Piketty’s data
- This topic has 319 replies, 21 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 2 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
stuartw2112 wrote:But there are two kinds of authority – that which is usurped, and that which is earned.
This assumption of yours has ideological roots, stuart.For me, as an open Communist, there are also 'two kinds of authority' 'that which is unelected, and that which is elected'.All 'authority' must be subject to democratic controls. Science and economics included.At least I'm open about my ideological biases, unlike most 'scientists' and 'economists'.From my democratic communist perspective, the 'scientific method' must include the disclosure, up front, of the scientists' ideology towards both nature and society.In this particular case, Piketty should have opened his book with his ideological assumptions, and then no-one would be surprised by his ideological conclusions.
Certainly class consciousness comes from experience, but experience is interpreted, and if we can use arguments, analysis and data to clarify that experience then we are aiding the growth of socialist consciousness. After years of the powers that be riding the efficient markets hypothosis, among others, as a stick with which to beat, it's good to see it broken. If the justifications for capitalism: meritocracy, efficient allocation of goods, reward for effort, can be despatched through the work of non-partisans (i.e. without express allegiances) so much the better. Additional ammunition that demonstrates not only that inquality tends to increase, but why it does so and how that is inherent in the market system are grist to our mill.
LBird: of course Piketty does open by explaining carefully what his ideological assumptions are. Read the book and see! His growing authority comes from the power of his argument. Electing him instead would just be ridiculous.Furthermore: what our young master Smeet said.
Oh, and here is a hotstile review from the Telegraph…http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/bookreviews/10816161/Capital-in-the-Twenty-First-Century-by-Thomas-Piketty-review.htmlBy Meryn KingHe seems to take refuge in copmfrotable empiricism:
Quote:Only a detailed, and empirically based, description of differences between people will yield a theory of inequality, not a reliance on an aggregate relationship of dubious relevance.And also some of the old ideological props:
Quote:Also absent from the heart of the analysis is any recognition that the main reason for the average rate of return exceeding the growth rate by a good margin is that savers require a risk premium to compensate for the uncertain nature of the returns on investment. Adjusting for risk, average rates of return have historically been much closer to growth rates.We don't, by the way, get a risk premium on our wages, but we suffer the same risks.
King's review wasn't actually as bad as I was expecting and he makes some fair points – eg, silly to call an accounting identity a fundamental law. But as YMS says, mostly ideological props, taking Piketty to task for not considering things which he actually considers in some detail.
stuartw2112 wrote:His growing authority comes from the power of his argument. Electing him instead would just be ridiculous.You misunderstand my ideological point, stuart.It's not the 'election' of him (he can write what he wants under Communism), but that the 'authority' of his argument would come, not from its essential 'power', but from its democratic reception by an active, class conscious, critical, proletariat.That is, his 'argument' would be 'elected' into a position of 'authority', by free discussion and voting.We must ensure that, under Communism, all so-called 'authority' is our chosen 'authority', and not that of a self-proclaimed elite of 'experts', as is the case under bourgeois society.This all requires, of course, a conscious proletariat, which is, at present, lacking. Thus, we are as yet in thrall to 'experts', who are often talking nonsense (from our Communist perspective).
YMS, you use the same argument as Adam did earlier.
Quote:“we used to quote the findings on the distribution of wealth of Sir Leo Chiozza Money and Sir Arthur Bowley despite their politics”But yet again i must repeat since it keeps getting overlooked that i am perfectly happy with using any information that strengthen our case. Nothing is sweeter than refuting our critics by quoting them back at themselves. We have over the years acquired a plethora of facts from a plethora of sources. Piketty is simply the latest to our library. I'm placing him in a proper perspective.I went through this thread and nothing was said about how Piketty interprets his data to conclude that inequality can be lessened by legislation which is what he proposes, although again he views it himself as utopian (as did Mattick's review) that such a global tax and progressive taxation can be implemented but nevertheless his readers are interpreting it as a feasible objective as i cited. His facts (as LBird keeps telling us) are being used ideologically to support theories that are against the party case.i can understand Stuart's enthusiasm for the conclusions of Piketty which serve to support and justifies his own political party's taxation policy.But my position is reforms stop short of overthrowing capitalism, become co-opted and turned to the advantage of the system, not necessarily,of course, to the advantage of some capitalists. Do we declare it is possible to have a more equal capitalism and that this is worth struggling for? Spirit Level which YMS earlier approvingly referred to has us establishing a Nordic welfare state. Perhaps i should heed Piketty's own sceptism and doubts more and not heed all his interpreters adoption of his supposed palliatives.
