The Left is Trying to Stir up Emotions with Thomas Pikkety

[bripat9643]

"That capitalism is unfair has been said before. But it is the way Thomas Piketty says it – subtly but with relentless logic – that has sent rightwing economics into a frenzy, both here and in the US.

"His book, Capital in the Twenty-first Century, has shot to the top of the Amazon bestseller list. Carrying it under your arm has, in certain latitudes of Manhattan, become the newest tool for making a social connection among young progressives.

"Meanwhile, he is been condemned as neo-Marxist by rightwing commentators.

"So why the fuss?"

Why do some on the right think inequality is a good thing for an economy?

Thomas Piketty's Capital: everything you need to know about the surprise bestseller | Books | The Guardian

I don't even know where to start.


"Piketty thinks progressive taxation, larger inheritance taxes and a tax on overall wealth would do the trick, and give labor earnings a chance to keep pace with returns from the treasure hordes of the super rich."

Where is the logic here? A dictator in Zimbabwe employed the same concept when he gave away farms belonging to white landowners. The result was catastrophic.

You have two people. One is a "common" laborer with few skills, the other is a businessman/entrepreneur. The businessman invests his/her money in a new venture which generates wealth, employment and innovation. How is taking away money from someone who is productive and giving it to someone who isn't (by comparison) good for the economy?

Watch the movie Harrison Bergeron, that is what forced equality looks like.

Tear down those who achieve, reward those who don't. Promote failure, not success.

Brilliant philosophy.

Start here:
When the rate of return on capital outpaces the rate of economic growth over generations, a small minority of investors will produce inherited wealth that will always grow faster than the earned wealth of a majority of productive workers.

Where's the evidence for this claim? Countless family fortunes have been dissipated into nothing by spendthrift offspring.

 

[Rshermr]

I don't even know where to start.


"Piketty thinks progressive taxation, larger inheritance taxes and a tax on overall wealth would do the trick, and give labor earnings a chance to keep pace with returns from the treasure hordes of the super rich."

Where is the logic here? A dictator in Zimbabwe employed the same concept when he gave away farms belonging to white landowners. The result was catastrophic.

You have two people. One is a "common" laborer with few skills, the other is a businessman/entrepreneur. The businessman invests his/her money in a new venture which generates wealth, employment and innovation. How is taking away money from someone who is productive and giving it to someone who isn't (by comparison) good for the economy?

Watch the movie Harrison Bergeron, that is what forced equality looks like.

Tear down those who achieve, reward those who don't. Promote failure, not success.

Brilliant philosophy.

Start here:
When the rate of return on capital outpaces the rate of economic growth over generations, a small minority of investors will produce inherited wealth that will always grow faster than the earned wealth of a majority of productive workers.

Where's the evidence for this claim? Countless family fortunes have been dissipated into nothing by spendthrift offspring.

See why you are so easy to ignore??? Of course you don't.

 

[georgephillip]

I don't even know where to start.


"Piketty thinks progressive taxation, larger inheritance taxes and a tax on overall wealth would do the trick, and give labor earnings a chance to keep pace with returns from the treasure hordes of the super rich."

Where is the logic here? A dictator in Zimbabwe employed the same concept when he gave away farms belonging to white landowners. The result was catastrophic.

You have two people. One is a "common" laborer with few skills, the other is a businessman/entrepreneur. The businessman invests his/her money in a new venture which generates wealth, employment and innovation. How is taking away money from someone who is productive and giving it to someone who isn't (by comparison) good for the economy?

Watch the movie Harrison Bergeron, that is what forced equality looks like.

Tear down those who achieve, reward those who don't. Promote failure, not success.

Brilliant philosophy.

Start here:
When the rate of return on capital outpaces the rate of economic growth over generations, a small minority of investors will produce inherited wealth that will always grow faster than the earned wealth of a majority of productive workers.

1. Inherited wealth is often squandered. Pikkety makes the ridiculous assumption that kids who inherit wealth from their family keep and build upon it. Show me the evidence.
2. Wealth accumulation leads to growth, giving the money away to less productive people lowers growth.

