[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 20 KB, 365x552, piketty_0.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4965452 No.4965452[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

have any of you retards read this book?

>> No.4965461

we don't read books on /lit/. we just argue about them based on wikipedia summaries at best

>> No.4965463

No, but I definitely have to get around to it. I've already read quite a bit of criticism though.

I find it funny that Piketty has never actually read Capital, despite his title being an allusion to it.

>> No.4965487

>>4965461
i figured as much

>>4965463
seriously? that kind of makes me more anxious to read it, considering there wouldn't be any marxist bias. but it's very possible he's lying about that

>> No.4965492

>>4965487
>but it's very possible he's lying about that
Uh... I'm not sure why he'd lie about being ignorant.

>> No.4965496

No, but I just bought it. I'll get back to you once I've finished it.

>> No.4965504

>>4965452
>>4965463
>>4965496

Do you guys actually have any background in economics? If not, how would you hope to understand it?

>> No.4965506

>>4965504
>Do you guys actually have any background in economics?
I'm currently studying it.

>> No.4965514

>>4965492
claiming that he hasn't read marx makes it easier for him to be read or accepted by hardcore capitalists who have no time for that. especially since, from what i understand, the book is mostly critiquing the current state of capitalism. and why would he basically steal the title of one of marx's flagship works if he hasn't read any of it? sounds fishy

>> No.4965519

>>4965504
The book is a bestseller; I'm sure lay people can grasp it.

>> No.4965523
File: 17 KB, 606x539, 1398528532839.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4965523

>>4965504
It's marxist economics, nobody understands it

>> No.4965524

>>4965504
I work in a franchise bookstore. I've sold this book to more grandmas and soccermoms than anyone else.

>> No.4965527

>>4965514
it doesn't matter. piketty is not marxist in any way. his entire solution to wealth inequality is a global wealth tax, not a social revolution for fuck's sake.

>> No.4965530

>>4965514
> accepted by hardcore capitalists who have no time for that
You're kinda just assuming economists aren't intellectually open-minded to read something that may or may not be Marxist, which I think is a bit presumptuous.

>the book is mostly critiquing the current state of capitalism.
Right, but its prescription is just "tax the rich". Not exactly an unheard of idea, especially amongst economists.

>and why would he basically steal the title of one of marx's flagship works if he hasn't read any of it? sounds fishy
Frenchfags have a hard-on for looking like they have something revolutionary to say. It's nothing more than a means of making it look radical when it really isn't.

>>4965523
Great contribution.

>> No.4965538
File: 10 KB, 300x300, idiot.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4965538

>>4965514
>any book on economics with capital in the title is a direct reference to marx

>> No.4965544

>>4965538
If you actually read the thread, I suggested that, and I do believe it is a reference to Capital. It's "Capital in the 21st Century". It's a suggestion that this critique of capitalism is one suited for contemporary times. Feel free to communicate like a grown-up sometime.

>> No.4965551

>>4965452
Skimmed through it to see his thesis, data and prescription. A lot of the book felt like fluff, but that's to be expected of what is essentially a mass-market policy paper.
I won't comment on the neo-Marxist concepts or the questionable way he framed his data. The biggest thing I noticed was his ultimate policy position, a global wealth tax; reading that made me realize I'd wasted my time.
Enacting a global wealth tax would require the creation of a bureaucracy unlike anything seen before. For maximum efficiency, it would necessitate a global taxation apparatus; an IRS designed to assess the wealth of what would become 9 billion people.
It would have to set criteria for wealth (possession of financial assets? land property? physical possession of gold/silver/precious gems?), identify wealth-holders, assess their wealth level, determine how much of its value should be collected as a tax, request the payment, process the payment, recover the payment, ensure that no fraud has occurred, and then be able to levy effective penalties if it did. And its target won't be average people who lack either the understanding, time or resources to fight this bureaucracy--instead, they'll be dealing with people who time and time again have proven proficiency in protecting their wealth. The bureaucracy itself would probably pose a net loss to society due to the resources it would have to consume to do its job.

>> No.4965566

>>4965530
>You're kinda just assuming economists aren't intellectually open-minded to read something that may or may not be Marxist, which I think is a bit presumptuous.

not all economists, but particularly jingoistic, republican-party americans who laud capitalism all day. but they're not the type who read books anyway

>>4965538
the stylization of the cover suggests a direct reference to marx

>>4965551
>global wealth tax

please tell me that's not his main proposed solution

>> No.4965575

>>4965566

http://inthesetimes.com/article/16722/taking_on_capital_without_marx

He says the reference to Marx's Capital wasn't his intention, but I'm still under the impression he's fudging the truth on this one for reasons I already mentioned in >>4965530

>> No.4965605

Any macroeconomics approaches to market necessarily need to justify their their abstractions and top-down view descriptions. This is because the dynamics within the market is sensitive to external interventions. Economic laws aren't static like classical physics law.