Ha ha ha, very good Alan. If on the run, throw some sand in the face of your pursuers by making some sectarian point or other. Most amusing!
Or at any rate, do absolutely anything but actually red the damn thing. And after all, why should you? It's not as if it contains anything you don't already know.
I could have swonr Piketty was saying that the only solution to capitalist inequality is the forceful expropriation of capital. He only differs from us by degree. Nonetheless, many of the policy conclusions Charlie M came to we would find obnoxious, that doesn't dent our appreciation of his discoveries.
Ahhhh…i see that it is okay to suggest that i am a giggling school-boy in the back of the class room. Although i prefer to see myself as the boy who pointed at the emperor with no clothes on.The point i keep expressing is Piketty is proposing reforms that he himself has not much hope in but which are readily being advocated by his audience. Some may call that intellectual dishonesty on behalf of the author. I described it as neo-trotskyism in one post. You should have interceded then and accused me of sectarianism!The fact that i alluded to your own organisation's tax reform proposals may well account for your own enthusiasm is seen as sectarian but it was an observation more aimed at my own comrades since you have all the reason to promote the book's conclusion, whereas i think we should be much more critical of the book for the reasons i have offered – that it indeed has useful data but as a political work it is serving as a diversion, suggesting a tax reform campaign as a strategy to adopt. And that its actual importance is over-valued in the battle of ideas which i moreorless stated from my earliest post.
YMS , I can only quote from a quote in a review you described as solid http://boingboing.net/2014/06/24/thomas-pikettys-capital-in-t.htmlA global tax on capital is a utopian idea. It is hard to imagine the nations of the world agreeing on any such thing anytime soon. To achieve this goal, they would have to establish a tax schedule applicable to all wealth around the world and then decide how to apportion the revenues. But if the idea is utopian, it is nevertheless useful, for several reasons. First, even if nothing resembling this ideal is put into practice in the foreseeable future, it can serve as a worthwhile reference point, a standard against which alternative proposals can be measured. Admittedly, a global tax on capital would require a very high and no doubt unrealistic level of international cooperation. But countries wishing to move in this direction could very well do so incrementally, starting at the regional level (in Europe, for instance). Unless something like this happens, a defensive reaction of a nationalist stripe would very likely occur. For example, one might see a return to various forms of protectionism coupled with imposition of capital controls. Because such policies are seldom effective, however, they would very likely lead to frustration and increase international tensions." There are lots of reasons for this to be controversial. First, as Piketty admits, it's impractical. Getting all the countries of the world to agree to this scheme is implausible. But, he says, we don't need everyone to cooperate to realize some immediate benefit:"To reject the global tax on capital out of hand would be all the more regrettable because it is perfectly possible to move toward this ideal solution step by step, first at the continental or regional level and then by arranging for closer cooperation among regions. One can see a model for this sort of approach in the recent discussions on automatic sharing of bank data between the United States and the European Union. Furthermore, various forms of capital taxation already exist in most countries, especially in North America and Europe, and these could obviously serve as starting points."……..Piketty, in Naidu's view, is limited by his unwillingness to challenge capitalism itself……..Piketty wants desperately to salvage capitalism, even if that means proposing something that every capitalist will hate: a global wealth tax. ………I can only go by what i read and the above is fairly clear. Maybe the review is wrong…and it is not quite as solid as you first claimed.
"Although i prefer to see myself as the boy who pointed at the emperor with no clothes on."I know you do, that's what's so sad and pathetic! There's a thread discussing an important new book, and all you want to do is point and laugh and say how you've seen through it all, even though you've never read it and have no intention of doing so. And this is the man who would turn up to Occupy with a "truckload of leaflets" to educate people! Very sad, very sad. Jack Fitzgerald will be spinning in his grave.
Says the one who wanted the party's funds to be donated to Occupy St Paul's…And now spending his time sharing the same ideas as the Libertarian Right as even his new party comrades have pointed out. No that is very very sad, indeed. Tragic even. You still avoid commenting on Piketty's reformism and i keep bringing it back to this…His very less than important conclusion ……tax the rich til the pips squeak …how new and novel and imaginative that solution is !
Alan,what about a book that provides a deep and interesting account of global warming, showing conclusively and irrefutably that it is happening, and then goes on to advocate ineffective solutions (that it might not even think will work)?The point is that the space opens to discuss solutions, a space that might not have existed before.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.