• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Oct 27, 2017
13,464
Thomas Piketty is back with a new economics book – and it's even weightier than his 2013 700-page best-seller "Capital in the 21st Century." The new book, called "Capitalism and Ideology," tops 1,200 pages and delves into the political ideologies behind income inequality, while providing radical solutions for reversing the world's wealth disparities.

"It's time to go beyond capitalism," Piketty told the French publication L'Obs earlier this month.

His new book focuses on economies outside the West, with references to India and China and analyses of communist, colonial and slave-owning economies, according to Bloomberg. It also explores the ideologies behind inequality, challenging the notion that the growing concentration of wealth in the U.S. and elsewhere represents a natural state of affairs, the publication added.

The solutions suggested by Piketty in his newest doorstopper would upend the current capitalist system, where corporate boards are largely composed of wealthy, well-connected shareholders, and taxes on capital are lower than on income. His proposals, according to The Guardian, include:
  • Half of the seats on company boards should filled by employees.
  • No shareholder should have more than 10% of a company's voting power.
  • Taxes as high as 90% on the wealthiest estates.
  • A lump-sum investment of $132,000 provided to everyone when they turn 25 years old.
  • A personalized carbon tax that would be based on an individual's contribution to climate change.
Even so, Americans will have to wait to get their hands on an English-language copy of Piketty's newest book. While it's published today in France, the English release won't be available until March 2020.

EEP3kilWsAAmOaA
 

Mekanos

▲ Legend ▲
Member
Oct 17, 2018
44,127
"It's time to go beyond capitalism" might be the best phrase ever.

My man is about to go Goku on the bourgeois.
 

Pekola

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,507
Welp, I know what I'm reading in March. But imagine lugging around a 1,200 page book lol.
 

Ether_Snake

Banned
Oct 29, 2017
11,306
  • Half of the seats on company boards should filled by employees.
  • No shareholder should have more than 10% of a company's voting power.
  • Taxes as high as 90% on the wealthiest estates.
  • A lump-sum investment of $132,000 provided to everyone when they turn 25 years old.
  • A personalized carbon tax that would be based on an individual's contribution to climate change.

1: Which employees?
2: So 10 shareholders could have 100% of the voting rights. Shareholders are not only individuals, they're also other businesses.
3:
4: Why? Why should money be provided instead of specific goods, amenities, or services? You can't be against "free market" and then be for letting people spend spend handouts to their will without relying on the idea that people know best how to spend money in their own long term interest than the government, which is what proponents of capitalism argue.
5: Would have to take countless factors into account in order to be fair. Probably simpler to just put in place a value-added tax and a few taxes targeting specific cases.
 

samoyed

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
15,191
He's critical of communism too
I know, I read Capital in the 21st Century. If Piketty was a shitposter here I'd argue with him about what "communism" is.

Anyway, as a socialist, this isn't going "beyond capitalism". This is Xtreem Social Democracy, which, while welcome in our current climate, is still fundamentally capitalistic.
 

CoolOff

Avenger
Oct 26, 2017
3,437
The workers on company boards is a thing in Germany is it not? How does that play out, any actual change in company behaviour coming from it?
 

Tugatrix

The Fallen
Oct 26, 2017
3,260
I still haven't read capital XXI but I will eventually pick it up but i guess it is quite dense
 

turbobrick

Member
Oct 25, 2017
13,064
Phoenix, AZ
1: Which employees?
2: So 10 shareholders could have 100% of the voting rights. Shareholders are not only individuals, they're also other businesses.
3:
4: Why? Why should money be provided instead of specific goods, amenities, or services? You can't be against "free market" and then be for letting people spend spend handouts to their will without relying on the idea that people know best how to spend money in their own long term interest than the government, which is what proponents of capitalism argue.
5: Would have to take countless factors into account in order to be fair. Probably simpler to just put in place a value-added tax and a few taxes targeting specific cases.

Yeah, I second these points. #4 seems the most unrealistic. Not only is that a lot of money to give everyone, the average person sucks at managing money.
 

Pekola

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,507
4: Why? Why should money be provided instead of specific goods, amenities, or services? You can't be against "free market" and then be for letting people spend spend handouts to their will without relying on the idea that people know best how to spend money in their own long term interest than the government, which is what proponents of capitalism argue.