You read his formula and accept it without even bothering to question the assumptions?

In a world where the richest 85 individuals have greater wealth than the poorest 3.5 billion individuals, there would seem to be more rich kids whose returns on investments are growing faster than the rate of growth of their national economies.

Such wealth accumulation by a few slows economic development when compared to government spending like the WPA, for example.

10 startling facts about global wealth inequality

 

[georgephillip]

I don't even know where to start.


"Piketty thinks progressive taxation, larger inheritance taxes and a tax on overall wealth would do the trick, and give labor earnings a chance to keep pace with returns from the treasure hordes of the super rich."

Where is the logic here? A dictator in Zimbabwe employed the same concept when he gave away farms belonging to white landowners. The result was catastrophic.

You have two people. One is a "common" laborer with few skills, the other is a businessman/entrepreneur. The businessman invests his/her money in a new venture which generates wealth, employment and innovation. How is taking away money from someone who is productive and giving it to someone who isn't (by comparison) good for the economy?

Watch the movie Harrison Bergeron, that is what forced equality looks like.

Tear down those who achieve, reward those who don't. Promote failure, not success.

Brilliant philosophy.

Start here:
When the rate of return on capital outpaces the rate of economic growth over generations, a small minority of investors will produce inherited wealth that will always grow faster than the earned wealth of a majority of productive workers.

When the rate of return on capital outpaces the rate of economic growth over generations,

The only solution is to give capital to the government, so they can destroy it.

Of course not. We can stick with low growth, high levels of inequality and low levels of social mobility. The Capitalist Paradise.

 

[bedowin62]

Start here:
When the rate of return on capital outpaces the rate of economic growth over generations, a small minority of investors will produce inherited wealth that will always grow faster than the earned wealth of a majority of productive workers.

When the rate of return on capital outpaces the rate of economic growth over generations,

The only solution is to give capital to the government, so they can destroy it.

Of course not. We can stick with low growth, high levels of inequality and low levels of social mobility. The Capitalist Paradise.

virtually every one of those items was BETTER WHEN REPUBLICANS RAN THINGS

thanks for nothing idiot

 

[bedowin62]

the corporations making RECORD PROFITS right now under obama; hired more when Republicans ran things; sespite making less money

libs are losers who lie to themselves

 

[editec]

The Left is Trying to Stir up Emotions with Thomas Pikkety

OR..................

People who read and understand MACROECONOMICS think that Pikkety's book gives us a powerful new understanding of the way modern capitalist economies work.

I haven't read the book as yet, but of course, I will ASAP.

So far nothing I read about his tome sounds like a EUREKA moment to me, but then..I have not read it, either.

 

[georgephillip]

I don't even know where to start.


"Piketty thinks progressive taxation, larger inheritance taxes and a tax on overall wealth would do the trick, and give labor earnings a chance to keep pace with returns from the treasure hordes of the super rich."

Where is the logic here? A dictator in Zimbabwe employed the same concept when he gave away farms belonging to white landowners. The result was catastrophic.

You have two people. One is a "common" laborer with few skills, the other is a businessman/entrepreneur. The businessman invests his/her money in a new venture which generates wealth, employment and innovation. How is taking away money from someone who is productive and giving it to someone who isn't (by comparison) good for the economy?

Watch the movie Harrison Bergeron, that is what forced equality looks like.

Tear down those who achieve, reward those who don't. Promote failure, not success.

Brilliant philosophy.

Start here:
When the rate of return on capital outpaces the rate of economic growth over generations, a small minority of investors will produce inherited wealth that will always grow faster than the earned wealth of a majority of productive workers.

Where's the evidence for this claim? Countless family fortunes have been dissipated into nothing by spendthrift offspring.

"On Monday, Oxfam published a startling report showing that the richest 85 people in the world are worth more than the poorest 3.5 billion."

Obviously, a few of those spendthrift offspring didn't get your memo.

10 startling facts about global wealth inequality

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Start here:
When the rate of return on capital outpaces the rate of economic growth over generations, a small minority of investors will produce inherited wealth that will always grow faster than the earned wealth of a majority of productive workers.

