Hacker News Reader

Comment by Albright | Hacker News Reader

Wow. Talk about "when all you have is a hammer."

You didn't address his argument at all. Just an ad hominem.

Is that because you can't address it? Because his thesis seems quite reasonable to me. And historically, we certainly know that societies with extreme income inequality are less stable than those with more equality.

I'll address the argument.

Lots of countries with high income inequality do not have a terrorism problem.

When is the last time Brazilians terrorists attacked New York and/or Paris?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_eq...

You are addressing a one-sentence summary of the argument, not the actual argument, which is much more complex than "income inequality results in terrorism."

There's over 50,000 violent deaths per year in Brazil. Not that the Paris attacks weren't bad, but yes, Brazil suffers from violence due to inequality.

Ok, then how about China.

Believe it or not, China has significantly less inequality than Brazil (as measured by the World Bank)... Not to mention a social net.

Ostensibly Brazil does, but domestically: http://thebrazilbusiness.com/article/terrorism-in-brazil

I'd argue that the main problem with the theory is that there are plenty of places where there is high income inequality (such as the United States, as indicated by the diagram) and something like ISIS seems rather unlikely† .

Sure, you can say that inequality may have contributed to the issue, but there are a ton of factors that have resulted in Syria being plunged in Civil War. Pointing to any one as a decisive factor seems like an inevitable simplification. Also, it doesn't really answer the question "Why _now_?". Claiming that something eventually happen is not really predictive if no time frame can be given.

† Or I might be overly optimistic about my own country's stability.

archgoon: We have had extremely frequent domestic terror incidents in the US recently which can be readily linked to religious and political extremism, notably the Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood shootings.

To me, there is a mild quantitative difference between a civil war with a death count in the hundreds of thousands and millions displaced versus a few dozen killed every year.

I don't see anywhere in Piketty's theory a place to plug in "Amount of Inequality" and expected number of deaths.

I'd like to see a regression plot at least.

Thing about measuring civil wars is, they are really hard to measure until, all of a sudden, one starts. Then it's quite easy.

Reasonable? The Roma people are probably poorer than the average European muslim. I don't see them taking Yazidi sex slaves and beheading kids.

I'm sorry I can't buy this, and I can't genuinely handle this properly so I'll probably stop here before it gets darker.

Piketty thinks ISIS arose because of income inequality. Greenie professors think ISIS arose because of global warming [1]. Isolationists think foreign interventionism gave rise to ISIS (see elsewhere in this subthread). ISIS themselves think they're following the teachings of their religion and would probably find all these other excuses that the West is trying to make for their existence rather silly.

1: https://archive.is/3cwgG

Wow. Talk about gratuitous negativity. Lots of people have a favorite theory about where Daesh came from. Blame Bush. Blame Obama. Blame Islam. Blame oil companies. At least this hammer isn't one we're already sick of hearing. What do you actually think is wrong with Piketty's analysis, other than the fact that he has actually published on this topic before?

I think he meant that "income inequality" is the hammer, as the source of every one of society's ills.

Understood, but why do you think that hammer is out of place here? A hammer is still a useful tool for certain tasks, and a true statement doesn't cease being true when it's repeated. If Piketty is wrong, the constructive response would be to explain why.

Yes, to which 'notacoward replied:

"What do you actually think is wrong with Piketty's analysis, other than the fact that he has actually published on this topic before?"

What if instead I said that the rise of the Islamic State can be traced back to dictators allowing a small elite to get rich off of oil, while oppressing and impoverishing the masses, who finally revolted? I'm guessing you might find that less objectionable even though it's just a specific rendering of "income inequality."

Why address the substance when a glib dismissal will do?

While I agree, there is one point that must be considered: the Arab Spring directly sprang, if you will pardon the pun, from an extreme rise in the prices of basic staples, and the population of the Middle East didn't have the income buffer to compensate. Not being able to afford bread tends to lead to a lot of revolutions, or at least the breakdown of society. Just ask France.

I think that's the key there, it's not income inequality per se, but whether what meager income they have is enough to buy food.

"That is not an argument."

Damn. You took the words right out of my mouth.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com