Its a conclusion one might be able to reach if they work with a lot of people that are below the poverty line, homeless, ect.

I assume that's why he reached that conclusion, personally. Here's an article that might help explain a bit why cash could be a better alternative.
 

samoyed

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
15,191
Yeah, I second these points. #4 seems the most unrealistic. Not only is that a lot of money to give everyone, the average person sucks at managing money.
Because the atomization of services and amneties creates bureaucratic bloat and administrative overhead, leading to perverse incentives where people begin lobby for said bureaucracy in order to keep their jobs because their jobs is in bureaucracy, leading to inefficiencies like American healthcare being split among 5 sectors (Medicaid, Medicare, Veterans Affairs, Indian Health services, and private).

A lot of people qualify for more services and welfare than they actually use, because they can't navigate the bureaucratic system effectively or they do not want to deal with the headache. It is difficult enough being poor, telling poor people to navigate a bureaucratic maze to claim their benefits does more harm than good.
 

Ether_Snake

Banned
Oct 29, 2017
11,306
Because the atomization of services and amneties creates bureaucratic bloat and administrative overhead, leading to perverse incentives where people begin lobby for said bureaucracy in order to keep their jobs because their jobs is in bureaucracy, leading to inefficiencies like American healthcare being split among 5 sectors (Medicaid, Medicare, Veterans Affairs, Indian Health services, and private).

A lot of people qualify for more services and welfare than they actually use, because they can't navigate the bureaucratic system effectively or they do not want to deal with the headache. It is difficult enough being poor, telling poor people to navigate a bureaucratic maze to claim their benefits does more harm than good.

The "bureaucracy" argument is a key argument of libertarians. The idea of dropping taxes is always supported by a "wasteful government spending" argument and how people are better at determining how to spend their money.
 

samoyed

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
15,191
The "bureaucracy" argument is a key argument of libertarians. The idea of dropping taxes is always supported by a "wasteful government spending" argument and how people are better at determining how to spend their money.
Those same libertarians are not for a 90% wealth/estate tax. I am. So is, apparently, Piketty.

"They make the same argument and they're wrong" is a fallacy. If libertarians said we need to fix climate change, it doesn't actually make climate change a non-issue. There is bureaucratic waste and it hurts more than it helps. The research from actual policy reforms support this. That it's a common libertarian talking point does not negate the validity of the issue.
 
Last edited:

Ether_Snake

Banned
Oct 29, 2017
11,306
Those same libertarians are not for a 90% wealth/estate tax. I am. So is, apparently, Piketty.

"They make the same argument and they're wrong" is a fallacy. If libertarians said we need to fix climate change, it doesn't actually make climate change a non-issue. There is bureaucratic waste and it hurts more than it helps. The research from actual policy reforms support this. That it's a common libertarian talking point does not negate the validity of the issue.

Well it's the core argument. If the government is accused of being unable wasteful and bureaucratic you can't argue for increasing the government's role or size.
 

samoyed

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
15,191
Well it's the core argument. If the government is accused of being unable wasteful and bureaucratic you can't argue for increasing the government's role or size.
The government is being wasteful and bureaucratic because of the public-private partnership that emphasizes profit over justice. It is not because government is inherently bureaucratic. It is because the private sector profits off of bureaucracy, then uses those profits to continue government dysfunction.

Libertarians don't admit to or ignore this element of the problem, that bureaucracy is profitable, especially for the private sector. The solution here is to kill the private sector where they're benefiting from governmental dysfunction
 

Ether_Snake

Banned
Oct 29, 2017
11,306
The government is being wasteful and bureaucratic because of the public-private partnership that emphasizes profit over justice. It is not because government is inherently bureaucratic. It is because the private sector profits off of bureaucracy, then uses those profit to continue government dysfunction.

Libertarians don't admit to or ignore this element of the problem, that bureaucracy is profitable, especially for the private sector. The problem here is to kill the private sector where they're benefiting from governmental dysfunction.

So you justify giving people 125k to spend freely when they reach 25 because the government wouldn't spend it right due to corruption caused by the private sector, as a way to avoid said corruption. Which means that if the corruption was tackled to begin with, the government wouldn't need to hand out 125k.