Does Piketty provide this? Or else economics would just be like strategy games.

>> No.4965609

>>4965566
The socialist's argument boils down to his belief that r > g (return on "wealth", which is ambiguously defined as always, vs economic growth); in other words, that the rich will get richer faster than the rest of us. Thus, he wants a tax on all wealth everywhere across the globe, without addressing the logistical and bureaucratic nightmare that would unleash upon the Earth, as part of an effort to reduce r to be below g. If r > g, we will eventually fall into some sort of fascist dictatorship; if r < g, then we won't, and the tax will prevent that.

>> No.4965620
File: 60 KB, 450x600, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4965620

>>4965527
Marx advocated progressive taxation. And for the record Marx was incredibly vague regarding his prescriptions for moving beyond Capitalism. He's a far better critic of Capitalism than an advocate for 'Communism'

Piketty is absolutely a Marxist. His analysis of the return on capital outpacing economic growth, thus leading to an unsustainable concentration of wealth is Marx 101.

He just wants to avoid the negative connotations it carries; understandably I might add.

>> No.4965626

>>4965504
It was written for the unwashed masses, people like yourself. I'll have no problem apprehending it. Hell, if Larry Summers could understand it anyone could.

>> No.4965628

>>4965620
>His analysis of the return on capital outpacing economic growth, thus leading to an unsustainable concentration of wealth is Marx 101.
IIRC even Smith commented on this.

>> No.4965630

>>4965575
>He advocates progressive taxation and a global wealth tax as the only way

well, this is retarded. looks like i'll be avoiding this one 🌝

>>4965609
yeah, the r>g thing is what interested me in the book in the first place, but a global "wealth" tax, whatever the hell that would be, is the most impossible and asinine thing i've ever heard of. pretty much any other solution would be better than that

>> No.4965643

>>4965575
>Wealth inequality
>Using a meaningless pleb buzzword
>Trying to pass it off as a serious academic work

Dropped 0/10 would not purchase, would burn in fire

Seriously, though, why are so many people enamored with wealth inequality as the great evil of modern civilization? It's been around for ages and we've done just fine. Only poor people care about it and who actually cares what they think besides other poor people?

>> No.4965646

>>4965452

I live in Australia and I can see it online, but not at any bookstores I go to. Is it even out in Australia widely? I really want to read it, maybe I should just order it off booktopia or something.

>> No.4965647

>>4965628
Absolutely.

Smith, and even Hayek for that matter, were never in favor of unbridled capitalism. The former was making the case that free markets are preferable to feudalism; the latter that free markets are preferable to Soviet-style state economies.

Neither contradict Marx.

>> No.4965648

>>4965630
>well, this is retarded. looks like i'll be avoiding this one
Eh, I think it's worth investigating by virtue of its popularity, even if you disagree with it. It's making waves, you know!

>>4965620
But at the end of the day, he's still just arguing for modified capitalism. There's more to Marxism than simply progressive taxation and returns on capital leading to wealth concentration.

>>4965643
>>Using a meaningless pleb buzzword
Inequality does mean something. Whether it's important or not is another debate.

>> No.4965664

>>4965648
>But at the end of the day, he's still just arguing for modified capitalism. There's more to Marxism than simply progressive taxation and returns on capital leading to wealth concentration.

We have to view his ideas in context. He is an economist trying to find a purely economic-based prescription for inequality.

Marx was about a whole hell of a lot more. But he was equal parts philosopher, economist and polemic.

>> No.4965673

>>4965664
You're right on all that, but I still don't view Piketty as a Marxist just because of those two previously mentioned things.

>> No.4965680

>>4965643
just because something has been around for ages doesn't mean it's necessarily a good thing. see: religion, male pattern baldness, cockroaches

i like capitalism, but i just want to see it refined. particularly in a way where profits aren't the only thing that matters - ie, diminishing corporate corruption - and in a way that (slightly-ish) reduces the wealth gap between richie mcrichguy and the people making my food at mcdonalds. i don't see why that is so difficult

this book should be renamed to communism in the 21st century

>> No.4965683

>>4965643
Because it inevitably leads to rampant corruption.

