Krugman on Piketty: Why we're in a new Gilded Age

[Type Username Here]

Marx will ultimately be vindicated. Say what you want about governments that have risen in his name (a lot of criticism is valid) but the Marxist argument against Capitalism is 100% on the money.

One thing I don't get is people, usually economists and politicians in the West, ashamed to associate with any Marxism. The propaganda made it dirty philosophy. I don't agree with all of his assertions and tenants but brushing aside his arguments is foolish.

 

[DEAD7]

Marx will ultimately be vindicated. Say what you want about governments that have risen in his name (a lot of criticism is valid) but the Marxist argument against Capitalism is 100% on the money.

One thing I don't get is people, usually economists and politicians in the West, ashamed to associate with any Marxism. The propaganda made it dirty philosophy. I don't agree with all of his assertions and tenants but brushing aside his arguments is foolish.

The "valid criticism" you speak of is where the foul taste comes from, and why so many distance them self.

The fact that most of those examples were/are of countries that saw a dramatic turn around when they adopted a more capitalistic model, doesnt help either.

 

[Type Username Here]

The "valid criticism" you speak of is where the foul taste comes from, and why so many distance them self.

The fact that most of those examples were/are of countries that saw a dramatic turn around when they adopted a more capitalistic model, doesnt help either.

The second point is up for debate since I can also say that a lot of capitalist countries did a lot better after huge shifts in domestic policy toward Socialistic policies, including the US post-1930s.

But yes, I make no qualms that Leninism, Maoism and Stalinism (among others) have been failures. In fairness to Marx, he ultimately advocated a classless AND stateless society. Again, we sometimes get muddled in the American view of the political spectrum that we forget there is Libertarian Socialism and Anarcho-Communism.

Ultimately I think any aspiration towards Socialism has to be accompanied by true Democratic principles. I also have no qualms about keeping aspects of free market enterprise as long as it is regulated, has input from the labor and provides a tangible social service.

 

[Handsback]

Subbing.

I'll definitely pick up a copy but I'm reading Stiglitz's Price of Inequality right now.

Dope thread though.

 

[714562]

Marx will ultimately be vindicated. Say what you want about governments that have risen in his name (a lot of criticism is valid) but the Marxist argument against Capitalism is 100% on the money.

One thing I don't get is people, usually economists and politicians in the West, ashamed to associate with any Marxism. The propaganda made it dirty philosophy. I don't agree with all of his assertions and tenants but brushing aside his arguments is foolish.

Marx has already been vindicated as much as he is going to be vindicated.

He was the first to recognize how much capitalism, the industrial mode of production, and machine technology had really changed.

But as far as labor theory of value and all that shyt, it's never going to be vindicated. Outside of certain historical and anthropological principals, there's nothing to vindicate.

 

[tmonster]

I'll begin reading his book this weekend but at face value...


Telling people what they want to hear has been a blueprint for success for a long time.

are you saying that Piketty's empirical data and statistical analysis are:

1. telling people what they want to hear?
or
2. that his conclusions are divorced from his data and analysis of, and therefore that's why he winded up telling people what they want to hear
or
3. anything that does not fit your narrative is equivalent to telling people what they want to hear?
or
4. You are awaiting your talking point rebuttals and this comment is just a generic placeholder

because I think this comment may be the final undoing of whatever intellectual integrity and currency you have with the usual suspects.

 

[tmonster]

Yep, no need to read the book.

This I can totally agree with you on
there is no use in you reading this book

 

[DEAD7]

are you saying that Piketty's empirical data and statistical analysis are:

1. telling people what they want to hear?
or
2. that his conclusions are divorced from his data and analysis of, and therefore that's why he winded up telling people what they want to hear
or
3. anything that does not fit your narrative is equivalent to telling people what they want to hear?
or
4. You are awaiting your talking point rebuttals and this comment is just a generic placeholder

because I think this comment may be the final undoing of whatever intellectual integrity and currency you have with the usual suspects.