When the rate of return on capital outpaces the rate of economic growth over generations,

The only solution is to give capital to the government, so they can destroy it.

Of course not. We can stick with low growth, high levels of inequality and low levels of social mobility. The Capitalist Paradise.

Darn that Obama, capitalist tool.

 

[emilynghiem]

This a smoke screen distraction from the real issue.

The best way I've ever seen it presented is the Green Party nonprofit outreach
POCLAD about stopping corporate abuse of personhood to override democratic
checks and balances.

There is nothing wrong with free enterprise, free market, and doing things by free will.

Where things get "out of balance" and politically unchecked and out of hand
is where corporations BYPASS the same checks we normally have on Government
as a "collective authority or institution".

Corporations claim BOTH individual rights "protected under the Constitution"
AND exert "collective" authority, resources, and influence on the same level as Government
but WITHOUT the Constitutional checks and balances on "due process", "equal protection of the laws," separation of powers, redressing grievances, etc. So Corporations can buy legal and political influence to bypass the system altogether and do things neither individuals or government can do that are bound by the laws.

The real issue is CORPORATE ABUSE, and this applies to global businesses that get so big they get out of hand, it applies
* to big government bureaucracies,
* to the big monopoly that lawyers and judges have in cahoots with each other with financing campaigns while serving in and influencing if not WRITING govt policy laws and rulings
* to the big nonprofits and big religious organizations
(people rally against Muslims and jihadists but ANY religious group can be abused if there are not Constitutional "checks and balances" on collective authority in order to protect individuals equally)
* to big media conglomerates
* to major Parties and their platform and donation support base

The common problem is ABUSING COLLECTIVE authority and influence to bypass protections of individuals who do not have equal consent, due process or defenses
to protect the interests and consent of CITIZENS.

We have lost our sense of Constitutional checks and balances
where collective powers bypass these laws, and use collective money power or media influence to buy out their way,
WITHOUT EQUAL inclusion and protection of individual consent, rights and interests
of other people affected.

It does not matter if we support or oppose:
capitalism or socialism, left or rightwing approaches, big business or big govt or big nonprofits, public or private schools,
the POINT is to address and prevent ABUSES of collective authority over individuals
who are supposed to be "equally protected under law" regardless of our standing.

If we address corporate collective abuse of authority, in any form -- on any side of any issues left or right -- then we fix this problem in ALL AREAS OF SOCIETY where it has skewed the balance of power and the representation/protection of the people.

"That capitalism is unfair has been said before. But it is the way Thomas Piketty says it – subtly but with relentless logic – that has sent rightwing economics into a frenzy, both here and in the US.

"His book, Capital in the Twenty-first Century, has shot to the top of the Amazon bestseller list. Carrying it under your arm has, in certain latitudes of Manhattan, become the newest tool for making a social connection among young progressives.

"Meanwhile, he is been condemned as neo-Marxist by rightwing commentators.

"So why the fuss?"

Why do some on the right think inequality is a good thing for an economy?

Thomas Piketty's Capital: everything you need to know about the surprise bestseller | Books | The Guardian

 

[Rshermr]

When the rate of return on capital outpaces the rate of economic growth over generations,

The only solution is to give capital to the government, so they can destroy it.

Of course not. We can stick with low growth, high levels of inequality and low levels of social mobility. The Capitalist Paradise.

virtually every one of those items was BETTER WHEN REPUBLICANS RAN THINGS

thanks for nothing idiot

Uh, excuse me, me poor conservative tool. do you remember the great republican depression of 1929???? Or the Great Republican Recession of 2008????

 

[Rshermr]

the corporations making RECORD PROFITS right now under obama; hired more when Republicans ran things; sespite making less money

libs are losers who lie to themselves

Now, now, me boy. It is not nice to lie. Since records have been kept, under Coolidge in 1921, Democrat presidents have created MANY more jobs than repub presidents. By term, number 1 was Clinton, number 2 was Clinton, number 3 was Reagan, and number 4 was Carter. Only two presidents have LOST employees in their terms. Hoover and George W. Bush. Fewest created in a two term presidency was under George W. Bush. So far, in one term, Obama has created more jobs than George W. created in TWO terms.