>> No.4965688

>>4965680
>i like capitalism, but i just want to see it refined. particularly in a way where profits aren't the only thing that matters - ie, diminishing corporate corruption - and in a way that (slightly-ish) reduces the wealth gap between richie mcrichguy and the people making my food at mcdonalds. i don't see why that is so difficult
That's just like saying you want coffee without caffeine, which is ridiculous and concealing the real economic problem.

>> No.4965694

>>4965680
>reduces the wealth gap between richie mcrichguy and the people making my food at mcdonalds

My problem with your reasoning is the undisputed acceptance of the greentext as a desirable aim. It's an axiom you accept on faith. Why, exactly, is it a good thing to give a rich man's money to a poor man? Why not just let people keep the money the earn?

>>4965683
I don't see any evidence for that. If there's "rampant corruption" the people always have the option to depose the reigning government and install one with corruption controls in place.

And you haven't explained either why it leads to rampant corruption. You made a pretty large logical leap connected solely by the word "inevitably."

>> No.4965696

>>4965680
>communism in the 21st century
This is a bit ridiculous. Communism doesn't involve a mega-state, even if one believes it is impossible to achieve.

>> No.4965703

>>4965673
No, he's not an orthodox Marxist. I think they have more in common than not though.

Pretty much nobody will cop to being a Marxist except the extreme leftists and they don't get play in the mainstream press.

That's why we're here discussing Thomas Piketty instead of Richard Wolff.

>> No.4965725

>>4965688
what's the real economic problem? guys at the top of the capitalist system will still be the richest; they 'deserve' that privilege and i don't care about that. but they can easily still remain at the top without obscenely exploiting laws, the government, and people. they refuse to do this out of a jewishly anemic need for profit

restructuring this system somewhat would be best, and my reasoning for this is partly ideological; it would benefit culture and society as a whole, just by de-emphasizing money. at least in murica where it is desperately needed. there's no need to relegate everyone to the same level like piketty seems to want

>>4965694
>Why, exactly, is it a good thing to give a rich man's money to a poor man?

i never said that. that doesn't mean i don't support income-based taxing

>> No.4965728

>>4965694
>And you haven't explained either why it leads to rampant corruption.
Not him but allow me to play devil's advocate.

(1) Capitalism creates an inequality in wealth.
(2) Those with money have incentive to bribe the system, to make markets less competitive or serve their interest in some other way. Because of this, the rich are far more capable of having their way than the average person.
(3) Government officials have little reason to stay ideologically pure. Corruption pays, and 'the masses' don't seem to want to revolt.

>install one with corruption controls in place.
Like what? There's only one body outside of the government to make sure the government works as desired, the people. And it's not hard to be skeptical in this day and age that 'the people' will do something revolutionary.

>Why, exactly, is it a good thing to give a rich man's money to a poor man? Why not just let people keep the money the earn?
Reminds me that I have to get around to reading A Theory Of Justice.

>> No.4965732

>>4965694
And why, exactly, does dealing with wealth inequality meaning giving a rich man's money to a poor man? You're arguing against a turnip ghost here. The reduction of wealth inequality means a more level playing field, not some Randian dystopia where everyone earns a set minimum wage and nothing more.

>> No.4965745

>>4965732
Okay, fine. I'll discuss it on your parameters. Why is a more level playing field a desirable aim? Again, why not simply let the economy progress without modifying it to "make it fair"?

>>4965728
Fair enough. But what are you defining as corruption? If corruption is simply the control of the government by the wealthy, then why don't the poor counter by uniting their smaller pools of wealth? Is that too much to ask of them?

>A Theory of Justice
I'm guessing it's a book that tries to justify the idea that equal incomes is a good thing?

>> No.4965747

>>4965694
>Why, exactly, is it a good thing to give a rich man's money to a poor man?
Because the poor man is making a significant amount of the money "earned" by the rich man. Why don't we just divvy up the profits in a way that accurately reflects the productive capacity of each employee?

>> No.4965751

>>4965747
Because the employee has the choice to go elsewhere if he doesn't like what he's getting paid. In a competitive market, the people determine their income.

>> No.4965759

>>4965751
That's bullshit and you know it. The "rich guy" and his buddies on the executive board are the ones who determine what is "his money" and what is everyone else's fucking money, and every major company is exactly the fucking same.

>> No.4965761

>>4965732
In the 1950's the top marginal tax rate was nearly 90% (marginal rates are, well, marginal. So only income in excess of $1million would be taxed at the highest rate; income below that would be taxed at the standard rate).

This was at the height of anti-communist fervor and is cited as the blissful period of time that the right wing wishes we would return to.

Even with an astronomically high marginal rate the 'titans of industry' managed to build their fortunes.