So in the meantime, would you not advocate reducing taxes drastically for the same people you would hand out 125k to, by a comparable amount, to avoid losing money to said corruption, now?
 

samoyed

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
15,191
So you justify giving people 125k to spend freely when they reach 25 because the government wouldn't spend it right due to corruption caused by the private sector, as a way to avoid said corruption. Which means that if the corruption was tackled to begin with, the government wouldn't need to hand out 125k.
The corruption is a separate issue from the lump sum. I don't even like it. Seems like it's a halfway measure between UBI and what we have now. Yeah, if you can kill the corruption you don't even need the handout, but to Piketty's credit, there are a lot of people out there who need aid right now. Even if you solved money in politics tomorrow, you're still looking at a generation or two of Americans who're under crippling debt. Those people need relief, like with Sanders or Warrens' student loan forgiveness plan. I don't know Piketty's precise justification for that amount of money at that age, I'd have to read the text to be sure but I probably will eventually.

So in the meantime, would you not advocate reducing taxes drastically for the same people you would hand out 125k to, by a comparable amount, to avoid losing money to said corruption, now?
Reducing taxes for someone living on or below the poverty line doesn't, you know, actually help them, because they barely pay any taxes on an individual level. It's better to give them money, have them spend it, then tax the money back as it goes through the economy, than to slash their tax burden.
 

samoyed

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
15,191
What is everyone's response to the economic calculation problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem

1. Mises' and Hayek's legacy ruined a lot of countries in the EU after the Great Recession. I doubt you'll find many Austrians here.

2. Doesn't matter how efficient the market is if people's material needs are not being met (food, shelter, healthcare). If the products of an efficient market isn't being distributed evenly among the populace then what is the point? There's nothing "efficient" about a city with empty homes and also a homeless crisis, except that profit is still being made, but no one's being housed.
 

Ziltoidia 9

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,141
There should be a way to figure out where the 20 trillion in debt went to, no? My guess, these people.
 

lmcfigs

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
12,091
I remember you being frustrated about Piketty's conclusions being so neoliberal. It's pretty edifying to see him start to rail against the billionaire class, eh?
how was it neoliberal? did he not advocate for massive increases in taxes for the rich in that book?

Im asking because it was 1000+ pages and there was no way I was going to read it.
 

samoyed

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
15,191
I remember you being frustrated about Piketty's conclusions being so neoliberal. It's pretty edifying to see him start to rail against the billionaire class, eh?
As I mentioned above, he's still advocating for capitalism, just a very highly distributive model of it. His ideology seems not to have truly changed, this is just the next advancement of his work as a social democrat. It is satisfying to see though.

As a result, Piketty has no theory of crises in capitalism and assumes they are passing phenomena. So his policy prescriptions for a better world are confined to progressive taxation and a global wealth tax to 'correct' capitalist inequality. Yet Piketty recognises that it is utopian to expect the wealthy (who control governments) to agree to a reduction in their own wealth in order to save capitalism from future social upheaval. He never thinks of suggesting another way to achieve a reduction in inequality: namely, to raise wage income share through labour struggles and to free trade unions from the shackles of labour legislation.

Roberts also made this criticism of him in the same review, but it seems Piketty has evolved here now.

And he does not raise more radical policies to take over the banks and large companies, stop the payment of grotesque salaries to top executives and end the risk-taking scams that have brought economies to their knees. For Piketty - in true social democratic fashion - the replacement of the capitalist mode of production is not necessary.

It's also possible he feels a greater push towards radicalization because of the stresses of Brexit, Trump and Les Gilets Jaunes that has happened since he wrote Capital in the 21st Century. Inequality has been getting worse, and the world has become more unstable. Someone like him cannot ignore the reality of this, having done the work he's done.

Warren has also introduced a "workers sit on boards" policy but she said 40% instead of 50%, so I think that's the current fashion in social democratic thought.

More concretely, United States Corporations would be required to allow their workers to elect 40 percent of the membership of their board of directors.

Sanders doesn't have a specific target in mind, he just wants more worker ownership.
 

Deffers

Banned
Mar 4, 2018
2,402
As I mentioned above, he's still advocating for capitalism, just a very highly distributive model of it. His ideology seems not to have truly changed, this is just the next advancement of his work as a social democrat. It is satisfying to see though.


