ) \right ) ". Religious authorities took it a step further, they prohibited translation of the Bible into Latin upon punishment by death.

Giving anyone the power to redistribute money is a proven recipe for corruption.

Mencken, the brilliant American journalist, stated it well in his chapter the Social Contract from Prejudices:

"“All government, in its essence, is a conspiracy against the superior man: its one permanent object is to oppress him and cripple him. If it be aristocratic in organization, then it seeks to protect the man who is superior only in law against the man who is superior in fact; if it be democratic, then it seeks to protect the man who is inferior in every way against both. One of its primary functions is to regiment men by force, to make them as much alike as possible and as dependent upon one another as possible, to search out and combat originality among them. All it can see in an original idea is potential change, and hence an invasion of its prerogatives. The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out for himself, without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane and intolerable, and so, if he is romantic, he tries to change it. And even if he is not romantic personally he is very apt to spread discontent among those who are.”

Pardon me for asking, but what does your post have to do with my one-off on Eugene Genovese's writing style? It would be clearer is you referenced what you were replying to better.