Basically Rand never understood that only profit (not re-investment) is taxed. It is impossible for a business to be "taxed to death."

Dumb bitch.

>> No.4965767

>>4965551
Why is it a waste of time because you don't agree with his proposed solution? Does that negate the earlier parts of the book where he lays out what the problems are in our capitalist system? Is all of his empirical work suddenly worthless? I understand the criticism of his solution(s), but what has irritated me is that many people have used that as a reason to dismiss the whole body of work.

>> No.4965768

>>4965745
Because as we're seeing today, high levels of inequality are socially unsustainable, leading to crime, corruption, and eventually people talking about revolution. The man at the bottom will always want what the man at the top has, and in a society where that gulf seems too wide for him to cross through legitimate hard work, he'll opt for something else entirely. High levels of inequality alienate people from the economic system they live in, leading to a less productive society overall. People have to feel they're getting a fair deal, or else why should they participate with any effort?

>> No.4965775

>>4965694
>they earn

No one has ever "earned" billions, or even millions of dollars. If wages are earned by laborer for energy expended over a certain amount of time (the relatively simple formula of meritocracy capitalism) you'd have to somehow argue that any given CEO works literally thousands of times harder (or thousands of more hours) than an employee at the bottom of his company's payroll. Of course, this is a ridiculous notion - even expending four or five times more labor is an incredible feat for a human being. The wealth gap we have - in which a small number of people hoard a massive amount of wealth - is an irrational manifestation of basic capitalist theory.

>> No.4965782

>>4965775
Why's it bad that they're hoarding wealth?

Why exactly is it a good thing that people be rewarded in proportion to their labor?

Furthermore, do you realize what you're opening yourself up to with this ideology as (I am assuming here) an American? You have/earn vastly more wealth than almost anyone else in the world. Do you want to get taxed just so some kid in Africa or a factory worker in Bangladesh can have enough money to buy an iphone? If you do, great for you, but I am in the camp that says I want to keep what I have and I'm willing to let other people, even rich assholes, keep what they have too.

>> No.4965785

>>4965761
Ayn Rand was about setting up a delusional justification for obscene wealth, she's not a serious economist or philosopher

>> No.4965786

>>4965506
Economics 201 is hard

>> No.4965787

>>4965782
Nobody needs a fucking Iphone. Materialistic cunts like you are the reason the human race is doomed.

>> No.4965793

>>4965787
Yeah isn't it grand? I race to the end

>> No.4965794

>>4965787
Congrats on using one minor example and ignoring the rest of my point. You're really proving the virtues of Marxist economics.

>> No.4965798

>>4965782
Because wealth hoarding and people not being rewarded in proportion to the work they put in is a fundamentally dysfunctional system.

Explain to me why workers should care about participation in a system that underpays them and overpays the guy a thousand miles away who owns their company. A society should be inclusive, should make people feel as if they have a stake in it. Right now we have a society that is rapidly beginning to alienate more and more people, people who feel that it doesn't provide for them, and it's those people who one day'll inevitably (whether it's just or not) want to take guys like you and string you up from lamp posts, who'll take by force from the wealthy what the wealthy don't want to share. More equal societies don't breed that kind of resentment and alienation.

>> No.4965806

>>4965680
>i like capitalism, but i just want to see it refined. particularly in a way where profits aren't the only thing that matters
>profits aren't the only thing that matters

Are you retarded? That wouldn't even be capitalism. And this book advocates a slightly modified capitalism—it's not even socialist, let alone communist.

Also, learn to capitalize you nincompoop.

>> No.4965809

>>4965798
>A society should be inclusive

That's a negative. No society in history has been inclusive, and it's not going to happen now.

Your ideas are built on the assumptions that equality, inclusiveness, etc. are inherently desirable goals. For me, freedom to obtain and accumulate wealth are more important.

From a utilitarian perspective--i.e. more equal incomes are desirable because otherwise bad shit will happen--you become more reasonable. But from my point of view revolution seems unlikely. People are really too stupid to pull it off, and when they do, if I am wealthy, I will be long gone, not hanging around to be strung up on a lamp post. Also, try to string someone up if they have enough money to hire bodyguards and live in a fortified building.

>> No.4965810

>>4965782
It's bad that they're hoarding wealth because it rapidly diminishes the amount of wealth available in the consumer economy. Ergo it's self-destructing/unsustainable and every time it happens there's a violent revolution (cf. France).

That's not to get into the obvious ethical problems of people withholding money they haven't earned from an economy in which 16 million children live in poverty.

What could you possibly have in mind as an alternative to rational wealth accumulation if not x energy spent over y amount of time? That's how Capitalism replaced Feudalism.

