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

[Type Username Here]

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


AND the side gigs i'll be moving

 

[Broke Wave]

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.

I respect your view on science and you have a different approach in scientific arguments but why don't you apply that line of thinking to economics?

The exact same argument your using about religious appraisal of economists is the same argument I've seen you encounter about scientists in evoloution debates, it's not a great argument.

The fact is that there are left leaning economists and right leaning, but between them there are objective economic statistics and conclusions that each school of thought delineates based on their own world view. An economist like Krugman won the economics Nobel Prize (spare me) on something totally non partisan; a structural view of international trade whose facts are agreed on by all parties.

If I make an objective economic claim, it is only one that research has backed up. When I say that for example tax cuts produce way less economic activity than food stamps that is an unbiased truth based on the existing data. You're making this about ideology and socialism v capitalism but it's really much simpler than that. It's a specific issue based proposal and if you truly disagree with us, find the opposite points from economists who disagree and at least examine it in comparison to what we're saying.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Yea I mean I think there is a clear problem with wealth/income inequality in the west, but where left leaning economists continually fail is in suggesting the solution is through high taxation

What good will taxing the 1% at a 90% marginal rate do if the jobs the 99% used to do are all replaced by robots and computers

Inequality activists get so caught up in the numbers they don't step back and look at what's causing the trends and shifts that got us here

We should be asking questions like.... how can society balance the forces of automation and increasing productivity with the need to keep people employed.... how can society better equip current and future generations with the skills and knowledge to capitalize on segments of growth and prosperity... etc. etc. People misdiagnose symptoms for causes and from there no kind of productive change or discussion can come. But its easier to essentially troll with a simple emotionally loaded term like inequality than to get people to sit down and look at the full scope of the problem....

taxes will help though.

We have some of the lowest taxes in the world...

unless people just take that universal income

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

I respect your view on science and you have a different approach in scientific arguments but why don't you apply that line of thinking to economics?

The exact same argument your using about religious appraisal of economists is the same argument I've seen you encounter about scientists in evoloution debates, it's not a great argument.

The fact is that there are left leaning economists and right leaning, but between them there are objective economic statistics and conclusions that each school of thought delineates based on their own world view. An economist like Krugman won the economics Nobel Prize (spare me) on something totally non partisan; a structural view of international trade who's facts are agreed on by all parties.

If I make an objective economic claim, it is only one that research has backed up. When I say that for example tax cuts produce way less economic activity than food stamps that is an unbiased truth based on the existing data. You're making this about ideology and socialism v capitalism but it's really much simpler than that. It's a specific issue based proposal and if you truly disagree with us, find the opposite points from economists who disagree and at least examine it in comparison to what we're saying.

I support capitalistic enterprise man.

The Marshall Plan worked in Europe after WWII and I think communism is a TERRIBLE idea.

Raw Socialism doesn't really answer a lot of problems...it seems good on paper, but I don't see it as something that enables value to be recognized.

 

[TLR Is Mental Poison]

taxes will help though.

We have some of the lowest taxes in the world...

unless people just take that universal income

How will higher taxes fix income/wealth inequality?

 

[Broke Wave]

I support capitalistic enterprise man.

The Marshall Plan worked in Europe after WWII and I think communism is a TERRIBLE idea.

Raw Socialism doesn't really answer a lot of problems...it seems good on paper, but I don't see it as something that enables value to be recognized.

Marshall Plan is a non sequitur but it was actually massive government spending in Europe that allowed for these social welfare states to develop so I don't see how it helps.

In no way did anyone here advocate for socialism nor even say it looks good on paper. It's not an idelogical argument but a fact based one. I personally believe in capitalism firmly, I study economics at school and I want to work in markets when I have my money up. Needless to say, we can't frame the discussion this way.

It's either you show an alternative to what we're saying using evidence or tell us the virtues of these low wages through some kind of evidence or admit that you're arguing totally from an emotional stand point.

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

Subbing.

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

Dope thread though.

Did you ever read Freefall? Great book.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

How will higher taxes fix income/wealth inequality?

I find a problem with identifying it as something to "fix"

Cause I don't even know what that means. its like this ethereal goal with no tangible finish line or obvious mark.

But I think the USG can do A LOT more to repatriate corporate funds and impose punishments on tax dodgers.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Marshall Plan is a non sequitur but it was actually massive government spending in Europe that allowed for these social welfare states to develop so I don't see how it helps.

In no way did anyone here advocate for socialism nor even say it looks good on paper. It's not an idelogical argument but a fact based one. I personally believe in capitalism firmly, I study economics at school and I want to work in markets when I have my money up. Needless to say, we can't frame the discussion this way.

It's either you show an alternative to what we're saying using evidence or tell us the virtues of these low wages through some kind of evidence or admit that you're arguing totally from an emotional stand point.

Social welfare, sure but in largely capitalistic nations.

And as an economics major, don't take this the wrong way, but don't use the word "facts" so liberally.

There is DATA...and the interpretation of that data is what matters. Beyond that, don't overstate more than the basics.

 

[Handsback]

Did you ever read Freefall? Great book.

I'll add that one to the list.

 

[TLR Is Mental Poison]

I find a problem with identifying it as something to "fix"

Cause I don't even know what that means. its like this ethereal goal with no tangible finish line or obvious mark.

But I think the USG can do A LOT more to repatriate corporate funds and impose punishments on tax dodgers.

It's not ethereal. We can look at periods in the US where income inequality was lower, and look to set that as a goal. Or look to countries with less income inequality than us and higher per capita GDPs, and look to that as a goal. The metrics are pretty accurately measured and well understood, as are the implications of various values, and the negative effects of growing income inequality. Falsely defining it as "ethereal" ensures we won't be able to do anything about it.

 

[88m3]

Are you sure?what if i just keep saying it's ridiculous?won't that eventually make it ridiculous?

It's sort of like saying 25% of meteorologists(in Alabama) believe climate change isn't man made(G-d does, DUH) and that now the onus is back on the majority of the world to prove that the minorities unscientific assessment is false.

Seems legit.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

It's not ethereal. We can look at periods in the US where income inequality was lower, and look to set that as a goal. Or look to countries with less income inequality than us and higher per capita GDPs, and look to that as a goal. The metrics are pretty accurately measured and well understood, as are the implications of various values, and the negative effects of growing income inequality. Falsely defining it as "ethereal" ensures we won't be able to do anything about it.

Do these arguments adjust for the diversity of jobs that exist now?

 

[Broke Wave]

Ok we've been arguing back and forth for pages and still I don't think you've acknowledged my points. I never demonized corporations. You're just building strawman after strawman. I just told you that businesses that raise prices as a result of higher wages to the point of profitability weren't really profitable in the first place. All it'll do is thin profit margins slightly. You think 12 is OK apparently now but 3 more dollars and we're in complete absurdity territory. I'm done with this discussion, I feel like you are not actually showing that you are interested in the other points people have offered here but rather just illustrating your own beliefs and arguing about philosophy which I find to be boring and juvenile.

 

[DEAD7]

Please tell me this isn't what I sound like...