No, not yet. I will read the book for myself and decide ultimately, but from what I am hearing now, he is riding the inequality hate wave, and reaching wrong conclusions with (from what I hear) is great data/research.

 

[tmonster]

No, not yet. I will read the book for myself and decide ultimately, but from what I am hearing now, he is riding the inequality hate wave, and reaching wrong conclusions with (from what I hear) is great data/research.

after further review
I don't think you should read it
I think you've got this covered

 

[tmonster]

based on the review it seems, Piketty comes close to saying the things I say out loud and sometimes in my head that make me feel tinfoilish. This does not make me feel better. what is amazing is dead7 thinks this is what I want to hear


The parts of the review I found noteworthy

-After 1980, however, the lion’s share of gains went to the top end of the income distribution, with families in the bottom half lagging far behind.
-In particular, we now know both that the United States has a much more unequal distribution of income than other advanced countries and that much of this difference in outcomes can be attributed directly to government action. European nations in general have highly unequal incomes from market activity, just like the United States, although possibly not to the same extent. But they do far more redistribution through taxes and transfers than America does, leading to much less inequality in disposable incomes. (those croissant eating socialists)

-He also shows that in the past—during Europe’s Belle Époque and, to a lesser extent, America’s Gilded Age—unequal ownership of assets, not unequal pay, was the prime driver of income disparities.

one day we will discover that, since the age of big data, all markets have been manipulated by one central algorithm that slowly leaks money to the owners of said algo.

-when the rate of return on capital greatly exceeds the rate of economic growth, “the past tends to devour the future”: society inexorably tends toward dominance by inherited wealth.

The road to serfdom

-At times, Piketty almost seems to offer a deterministic view of history, in which everything flows from the rates of population growth and technological progress. In reality, however, Capital in the Twenty-First Century makes it clear that public policy can make an enormous difference, that even if the underlying economic conditions point toward extreme inequality, what Piketty calls “a drift toward oligarchy” can be halted and even reversed if the body politic so chooses.

toward? we there breh

The key point is that when we make the crucial comparison between the rate of return on wealth and the rate of economic growth, what matters is theafter-tax return on wealth. So progressive taxation—in particular taxation of wealth and inheritance—can be a powerful force limiting inequality. Indeed, Piketty concludes his masterwork with a plea for just such a form of taxation. Unfortunately, the history covered in his own book does not encourage optimism.

This is so interesting to me
you can tell these rich brehs
"hey, I have an idea that will let you continue to live a fabulous life for generations and also help the rest of the world live a little better, all you have to do is give up some cash" and after running out of excuses, they will ultimately tell you "hell no"

to me this is madness

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

are you saying that Piketty's empirical data and statistical analysis are:

1. telling people what they want to hear?
or
2. that his conclusions are divorced from his data and analysis of, and therefore that's why he winded up telling people what they want to hear
or
3. anything that does not fit your narrative is equivalent to telling people what they want to hear?
or
4. You are awaiting your talking point rebuttals and this comment is just a generic placeholder

because I think this comment may be the final undoing of whatever intellectual integrity and currency you have with the usual suspects.

i'm going to read it when I get a chance, but as someone in the sciences, this ardent and almost religious appraisal of economists lately makes their arguments and claims to objectivity that much more specious.

its frustrating because I tend to be a lefty. Hell, I used to HATE anything on the right-wing...but there has to be something to pull these arguments in and make them realistic.

 

[DEAD7]

This push for "equality" doesn't help more people than it holds back.

 

[tmonster]

So go join a commune, or pose some solutions.

Its easy for you to sit here and trash capitalism, when in reality, its better than anything OUTRIGHT socialism has ever done.

That being said, this country is not NEARLY as capitalistic as it could be. Which is ok.

thanks for the advice breh, will consider it

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

thanks for the advice breh, will consider it

More dismissals.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Good for you. I hope you do make $1500 an hour. I'll make $3000 since our capitalist overlords have decided my contributions and skills outweigh yours as we already have proven.

Not with this M.S./M.D.


AND the side gigs i'll be moving