And while I'm certainly in favor of radically improved living standards worldwide it has to start in the United States first. You're making a slippery slope argument.

>> No.4965816
File: 496 KB, 1919x1059, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4965816

>>4965782
>Why's it bad that they're hoarding wealth?

Not the poster you're responding to but massive amounts of impacted wealth negatively effect demand.

A billionaire does not, and cannot consume in proportion to his income. This means his bank hoard grows while demand for goods shrinks from lack of available capital on the part of the consumer class. This results in diminished production and jobs. This results in even less demand. On and on south of heaven.

This is basic Marx. Capitalism has inherent contradictions that ultimately will result in implosion.

Henry Ford was a tremendous asshole, but enlightened enough to realize this. Thus he invented the $5 work day. Just enough so his own employees could afford the commodity (cars) that they produced.

>> No.4965824

>>4965809
It's the utilitarian perspective I'm arguing from, sort of. I'm a Marxist, but I'm not a Marxist because "dat shit's unfair" or because of anything romantic, and your trying to paint me and Marxist theory in general as that is a fairly transparent distortion. My assumption is not that equality is inherently desirable in and of itself, rather that *more* equality has positive economic and social outcomes, and less has negatives. No society was ever toppled through revolution for being too equal, after all.

And you'll have bodyguards? By that point we're at the last argument of kings. And eventually the kings lost that one.

>> No.4965827

>>4965816
If what you're saying is right, why haven't we already "imploded"?

None of what you're saying really sounds that terrible. It simply describes reality. I would rather have a world where a powerful few take and hold power than a world where a bunch of mediocrities "share the wealth."

>> No.4965835

>>4965785
True. I don't take her seriously but if I spent 20 years in the USSR I'd be bitter too.

>> No.4965837

>>4965827
>why haven't we already "imploded"?

It's happening now, are you living under a rock?

>> No.4965838

>>4965837
In what way? The recession? No one is reacting violently to that. They're sheep; they have no clue. They would rather watch reality tv and eat ramen noodles.

>> No.4965846

>>4965838
They aren't reacting violently yet, but just wait. The next ten to fifteen years, shit's just going to keep getting worse and worse, especially once climate shift effects start getting more and more severe. We're already seeing record droughts and heatwaves. The current paradigm is on the brink of collapse.

>> No.4965851

>>4965846
I look forward to it if you're right. The world is boring as fuck at present.

>> No.4965857

> Earning wealth

This is the problem. This idea. 'Earning' wealth means nothing. At best we can talk about 'being in possession of wealth' as a result of 'coming into possession of wealth'.

If the collaborative organisation of capital conspires (as in the days of the Robber Barons, or in 2014 Silicon Valley) to keep wages in a market or industry low, the worker, homeless and starving, is banned by property rights from taking their stuff to feed himself. And by 'property rights' I really mean 'a policeman's gun'. The only thing that keeps the wealth out of the hands of the worker and in the hands of the boss is force.

When the worker uses force to attain wealth, even a small amount, we call it theft, and it is punished by force.

When the boss uses force - a police force, whose priority service is often bought and paid for by his political donations - to put down strikers or prevent workers taking 'his' property to feed themselves, we call this justice.

The argument can be made that, in a democracy, the majority of voters determines what the society's stance on social rights is. That is fine as far as it goes, and even as an anarchist I can't say anything against that idea; democracy is pretty alright.

But in this current state of affairs, money controls politics. Every worker in America, if they used purely democratic means, couldn't get one iota of property law altered. We've seen nothing for years upon years but tax cuts and concessions for the rich, the 1%, the political donor-owner class.

This unequal, undemocratic distribution of political power is a direct result of the unequal distribution of wealth, to the point where not only is the common man a small voice among millions, but has, compared to the 1%, no voice at all, not even a whisper in a whirlwind.

I don't want to see violent revolution sweep the country; I would much prefer it if my nation, and all western nations, could hold together in solidarity. I don't hate the idea of wealth inequality, and I am not myself fussed about someone having more money or a better iPhone than me.

But with wealth inequality like this, combined with the disproportionate influence of this wealth in politics, there is something sick in our nation and our nation's democracy.

>> No.4965876

>>4965827
>If what you're saying is right, why haven't we already "imploded"

Because WWII happened just as the revolution began to foment. It provided America with a 30 year period of unimaginable prosperity in which the unions could demand living wages, benefits, pensions that the corporations were glad to acquiesce to.

Europe, in order to preclude fascist/nationalist/communist uprisings instituted the welfare state policies that we see in modern day Britain, France, Italy, and Germany.