Jobs created during U.S. presidential terms - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Really. You keep burying your credibility. Do you EVER try to tell the truth??

 

[jasonnfree]

Start here:
When the rate of return on capital outpaces the rate of economic growth over generations, a small minority of investors will produce inherited wealth that will always grow faster than the earned wealth of a majority of productive workers.

Where's the evidence for this claim? Countless family fortunes have been dissipated into nothing by spendthrift offspring.

"On Monday, Oxfam published a startling report showing that the richest 85 people in the world are worth more than the poorest 3.5 billion."

Obviously, a few of those spendthrift offspring didn't get your memo.

10 startling facts about global wealth inequality

Easy to explain. Those 85 individuals worked harder and smarter than the rest of us. Any one of us could be #86 if we really tried hard. Well, that's what republicans say anyway.

 

[georgephillip]

When the rate of return on capital outpaces the rate of economic growth over generations,

The only solution is to give capital to the government, so they can destroy it.

Of course not. We can stick with low growth, high levels of inequality and low levels of social mobility. The Capitalist Paradise.

Darn that Obama, capitalist tool.

GS got their money's worth?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Of course not. We can stick with low growth, high levels of inequality and low levels of social mobility. The Capitalist Paradise.

Darn that Obama, capitalist tool.

GS got their money's worth?

If only we give government more power......that'll fix evertything.

 

[bripat9643]

Start here:
When the rate of return on capital outpaces the rate of economic growth over generations, a small minority of investors will produce inherited wealth that will always grow faster than the earned wealth of a majority of productive workers.

Where's the evidence for this claim? Countless family fortunes have been dissipated into nothing by spendthrift offspring.

"On Monday, Oxfam published a startling report showing that the richest 85 people in the world are worth more than the poorest 3.5 billion."

Obviously, a few of those spendthrift offspring didn't get your memo.

10 startling facts about global wealth inequality

I'll bet you my next paycheck that over 90% of those people are self-made. They didn't inherit it from Daddy.

 

[bripat9643]

Where's the evidence for this claim? Countless family fortunes have been dissipated into nothing by spendthrift offspring.

"On Monday, Oxfam published a startling report showing that the richest 85 people in the world are worth more than the poorest 3.5 billion."

Obviously, a few of those spendthrift offspring didn't get your memo.

10 startling facts about global wealth inequality

Easy to explain. Those 85 individuals worked harder and smarter than the rest of us. Any one of us could be #86 if we really tried hard. Well, that's what republicans say anyway.

Not "everyone" of us. Obviously, someone as intellectually limited and lazy as you will never become wealthy.

 

[Rshermr]

Where's the evidence for this claim? Countless family fortunes have been dissipated into nothing by spendthrift offspring.

"On Monday, Oxfam published a startling report showing that the richest 85 people in the world are worth more than the poorest 3.5 billion."

Obviously, a few of those spendthrift offspring didn't get your memo.

10 startling facts about global wealth inequality

I'll bet you my next paycheck that over 90% of those people are self-made. They didn't inherit it from Daddy.

Right. Prove it me boy.

 

[georgephillip]

Where's the evidence for this claim? Countless family fortunes have been dissipated into nothing by spendthrift offspring.

"On Monday, Oxfam published a startling report showing that the richest 85 people in the world are worth more than the poorest 3.5 billion."

Obviously, a few of those spendthrift offspring didn't get your memo.

10 startling facts about global wealth inequality

Easy to explain. Those 85 individuals worked harder and smarter than the rest of us. Any one of us could be #86 if we really tried hard. Well, that's what republicans say anyway.

Of course, they also understand how the system works...

"'The few who understand the system will either be so interested in its profits or be so dependent upon its favours that there will be no opposition from that class, while on the other hand, the great body of people, mentally incapable of comprehending the tremendous advantage that capital derives from the system, will bear its burdens without complaint, and perhaps without even suspecting that the system is inimical to their interests.'”

"The Rothschild brothers of London writing to associates in New York, 1863."

Famous Quotations on Banking