It's also possible he feels a greater push towards radicalization because of the stresses of Brexit, Trump and Les Gilets Jaunes that has happened since he wrote Capital in the 21st Century. Inequality has been getting worse, and the world has become more unstable. Someone like him cannot ignore the reality of this, having done the work he's done.

Well, it sounds like "go beyond capitalism" was someone's idea of rather exotic interpretations of the work, but still, if his radicalization is steady, who knows, maybe Piketty will emerge from his cocoon as a majestic socialist butterfly within the next ten years.
 

samoyed

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
15,191
maybe Piketty will emerge from his cocoon as a majestic socialist butterfly within the next ten years.
I will die a disappointed man if I don't see this in my lifetime. "Go beyond capitalism" is definitely pushing it. "Go beyond liberal orthodoxy", perfectly reasonable and valid.
 

Ether_Snake

Banned
Oct 29, 2017
11,306
What is everyone's response to the economic calculation problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem

Not familiar with it but

In the 1920 paper, Mises argued that the pricing systems in socialist economies were necessarily deficient because if a public entity owned all the means of production, no rational prices could be obtained for capital goods as they were merely internal transfers of goods and not "objects of exchange", unlike final goods. Therefore, they were unpriced and hence the system would be necessarily irrational as the central planners would not know how to allocate the available resources efficiently.

This sounds like a very flawed and unsubstantiated claim. What does it matter that prices can't be rationally determined in a context where a government controls all means of production? Like Mises says, there is no exchange in this context, only a transfer. To say that the system would be irrational because there are no prices is baseless. What matters is what are the objectives, and are those objectives met? The establishment of objectives by a government does not require prices for said objectives to be rational, it is only a matter of needs. Then, it's just a matter of having society commit to said objectives. What is or isn't rational is what the objectives are, and few governments can say what their objectives are without large swathes of the population disagreeing with them.

So the rationality of a system has clearly nothing to do with the existence of prices. A society where the government controls all means of production could exist, where clearly established goals are agreed on by the majority, deemed as rational objectives in the interest of the common good, and said society could commit itself to realize those goals without trade.

The thing is no government can truly control all means of production, because what is productive or not is relative to the government's objectives. Even North Korea does not control every single action its citizens perform, which means even in their society some of the potential productivity is abandoned to the citizens' own spheres of freedom due to an inability to completely extract said productivity without putting their system at risk.

If a government has large surpluses of energy relative to the energy it needs to accomplish its goals, it could redistribute this energy to its citizens which would implicitly be spent for non-productive ends, and that is where personal freedom as we know it would lie, since there would be no reason to significantly control this non-productive sphere other than to protect the society and government which sustains its existence.

In the absence of clearly established goals by governments and commitment to said goals, it is price fluctuations that govern us, fluctuations driven by base instincts and short-term individual needs. It's as irrational as nature is.
 
Last edited:

lmcfigs

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
12,091
As I mentioned above, he's still advocating for capitalism, just a very highly distributive model of it. His ideology seems not to have truly changed, this is just the next advancement of his work as a social democrat. It is satisfying to see though.



Roberts also made this criticism of him in the same review, but it seems Piketty has evolved here now.



It's also possible he feels a greater push towards radicalization because of the stresses of Brexit, Trump and Les Gilets Jaunes that has happened since he wrote Capital in the 21st Century. Inequality has been getting worse, and the world has become more unstable. Someone like him cannot ignore the reality of this, having done the work he's done.

Warren has also introduced a "workers sit on boards" policy but she said 40% instead of 50%, so I think that's the current fashion in social democratic thought.



Sanders doesn't have a specific target in mind, he just wants more worker ownership.
im not sure what else an economist could reasonably say other than more worker ownership and higher taxes.
 

Deleted member 4614

Oct 25, 2017
6,345
Prices are useful because they encode information about availability and demand for goods and encourage actors in a market to figure out ways to supply more of goods in demand.

You want perpetual shortages? Get rid of prices.
 

lmcfigs

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
12,091
who in the world brought up anything about a planned economy in this thread? why are we talking about price mechanism/ calculation debate?
 