But all of that is coming to a head. The era of American prosperity is over. Euro state-welfare is proving unsustainable.

We truly are, as Piketty posits, entering a new age of profound instability.

>> No.4965882

>>4965876
Does this mean I should be gearing up to join a /pol/ak uprising? Will we finally get a chance to emulate Hitler?

I really hope what you're saying is true, because the world would be about to get really exciting if it were.

>> No.4965883

>>4965452
Why the fuck would you read this trash when you could just read Das Kapital like a sane person?

>> No.4965889

>>4965882
There's gonna be fascism and shit, don't worry. But in the end fascism's non-functional, a dead end. What's gonna happen I think is a lot of aimlessness, because we still can't manage to suck it up, go knock on ole' Karl's door, and say shamefaced and in a low voice "You were right". The current rise of extremist nationalism pretty much everywhere is a result of that - dissatisfaction with the world system but vented at a much easier target than ourselves.

>> No.4965893

>>4965876
You are right on. GD/WWII were significant in that they destroyed a lot of the elites' wealth that had been accumulated. They placated dissent regarding the wealth gap for the time being, but as Picketty argues, it was a only a veneer of successful capitalism.

>> No.4965899

>>4965883
Thanks for your insightful contribution...

>> No.4965917

>>4965816
>>4965846
>>4965851
Society is about to fail on a massive fucking scale, and it will be glorious. This is what happened during the French Revolution, the Romans empire, and the Mesopotamians before them. Now, it will be the entire globe.

In both the Roman and Mesopotamian societies, their downfall was caused by the increasing wealth gap between the elites and the masses. This book is significant because it's actually causing dialogue on something that people are ignoring, but I digress. As the elites continue to make more money, and consume too much, while the masses have limited resources to go about their own daily lives. For example, the minimum wage in America now is less proportionate to the way it was in the 60s, which is absolutely ridiculous.

The wealthy will continue over consuming and making the problem worse. And this will seriously fuck us over, now that we waste oil, coal, water and electricity at enormous amounts.

The ONLY way to save ourselves is with massive reform, beginning in America, the heart of the problem.

>> No.4965919

>>4965882
Exciting is one way to put it. Technology (self driving vehicles) and the demand of emerging markets (china, India) will only compound the contradictions inherent in Capitalism.

We are still writing history.

>>4965893
Yeah, just a bandaid in the grand scope

>> No.4966579

How do you justify making things equal when using the state as a means?

>> No.4966586

>>4965919
But there are no "contradictions" in capitalism, dummy.

>> No.4966693

>>4966586
hahahahahaha

>> No.4966731

>>4966693
Tenets of capitalism:
1. Hoard money
2. Expend money only to achieve a profit
The contradictions are where, you slobbering ass? Don't post again until you've read all of the political philosophy books listed on the /lit/ wiki, as I have.

>> No.4966743

>>4966731
you only expend money to achieve profit?

>> No.4966756

>>4966743
Yes. I live with my parents so I have no other expenses.

>> No.4966769

>>4966731
>Tenets of capitalism:
>1. Hoard money

You're an idiot. Hoarding cash accomplishes nothing except to slow the mechanism of industry. It doesn't even accrue any benefits to the hoarder. It's literally pissing away productivity.

>> No.4966776

>>4966731
Tendency of rate of profit to fall

There's this thing called Google. Try it out dipshit.

>> No.4966784

>>4966693
>>4966731
>>4966743
>>4966756
>>4966769
>>4966776

You guys have literally no idea what you're talking about.

>> No.4966796

>>4966784
Did you even read >>4966731? I've read all the recommended books on political philosophy.

>> No.4966876

need to:
1) Go back to a Bretton Woods style fixed exchange rate monetary system
2) 1:1 Asset/Liability ratio throughout the banking system; no more frac-reserve destructible money
3) Shut China down; exclude her from trade in US and EU

>> No.4966898

>>4965524
They bought it for their strong backed sons and blue-collar husbands working real, union backed jobs, not standing behind a flimsy checkout counter, playing with their phone like you are.

>> No.4966899

>>4966876
samefagging but:

severely restricting capital mobility and private currency issue basically means a non-capitalistic system. Capital becomes subject to the sovereign, loses its "I'm out" veto-power on domestic policy and most importantly can't create business cycles.

^ My 2c. No need for revolutions or nightmare global taxation. Just return to time-respected principles of sovereignty.

>> No.4966931

Here's a solution: kill every single sub-human, resource-consuming shitskin and bring the world population back down to 300-400 million.

