Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 19 of 19

Thread: Piketty

  1. #16
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    11,088
    Quote Originally Posted by DutchBird View Post
    Which AFAIK has subsequently been criticised as (at best) marginal and not affecting the thesis ceriously, even by critics of him (among others The Economist), which is far from left-wing in its leanings. Indeed, in is responce, Piketty points out that if anything the FT critic (its economics editor) is the one not only misrepresenting flaws (many 'thin air' data are in fact references or explained why that approach is taken), but even more so, is the one cherry picking statistics that favour him, while completely and deliberately ignoring much other British research that proves, also for the UK, Piketty's point about rising inequality.

    In this case, switching from the quantity measured (estate tax data) to another when it suddenly runs counter to his argument (where Piketty has consistely used estate tax data).

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/31/up...imes.html?_r=0
    The notion that his thesis hasn't been undermined might be valid only if you haven't read Bonnet's piece.

    Piketty objecting to the FT's critique on the use of data is amusing given his own use of data which came with the instruction that it was not to used to draw the types of conclusion that Piketty drew.
    Last edited by ctc; 06-09-2014 at 07:11 PM.

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    11,088
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Pink Monkey View Post
    That's interesting because on Colbert, he talked about social mobility. Specifically, he mentioned that social mobility was greater in nations where taxes on the wealthy were higher. I believe he cited the Nordic countries.
    This is much like Piketty's argument. YOu have a thesis and a variety of facts which you'd like to believe are causally related.

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    11,088
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Pink Monkey View Post
    My brother's only comments so far have been based on what the Economist has written about it. His sense from that is that the analysis is strong, but the conclusions or solutions aren't necessary. Personally, I think this comes from a lack of concern for the poor. Or maybe not lack of concern.

    What I see in my brother and in many other fiscal libertarians is the sense that there is no way to really mitigate inequality, so this capitalist myth of opportunity is the best we've got. Sort of, capitalism is the worst system possible, except for all the others. My brother cares about people who struggle, but his best solution is to get as rich as possible and then leave his kids with comparatively little; give the rest to charity. The Warren Buffett model. There's something to be said for that, but it defers a lot of of dreams for a long time.

    I'd be curious how those big charitable windfalls really alter the landscape and how they compare to a more structural change, like progressive taxation. Not sure if Piketty covers that. One thing to consider is that there are relatively few Warren Buffetts, both in the immensity of their wealth and in their willingness to give it all away. For every Andrew Carnegie, there seem to be ten Jay Goulds.
    piketty's solutions are to be expected aren't they.
    What i am eternally puzzled about is the notion that simply by raising taxes on the wealthy this will minimize income inequality. It's absolutely ludicrous. Higher taxes will not raise anyone's income.

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Arlington, VA
    Posts
    20,198
    Quote Originally Posted by ctc View Post
    piketty's solutions are to be expected aren't they.
    What i am eternally puzzled about is the notion that simply by raising taxes on the wealthy this will minimize income inequality. It's absolutely ludicrous. Higher taxes will not raise anyone's income.
    Isn't that what's happened under Obamacare?
    Tell me where the bomb is or I will kill your son.

    "Responsibility without conviction is weak, but it is sane. Conviction without responsibility, in the current incarnation of the Republican Party, is raving mad."

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  






Part of USA TODAY Sports Digital Properties.