Oct 27, 2017
7,671
The money handout is dumb (the money should be invested in robust universal healthcare and higher education systems that will keep young adults debt free when entering the workplace). Everything else is good. Social democracy in the vain of the Nordic Model is the best future we can ask for.
 

Ether_Snake

Banned
Oct 29, 2017
11,306
Prices are useful because they encode information about availability and demand for goods and encourage actors in a market to figure out ways to supply more of goods in demand.

You want perpetual shortages? Get rid of prices.

But that means we already know what the availability is, otherwise prices wouldn't be set to begin with. What you're saying is that a government would exploit the resources for short-term needs, ignoring the need for sustainability, without the implicit limit of prices.

What's the price of the Amazon?
 

Clay

Member
Oct 29, 2017
8,109
Damn, think I'll read the Cliff's Notes. I was in grad school for econ when his last book came out and people would check that everyone owned a copy but no one had read it.
 

samoyed

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
15,191
im not sure what else an economist could reasonably say other than more worker ownership and higher taxes.
Profit in capitalism is achieved through the exploitation of labor. The roles of use-value and exchange-value in society. Get rid of finance. You know, the usual Marxist stuff. The key word here is "reasonable". Everything a "reasonable" economist can say, currently, and not be laughed out of academia or turned into a pariah, is some kind of social democracy.

Prices are useful because they encode information about availability and demand for goods and encourage actors in a market to figure out ways to supply more of goods in demand.

You want perpetual shortages? Get rid of prices.
We don't have a shortage problem right now. We do have, however, a distribution problem and a standards problem. Supply of demand is good when people can enter in the market and fulfill their demands. People are currently unable to do so for some of the barest necessities like food and healthcare and housing.

However when you plan to meet demand for housing with bunk beds and cages maybe something is off.
8c7dd6ff262fe1d6d7d5cbc2aa274dc8.jpg

pod3.0.jpg


It's not that I dislike efficient markets, it's just that too many people are incapable of participating in these markets due to lack of spending power. Markets and prices only create good outcomes for people who can afford those prices, but doesn't seem to care about anyone with no money to spend. They might as well not exist in the eyes of the market, but they certainly exist in the eyes of society and government.
 

Deleted member 4614

Oct 25, 2017
6,345
But that means we already know what the availability is,

That's not what prices mean. Prices go up when supply is constrained even if we don't know what the total supply is.

otherwise prices wouldn't be set to begin with.

Prices are set by people selling things.

What you're saying is that a government would exploit the resources for short-term needs, ignoring the need for sustainability, without the implicit limit of prices.

What's the price of the Amazon?

This is an obvious problem with pricing based on the interests of the supplier and the consumer and no one else.

What you're describing is an externality, and it's a market failure. We can still have prices and adjust them to account for externalities (for instance, by taxing cigarettes for second-hand smoke imposing a cost on third parties).
 

Deleted member 4614

Oct 25, 2017
6,345
Profit in capitalism is achieved through the exploitation of labor. The roles of use-value and exchange-value in society. Get rid of finance. You know, the usual Marxist stuff. The key word here is "reasonable". Everything a "reasonable" economist can say, currently, and not be laughed out of academia or turned into a pariah, is some kind of social democracy.


We don't have a shortage problem right now. We do have, however, a distribution problem and a standards problem. Supply of demand is good when people can enter in the market and fulfill their demands. People are currently unable to do so for some of the barest necessities like food and healthcare and housing.

However when you plan to meet demand for housing with bunk beds and cages maybe something is off.
8c7dd6ff262fe1d6d7d5cbc2aa274dc8.jpg

pod3.0.jpg


It's not that I dislike efficient markets, it's just that too many people are incapable of participating in these markets due to lack of spending power. Markets and prices only create good outcomes for people who can afford those prices, but doesn't seem to care about anyone with no money to spend. They might as well not exist in the eyes of the market, but they certainly exist in the eyes of society and government.

I don't disagree with any of this. My comment was more in response to the argument that the government should just plan everything without pricing or markets of any kind.
 

War Peaceman

Member
Oct 28, 2017
1,441
It is a litte odd to me that someone of you are arguing with the precis of a 1200 page book that was released in French within days. I don't know how you can dismiss his ideas as stupid when you haven't read the reasoning. You are debating a press release