Boom, capitalism and material prosperity go strong for another 1000 years.

>> No.4966938

>>4966931
ah, the good old "everything would be alright if we just eliminated $harmful_element_of_society"

>> No.4966969

>>4966898
>They bought it for their strong backed sons and blue-collar husbands working real, union backed jobs
>implying these things exist anymore

>> No.4967092

List of flawed ideas in this thread:
>>4965551
>>4965630
> He proposed global wealth tax, but it's such a bureaucratic nightmare no one can't possibly achieve it
First of all, global wealth tax is not a wealth global tax... He never proposes a tax on a international scale.
You have to admit it IRS works pretty good (and IRS-like in every country in the developped world). Such agencies are certainly not optimal, but who the fuck cares about an hypothetical "maximal efficiency". States aren't capable of collecting perfectly accurate data on everyone, that should no stop them from doing it.
IRS budget is outscaled by many other government services, and it does not poses a net loss to your society by "request[ing and so on] the payment, process the payment, recover the payment, ensure that no fraud has occurred, and then be able to levy effective penalties if it did"

>>4965530
>Frenchfags have a hard-on for looking like they have something revolutionary to say
A great part of what Picketty argues about has already been told by Stiglitz and Krugman...

>>4965643
>why are so many people enamored with wealth inequality as the great evil of modern civilization
Because today's estimates of inequality are far more important as they have ever been in the last century. And eventually, deep inequalities resolve in dramatic conflicts/revolutions/collapses.

>>4965694
>Why not just let people keep the money they earn?
Because they earned it on thanks to skewed economic system and social policies.
They do not earn that money *only* because they were hardworking.
The flaw is to believe that rich people earn much because they deserve it. It's hardly true.

>>4965745
>>>4965728
>Fair enough. But what are you defining as corruption? If corruption is simply the control of the government by the wealthy, then why don't the poor counter by uniting their smaller pools of wealth? Is that too much to ask of them?
Yes it actually is. Revolutions and great revolts are not very frequent in history.
Few rich people can easily unite, many poor people can't.
It's somewhat even harder to make the poor people realize how much they're fucked by that "corruption".

>>4966876
All time favourite.
100% amerifeg certified. Heil Dollar, Kill chinese, don't lend for free.

I would end by reminding that taxation in the US is very low compared to what it was 40y ago, and even lower compared to the early 19th. Taxing the rich a bit more did not make your economy collapse. And it was correlated with less inequality.

>> No.4967163
File: 33 KB, 384x315, 2cat.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4967163

> No one has the right to set his own tax rates. It is not right for individuals to grow wealthy from free trade and economic integration only to rake off the profits at the expense of their neighbors. That is outright theft.

>> No.4967206

>>4967092

>>4966876 here

I think you're misunderstanding me. I say "Bretton Woods style agreement" not in the sense of an international monetary agreement based on the US Dollar, but in the sense of an international monetary agreement that upholds fixed exchange rates. This type of agreement could easily be worked out the current irredeemable fiat currencies; no need for a 'pounds redeemable in dollars' type deal. (Bretton Woods, imperfect as it was, really did work out well all things considered so don't be mad that it was American).

>don't lend for free

^What does this mean? You want to outlaw lending at interest?

>> No.4967219

>>4967092

>don't lend for free

Implying that fractional reserve banking provides for lending for free? What are you saying?

>> No.4967272

http://takimag.com/article/the_little_cooked_book_james_miller#axzz33Ee6Khux

>To make matters worse, Giles also points out that, aside from some apparent transcription errors, Piketty “simply adds 2 percentage points” to an Excel formula in order to fulfill his predisposition. Giles claims there’s “quite a lot of this sort of thing in his spreadsheets.”

Leftists are so religiously convinced of the Truth of their beliefs that they have no qualms with literally conjuring data out of thin air and arbitrarily adding constants to their formulae in order to produce the "right" result.

Anyway, Piketty is a proven fraud, so this should really be the end of the discussion.

>> No.4967317

>>4967272

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_in_the_Twenty-First_Century

Looks like even his critics disagree with takimag

>> No.4967362

>>4967317
All that page says is that the same leftist academics who originally wrote glowing reviews of the book claimed that the FT investigation was not relevant after it was published. Big surprise.

The fact remains that he purposefully fudged or outright made up a lot of his data. He's a dishonest fraud.

>> No.4967465

>>4967317

Like how ClimateGate is supposed to disprove Global Warming?

>> No.4967477

>>4965605
He relies extensively on data, but some have argued that his focus on taxation policies isn't the best kind of data-handling.

>> No.4967523

>>4965680
>see: religion
0/10

>> No.4967557

>>4965452

Since Pikety is only an anti-capitalist in the wild imaginings of the banking cartel, his book can amount to little more than apologetic suggestions to slow down accumulation in anticipation of infinite growth at one pace or another. That *is* his position, is it not? - that the growth of wealth itself is essentially infinite, but merely increases or decreases in speed with the economic cycle; that measures should be taken to redistribute over-accumulation in slower periods of growth, but that these measures might just as well be reduced in proportion to increasing rates of growth.

With such policies, Pikety imagines that all crashes might be prevented. In truth, it is doubtful whether such policies would even reduce the effect of a crash in any meaningful way.

For the same reason that an individual economic sector might destroy a part of its product or slow down production to prevent a fall in price, sacrificing this years profits for the survival of the sector; for the same reason that one nation might go to war with another over market-share to stave off the collapse of the market by destroying a large part of it; so Pikety would suggest that capitalists give up a portion of their profits now to stave off the collapse of capitalism. Yet, sectors often collapse despite their best efforts, markets crash despite mutual burning and looting by the shareholders, and so Pikety might do well himself not to assume that the growth of wealth within capitalism is not fundamentally limited - condemned to a specific epoch of human history.

Pikety is, of course, deserving of one commendation; his work finds the absolute limits of bourgeois radicalism.

>> No.4968513
File: 100 KB, 487x650, Picketty.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4968513

>>4965452
He mis-quotes the top marginal US income tax rate under Hoover was 25%. A quick check of the IRS' own records show it was 63% in 1932. Off by 152%.

>His foundation data are made up.
>Facts don't matter for muh Marksicyst yootope-eeyah, its muh theory.

>>>/pol/

>> No.4969046

Bumpin for interest

>> No.4970048

>>4965782
You need to read a book. With the rampant inequality today, there's no real need for me to be taxed more than I already am. A progressive taxation of thetop 20% will easily finance the poor to decent levels of living.
Second, inequality is bad for a number of reasons, particularly if people don't see ita justified through merit of work. To name a few consequences; crime, shorter lifespan (rich an poor alike), distrust of political systems, corruption and loss of democratic power.
Also it's just plain wrong if it has no actual justification.

>> No.4970058

>>4965551

shut up.

>> No.4970062

>>4968513
>Redirecting a marxist to /pol/
>From /lit/


9/10 almost called you retarded

>> No.4970068

>>4970062
>>>/pol/

>> No.4970093

>>4970068
Look faggot I'm agreeing with you but be consistent with the marxists if you're going to repeatedly shitpost because politics rustle your autism. Fucking christ.

>> No.4970514

Everyone has been talking about this book lately. Did it come out recently?

I guess I'll see what the big fuss is about.

>> No.4970796

>>4965782
>Why exactly is it a good thing that people be rewarded in proportion to their labor?

Yeah, being paid millions for chasing a ball across the pitch is truly in proportion to the labor. Or for spewing out shitty autotuned pop garbage. Or for driving a bank into bankruptcy. Capitalism always rewards people fairly and proportionally, yup.

>> No.4970882

>>4970796
I am actually that guy from the other night.

All of those things you listed are fair. My question that you greentexted is questioning the value of proportional payment. It can never happen, it will never happen, and it wouldn't be good if it did happen.

>> No.4971015

>>4970062
can we stop calling piketty and his pikettes 'marxists'. he's the darling of liberal capitalists

>> No.4971018

>>4965463
>I find it funny that Piketty has never actually read Capital, despite his title being an allusion to it.
Source, please?

>> No.4971066

>>4965514
>why would he basically steal the title of one of marx's flagship works if he hasn't read any of it? sounds fishy
Because marketing. Duh.

>> No.4971073

No. Nor am I particularly interested in doing so.

>> No.4971098
File: 276 KB, 1200x1600, Communist_Manifesto_by_SythWorks.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4971098

>>4965452


Is there a liberal reading recommendation chart?

I imagine paul krugman's conscience of a liberal would be on it.

>> No.4971108

>>4965504


>implying it's not written for dumb laymen

>> No.4971381
File: 514 KB, 1200x1252, Leftist lit.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4971381

>>4971098

>> No.4971686

>>4965643
>Only poor people care about it.

The middle class cares about it now, hence its renewed prominence in the discourse.

>> No.4971698
File: 2 KB, 300x57, 101.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4971698

>>4971098
>liberal reading

pic related, it was my captcha, also what you probably need.

>> No.4971708

>>4971698

Seriously though, does it bother no one else that you guys call your left liberals, and they're fucking blue?